vrijdag 20 januari 2012

America: Nation built on Fat, Sugar and Mammon

In a time where the various decadent phenomena from the USA seem to be ever increasing and are totally accepted, a book is published that puts the link between the American food culture and physical pathological conditions. This forms a bigger threat to the general life expectancy than the threat of AIDS or the constantly diluting national identity, which has been the foundation for unity and our acting for centuries.

Cultural Imperialism

"Eat, my friends, eat!" With these words McDonald's recently opened a new franchise in Japan. We suspect that this ultimate insult to the spirit of Shinto was already deployed during the U.S. bombings and the occupation presented to the defeated nation after the second World War. Y. Mishima is turning over in his grave! "If we eat burgers and fries for more than a thousand years we might grow bigger and get white skin", a frenzied Japanese teen added to the tunes of the Afro-American stars associated with this diet. Until today the Japanese have not grown bigger, nor do they have white skin, but they certainly became a lot thicker. Although the situation is not as dramatic as in China, where children these days are three times more overweight than twenty years ago. The number of Britons struggling with obesity, has doubled in ten years. In Britain more fastfood is eaten than in any other Western country (the USA not included).

The story of McDonalds is accompanied by the expansion of American cultural values, that were propagated in the "free" world. Even in the homeland it wasn’t a success from the beginning. The brothers who invented this "dining at the assembly line", sold their patent in the crazy '50's for only three Cadillacs. Walt Disney, who had always excluded decadent influences from his work, dismissed the company and refused it as a franchise in his dream park in 1962. Barely five years later the tables were turned: Walt was dead (and his company that once propagated Western values was made prey for the vultures) and McDonalds conquered the country and the whole world with an empire built on fat and sugar.

The fried American dream

According to the book "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, Americans spend a total of 6 billion dollars on fast food in 1970, thirty years later that became over 110 billion dollar. That’s more money spend than on all the computers, cars, books, magazines and CD's combined. It is significant to mention that the transmitters of the "New World Order" idea are expanding and that - after smoking - obesity is the biggest cause of death today: over 280,000 Americans die annually as a direct result of their obesity.

When in 1985 the sales figures dropped and the company plan to increasingly gain a market share became just a little too cautious, the sales figures stagnated. The so-called "emotional bond" between the customer and the business slackened. For a company that has pumped more money into advertising and market research than Coca-Cola or Disney, the solution could not be of a philosophical nature: the answer was the children. Who convinces the children, also persuades the parents, the grandparents and the family. "Make your child happy, give them a hamburger!", was literally nominated in the postscript of the company. Whether it was a burger or a free gadget that put a smile on the face of the average one year old child, parents could feel just like the happy family from the commercial for a short period of time. Toddlers recognized the two golden arches of the company logo earlier than their own name.

The power of the Fat-lobby

The children remained true to the hamburger. They are now the fattest and least fit generation of youth ever. They were brought up with McDonald's, they came there as a child, worked there as a teenager and came back later with their equally overweight children. This dangerous evolution in eating habits is like a runaway form of "the American dream", in which materialism has to provide a hedonist sense of feeling. From a broader perspective we can conclude that the systematic destruction of our culture (including our food culture) keeps our future in an indolent stage to frustrate our natural and popular resistance.

If we determine how much of our national governments are in the pocket of powerful multinationals and that they refuse to act against the excesses of the free market economy, we must realize ourselves that this is a part of the deliberate enslavement of our once free and proud people and nation. In their idolatry of the free market, McDonald's, just like any other U.S. firm, seeks to eradicate every form of competition, criticism and freedom of choice. In their search for food that tastes the same way everywhere and that is experienced "equally" by all cultures, they try to destroy every small scale companies and diversity. The monoculture of potato's in Ohio, the manipulation of chickens and cows, experimentation with E-numbers, the merciless exploitation of workers, the numerous food poisoning that are not sanctioned, will all be dealt with after the European people will again become aware of their own greatness and own national identity.

Vrije Nationalisten Noord-Brabant / Netwerk Nationale Socialisten

Stop Vivisection!

For centuries animals have been abused for many research purposes. Millions of animals became the victim of sometimes extremely cruel experiments. For a lot of these experiments the real purpose is questionable. It is true that vivisection in the past has helped to develop several drugs and vaccines. The question is whether it is still necessary to use animal testing nowadays.

Reptiles, ferrets, cats, goats, dogs, horses, sheep, amphibians, cattle, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, pigs, fish, birds, rats and mice. These are all animals to undertake numerous tests each day in the Netherlands. A total of about 600.000 animals are annually diverted to animal testing in the Netherlands alone. The main purpose of these tests are generally for medical reasons. The animals are being deliberately infected with various diseases for these studies, such as hepatitis or HIV. Besides using vivisection as a means for medical studies, animals are also used for testing other things; such as the toxicity of (the ingredients of) cleaning detergents and many other purposes. As an example psychology students use animals for the most absurd tests. Some of these bizarre animal tests consist of intentionally addicting the animal to some sort of substance after which the students will examine how the animals react after long abstinence, sudden cessation of the substance or to an overdose.

Increasingly genetically engineered animals are used for both medical and biological research.
Researchers try to create the perfect animal for the testing, eliminating or creating certain qualities in the animal. Since animals are in many ways different to humans they adjust the animal so that they are genetically more like us. To create the “perfect” animal researchers crossbreed the animals over and over again meanwhile selecting the animals that correspond to the disease they want to investigate. Through constant inbreeding animals arise who contain the desired diseases or disorders. Given the fact humanity has learned more about the genetic codes during the recent decades it is now possible for researchers to “built in” hereditary characteristics (characteristics seen only in humans) directly in to the animal. All the changes made to the animals DNA are permanent, all of their offspring will carry the same anomalies. The patrons of genetic engineering claim that this genetic engineering will eventually lead to a decline in the number of animals needed for vivisection. The animal will automatically contain the desired piece of genetic code through birth. They forget to mention that before the “perfect desired animal” is created millions of animals will lose their life during the process. Every year more than 300.000 animals are genetically engineered for research purposes. Less than one quarter of these animals are actually going to be used for research. The other three quarters will be slain instantly, they are not “useful”, they don’t carry the desired gene or they are simply said not fully compliant.

Most animals, who are subjected to testing, will die afterwards. Sometimes the death is a significant part of the test because researchers want to know how the testing has affected the internal organs. Some animals might get so “lucky” that they can be recycled for another or even a third test but for the majority of the animals this is not the case. The advocates of animal testing always use the argument of the “humane endpoints”, which means that animals who contract a fatal disease or a tumor during the test will be euthanized before the symptoms get to severe. By this method animals should experience less suffering. The one thing they don’t tell you is that the animal will only be euthanized if this doesn’t interfere with the specific test. If the researchers perceive it as an important part of the test to see the animals languish and demise, by diseases if in humans would be seen as abominable, the will simply do it. During testing the animal is regarded as simply an object. Such rules as the humane endpoints are easily tampered with and only meant to soothe the minds of opponents of vivisection. Of course there is the need to better understand certain diseases and try to develop a cure or vaccine for them, but is absurd that so many animals have to suffer for this cause.

Nowadays there are many alternatives for animal testing; such as cells that are kept alive in a test tube, stem cells, bacteria and/ or computer simulations. It is ridiculous to think that without animal testing for example the quest for finding a cure for cancer could not continue.

Progress in research doesn’t go accordingly with animal cruelty. Unfortunately governments and companies do not see the need to implement these changes. To date, much more money is invested in vivisection, annually around 500 million Euros, then there is money invested to find an alternative to vivisection, annually about 3. 5 million Euros.

The Dutch government could easily change something to the situation the animals have to live their lives. They could for example pas a law would restrict vivisection, one that is not easily diverted by companies and researchers. Why isn’t our government doing this? Of course there are some political parties who are against vivisection, but in our current political system they are a minority. Also the EU has the Netherlands on a tight leash, we have to conform to what the EU decides. If for example the Netherlands would ban the import of products tested on animals we would be sued by a council of the EU. They will not allow “unfair competition” for companies who do use animal testing. Of course the aspect money is a big deal in the whole matter. A huge sum of money revolves in the companies that use animal testing. For the companies and nowadays governments making (more) money is always more important then the welfare of animals.

Luckily, more and more protests arise against animal testing. Ever more people come to see that with the current technologies it is no longer needed to abuse animals for all sorts of nonsense studies. On march 11 2009 there has already been made a significant step forwards in the battle against animal testing; a European ban on using vivisection for cosmetics or importing cosmetics for which animal testing has been used. Fortunately that is already one less ridiculous reason for which animals are abused. But who knows this again could only be a thing to keep people who care about animals quiet. Only time can tell if there ever will be a complete end to the massive suffering that is vivisection.

Source: Green Nationalists

The Strategy of Divide et Impera

The strategic principle of ‘divide and rule’ (divide et impera) has a long and dishonourable history. Some 2,500 years ago Sun Tzu’s Art of War advised:

So the rule for use of the military is that if you outnumber the opponent ten to one, then surround them; five to one, attack; two to one, divide.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1468--1527), in his work of the same name, counselled:

A Captain ought, among all the other actions of his, endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

Throughout the ages, military, political and other strategists have grasped this simple truth: if your enemies are fighting each other, or otherwise bickering among themselves, then (a) they are doing your work for you and (b) they will be less effective in attacking you. Philip of Macedon (382bc--336bc), Polybius (c.205bc--c. 123bc), the ancient Hindus, Louis XI of France (1423--1483), Bossuet (1627--1704), Montesquieu (1689--1707) - all have borne witness to the effectiveness of divide et impera. When the Romans marched into Britain, their skilled tacticians did not hesitate to turn one Celtic tribe against another and thus, while these simple natives quarreled among themselves, Rome was able to consolidate its grip over England. Divide et impera was used by the British empire to set African tribe against African tribe and thus to conquer whole swathes of Africa; it was used by that same empire to set Muslim and Hindu against each other in India and thus to consolidate British control over the entire Indian continent. Whenever powerful armies have found themselves faced with opposition from simple fools, it has generally been divide et impera that has permitted them to conquer all with the minimum of effort.

In more recent times, divide et impera was used by the powerful business interests in the West to undermine communism. Writing in 1979, Hoxha damned the post-Stalin Soviet regime, the Euro-Communists, the Chinese, the Yugoslavs and almost everyone else, bitterly lamenting:

The revisionist parties of Europe, such as those of Italy, France and Spain, and following them all the other revisionist parties of the West . . . have embarked on the road of compromise with the capitalist bourgeoisie. They have named this anti-Marxist line ‘Euro-Communism’. ‘Euro-Comunism’ is a new pseudo-communist trend which is and is not in opposition to the Soviet revisionist bloc . . .

All the revisionist, opportunist and social democratic trends are going the whole length to assist the superpowers in their diabolical activity to suppress the revolution and the peoples. The support of all these trends for the allegedly new organisms of the bourgeoisie has a single aim: to smother the revolution by raising a thousand and one material, political and ideological obstacles to it. They are working to disorientate and split the proletariat and its allies, because they know that, divided and split by factional struggles, the latter will be unable to create, either at home or on an international plane, that ideological political and militant unity which is essential to cope with the attacks of world capitalism in decay.

As we now know, the West was indeed able to weaken communism to the point where it collapsed altogether leaving the United States of America and its allies as the virtually unchallenged imperial power in the world.

And divide et impera is being used today by these same Americans and their allies to enable them to set themselves up as the new masters of the world.

Consider the demise of the Afrikaner people. When they were united under one all-powerful National Party, neither terrorism from within nor pressure from outside was capable of undermining their grip on South Africa. But the international powers and their treacherous allies from within the ranks of Afrikanerdom knew perfectly well how to engineer split after split. First the Herstigte National Party broke away under Jaap Marais.

Then came the Conservative Party under Andries Treurnicht together with a truly amazing number of Afrikaner organizations, each priding itself on its originality and creativity and each blissfully unaware of how it was furthering the cause of its enemies who were sniggering at the Afrikaner people from their luxury homes on the other side of the Atlantic: the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, the Afrikaner Vryheidsbeweging, the Boerestaat Party, the Wit Wolve, the Freedom Front . . .

For one moment, in 1993, it seemed as if Afrikaner forces were uniting under the banner of the Concerned South Africans Group (Cosag). This same alliance also included the leaders of the independent homelands of Bophuthatswana and Ciskei, and the Zulu leader Buthelezi. So what was the response of the international powers led by America from without and the traitor De Klerk from within? They concentrated on the weak link: Buthelezi. By offering him a powerful but toothless position in an ANC- (i.e. American-) aligned government, by guaranteeing the position of the Zulu king in a new ANC-dominated dispensation, and by providing other inducements, the enemy was able to break him away from Cosag.

The next weak link was Constand Viljoen of the Freedom Front. He, too, was given the opportunity to participate in a harmless way in the new dispensation, and he too swiftly ceased any meaningful opposition to the destruction of his people. The rest were isolated and picked off one by one. What better illustration could there be of the scenario envisaged by Machiavelli in The Prince: ‘it is certain that when the enemy comes upon you in divided cities you are quickly lost, because the weakest party will always assist the outside forces and the other will not be able to resist.’

Consider American tactics in their attack on Afghanistan. They used every trick in the book to precipitate divisions in the ranks of their Taliban opponents - flagrant bribery, showing favours to certain enemy groups but with strings attached, discrediting individual leaders, and so forth. Writing in the New Statesman, John Pilger remarked:

Read between the lines and it is clear that they [the US] are not bombing large numbers of the Taliban's front-line troops. Why? Because they want to preserve what the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, calls the ‘moderate’ Taliban, who will join a ‘loose federation’ of ‘nation builders’ once the war is over. The moderate Taliban will unite with ‘elements of the resistance’ in the Northern Alliance, the bomb-planters, rapists and heroin dealers, who were trained by the SAS and paid by Washington.

This is known as divide and rule, a strategy as old as imperialism. It will allow the Americans - they hope - to reassert control over a region they ‘lost’. Other countries, such as Pakistan and the neighbouring former Soviet republics, are being bribed into submission. The ‘war on terrorism’, with its Rambo raids, is merely a circus for the folks back home and the media.

Look at the Muslims of the world. Were they to unite, what a devastating power they would wield! But they have been kept weak and divided by bribes, threats and by skilful manipulation by a cunning and ruthless enemy whose strategies their leaders could never comprehend were they to live for another thousand years. Those who have oil and wealth are set at the throats of those who espouse radicalism. Even the radicals are kept hopelessly split. Thus American policy in the Middle East remains unchallenged and Israeli and American soldiers slaughter the children of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan with impunity.

And look at those other great enemies of the new capitalist order -- the various ethnic and racial ‘nationalist’ groups that are supposedly so resurgent in Europe, America and elsewhere. Here it is not even necessary for the New World Order to expend any effort to engineer splits: these dolts are falling over themselves to find reasons to fight each other rather than the enemy. I have met people from the British National Party in Hull, England, who regard people from the British National Party in Grimsby, England, with hostility merely because of the (largely fictional) traditional hostility between the two neighbouring towns (separated by a river and a few miles of fields). No American bribes here - we’re simply dealing with cretins.

There are, of course, more substantive divisions between these ethnic and racial nationalists. When they are not fighting each other because they find one leader more compelling than another leader, they are fighting each other because they choose to justify their politics in different ways. When they’re not bickering about whether to invoke Hitler, Odin, Satan or Jesus Christ (Catholic, Protestant or Christian Identity flavours - take your pick) then they’ll bicker about whether they’re too conservative or too socialist.

Consideration of ‘strategy’ provides further opportunities for them to fight each other (extreme versus moderate is not the only source of division here - they can have hours of fun damning each other because they disagree with various alliances or pronouncements) - and if by some miracle they manage to miss all of these wonderful opportunities to render themselves totally irrelevant through splits and divisions then they can always use the new opportunities afforded by the Internet to go and abuse people in other countries who agree with them entirely about everything but who are nevertheless good fodder for an argument merely because they happen to live in another part of the world . . .

And then they wonder why they have remained utterly marginalized since the middle of the last century! To compare these simple fools with the military strategists in the Pentagon is ludicrous. They have no hope against such a foe. They are a lost cause. They are like the simple Celtic tribesfolk who, confronted with the canny legionnaires from Rome, merely rolled over, falling for every trick in the book, and allowed themselves to be robbed of everything.

This, then, is the scenario at the beginning of the twenty-first century. We have a shrewd imperial superpower, the American-dominated New World Order, with vast financial, technological and intelligence resources and phenomenal planning and strategic experience at its disposal. Against this we have a huge number of weak and divided nations and groups with little, if any, ability to counter the strategies used against them by their enemies. How, then, is the New World Order to be opposed? What is to be done?

Expose the ‘left-right continuum’ as a fraud!

One of the most pernicious and pervasive aspects of divide et impera is the ‘left-right’ distinction. At a single stroke this creates an apparently arbitrary division in the ranks of anti-Establishment activists and sets them at each other’s throats.

The ‘left/right’ distinction owes its origins to the seating plan implemented on 5 May, 1789 in the French National Assembly. The clergy and nobility, who tended to oppose change, sat to the right of the speaker and the commons, who tended to favour change, sat to the left. However, many people who are opposed to change today are classified as ‘left wing’ - we could cite, for example, Fidel Castro who, despite his image as a ‘left-wing revolutionary’, nevertheless enshrined his version of socialism in Cuba’s constitution with the words ‘The revolutionary process of socialism cannot be reversed’. He is merely one of the more recent of numerous ‘left-wing’ luminaries who have sought, by one way or another, to fossilize their favoured form of social order and guard it against reform. By contrast, Hitler, often regarded as the epitomy of the ‘extreme right’, was scathing about the conservatism of the ‘right-wing’ parties of his day:

The parties of the Right have lost all energy: they see the flood coming, but their one longing is just for once in their lives to form a Government. Unspeakably incapable, utterly lacking in energy, cowards all -- such are all these bourgeois parties and that at the moment when the nation needs heroes -- not chatterers.

Sometimes it is asserted that what distinguishes ‘left’ from ‘right’ is that the ‘left’ favours state control whereas the ‘right’ favours minimal state intervention. However, this does not work either. Powerful state structures have often existed under supposedly ‘right-wing’ regimes, such as those of Hitler’s Germany, Botha’s South Africa or even Thatcher’s Britain. And whereas Marxists are often mocked for their supposed commitment to state control, it should not be forgotten that their ultimate aim was the ‘withering away’ of the state (a phrase originating with Engels, not the slower and more befuddled Marx as is often falsely asserted):

The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not 'abolished,' it withers away. It is from this standpoint that we must appreciate the phrase 'a free people's state' -- both its temporary justification for agitational purposes, and its ultimate scientific inadequacy -- and also the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

As Lenin pointed out in speaking of the state ‘withering away,’ and the even more graphic and colorful ‘ceasing of itself’, Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after ‘the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society’, that is, after the socialist revolution.

And if this does not scupper thoroughly the notion of the left as ‘statists’, what are we to make of those ‘left-wing’ anarchists who write such things as this:

The State is the negation of Humanity. It is this in two ways: the opposite of human freedom and human justice (internally), as well as the forcible disruption of the common solidarity of mankind (externally). The Universal State, repeatedly attempted, has always proved an impossibility, so that as long as the State exists, States will exist and since every State regards itself as absolute, and proclaims the adoration of its power as the highest law, to which all other laws must be subordinated, it therefore follows that as long as States exist wars cannot cease. Every State must conquer, or be conquered. Every State must build its power on the weakness or, if it can do it without danger to itself, on the destruction, of other States.

To strive for international justice, liberty, and perpetual peace, and at the same time to uphold the State, is contradictory and naive.

Sometimes it is asserted that what distinguishes ‘left’ from ‘right’ is that the so-called ‘right’ upholds notions such as the nation, patriotism and race, whereas the ‘left’ decries these notions in favour of one united world. How strange, then, that the ‘left-wing’ and ‘communist’ regime of North Korea should describe its leader’s views on nation and ethnicity in the following terms:

Kim Jong Il . . . said that the basic indexes of a nation are homogeneity of bloodline, a common language and a common territory; in particular, that bloodline and language are the most important in defining a nation, and that a nation is a solid group of people who are united with homogeneity of bloodline, language and territory.

He went on to say that the Korean nation has long lived in one territory, inheriting the same bloodline and speaking the same language, and it is a nation with a history of 5,000 years and with a splendid culture, and that expatriates, too, belong to Korean nation. A nation is a cohesive group of people that was formed historically and the largest unit of social life. A nation is not formed or broken up easily by a change in the social system. The formation of a nation conditions the appearance of social classes and strata. Even in a classless society the nation still exists. If one’s bloodline and language are same, one belongs to one and the same nation, even though one’s ideology, ideals and territory are different. This is his outlook on the nation. . .

Kim Jong Il emphasizes that, according to the Juche-oriented outlook on the nation, independence is the core of a nation’s life and existence.

As a man without independence can be likened to a dead man, so a nation which has lost its independence cannot exist or develop. This is common knowledge. Therefore the question of a nation’s destiny is directly linked with that of the nation’s independence. The nation’s independence is its essential nature and life and soul. The destiny of a nation is determined by whether the nation is independent or not and by how it realizes and defends its independence. In order to live and develop independently, every nation defends its national character, traditions and spirit and desires its unity. In this way, the spirit of national independence runs through the Juche-oriented outlook on the nation. This is Kim Jong Il’s view. To promote the national independent spirit, one should posses national dignity and revolutionary pride. If one lacks national dignity and believes that one’s nation is inferior to others, and if one lacks pride in the revolution, one cannot truly live independently and one is unable to defend national independence and dignity. This is also part of Kim Jong Il’s faith. . .

Since national nihilism and flunkeyism towards big powers are deep-rooted among them due to the imperialist policy of assimilating colonies and obliterating their national culture, small countries must pay special attention to enhancing a sense of national dignity and revolutionary pride, he emphasizes.

Flunkeyism is an attitude peculiar to slaves serving and worshipping great powers and developed countries, and nihilism means looking down upon one’s own country and nation and despising them. If a person falls for flunkeyism, he is a fool; if a nation is servile to great powers, the country will go to ruin: and if a party is subservient to great powers, it will make a mess of the revolution and construction. This is what he teaches Government and Party officials. The flunkeyist tendency of the ruling class of the successive feudal dynasties hindered national development greatly, left after effects and, in the end, ruined our country.

What are we to make of the supposedly ‘right-wing’ regimes of Europe and America that pursue the erosion of national boundaries, the creation of supranational quasi-states such as the ‘European Union’, the interests of multi-national corporations and the process of ‘globalization’ to foster the interests of big business? And what are we to make of the converse phenomenon: the ‘left-wing anti-globalization protestor’? Clearly, ‘right’ and ‘left’ cannot be conceptualized in terms of nationalism versus internationalism.

Finally, there are political movements in the world today that defy any attempt at classification on a ‘left/right’ continuum. Where on this spectrum are we to place the follower of Islam who denounces America and its influence on the world today? Where are we to put the environmentalist? The National-Anarchist? The National-Bolshevik? The Eurasian?

The ‘left/right’ political distinction is a cynical ploy to divide the people and set them against each other so that they do not unite against the single main enemy of us all: the Establishment. As Eduard Limonov remarked: There’s no longer any left or right. There’s the system and the enemies of the system.

Work with sectarians in subtle ways!

Those who oppose the Establishment cannot meaningfully be divided into ‘left’ and ‘right’ but they can usefully be divided into sectarians and non-sectarians. These are not opposing camps but rather groups of people who need to be managed in different ways.

Non-sectarians will seek to form a broad alliance against the Establishment. They will work alongside anyone with whom they can reach broad agreement on strategy. They will minimize the significance of theoretical differences and concentrate on what unites - on opposition to the Establishment - rather than what divides.

Sectarians will oppose the Establishment from a narrow theoretical position. They tend to work alongside those who share their own theoretical position and to oppose anti-Establishment activists whose theoretical positions diverge from their own. They tend to emphasize and play up the significance of theoretical differences and concentrate on what divides the enemies of the Establishment rather than the common cause. They easily serve as unwitting tools of the Establishment.

It is my experience that by far the majority of anti-Establishment activists are sectarians - often extreme sectarians. This has important implications for anti-Establishment strategy and alliance building.

The first implication is that non-sectarians need to unite and to create their own organizations and strategies. If they do this then there will be a core of anti-Establishment activists who are relatively immune from the divide et impera tactics of the Establishment.

The second implication is that non-sectarians need to create propaganda to convince anti-Establishment activists of the advantages of non-sectarian activism, of the dangers of divide et impera, and of the importance of building alliances with anti-Establishment activists from a variety of backgrounds. If they do this then they will be able to recruit more non-sectarian activists and thus increase the number of activists who are relatively immune from the divide et impera onslaught.

The third implication is that great subtlety is needed in working with sectarian activists. It is tempting to turn one’s back on these people and to regard them as too dogmatic for alliance-building purposes. Given their numbers and their sheer importance, this would be a serious strategic error and one that would in itself tend to reinforce the success of the Establishment’s divide et impera approach.

Generally speaking, the principle that should be employed should be to work towards a grand alliance of non-sectarian activists but a series of small, often single-issue alliances with sectarians. These small alliances might even be as limited as non-aggression agreements or agreements to discuss differences. They need to be entered into with the utmost sensitivity and subtlety and with the greatest attention possible given to situation-specific factors. If you go along to an anti-globalist demonstration organized by communists and announce yourself as a ‘third-positionist nationalist’ you will find that the organizers will not think ‘we are anti-Establishment and you are anti-Establishment, therefore we can work together’; rather, they will think ‘you are right wing and we are left wing, therefore we are the deadliest enemies’ - and another victory for Establishment divide et impera will ensue.

Great care needs to be taken to listen to sectarians rather than to preach. Often it is possible to absorb much of value from sectarian activists while rejecting their dogmatism. I have cited above, Hoxha’s striking insights into imperialist strategy - these insights are of enormous value despite the fact that they come from a man whose sectarianism and dogmatism were legendary. It is often the case that those from a Marxist background, in particular, can contribute much in the field of strategic insight while remaining quite immune to exhortations to adopt a non-sectarian anti-Establishment approach.

The general strategy, then, in dealing with sectarian anti-Establishment activists should be to seek out areas where joint anti-Establishment activity can be carried out while perhaps gently trying to persuade sectarians of the value of working with those who do not necessarily share the finer nuances of their own preferred theories.

Be sparing in the use of theoretical justifications and keep your eye on the ball!

Anti-Establishment activists have an overwhelming need to justify themselves. They have to explain in the greatest of detail why they are opposed to the Establishment. This is quite understandable but the problem is that they are a diverse bunch, they have very little in the way of central organization, and thus the number of different justifications (some more convincing perhaps than others) almost equals the number of anti-Establishment activists! The result is rampant sectarianism and a bitterly divided anti-Establishment movement that accomplishes very little.

Those who justify their anti-Establishment activism in terms of the economic theories of Engels and Marx are likely, for obvious historical reasons, to experience the utmost difficulty in working with those who justify their activism in terms of the racial theories of Adolf Hitler. Those who justify it in terms of Islam or Christianity might have problems with those who are inspired by the paganism of Ye Olde England. Those whose anti-Establishment activism is inspired by a theory that envisages the ideal world order as characterized by a powerful nation state might have difficulty in working alongside those whose preferred theories espouse the minimization or abolition of the state.

Clearly, it is in the interests of the Establishment to foster and exploit such theoretical contradictions. It follows that it is in the interests of the opponents of the Establishment to avoid or minimize them.

Much can be gained, in this respect, by justifying activism in terms not of any particular theory but rather in terms of the abhorrent nature of the Establishment and the need for people from different theoretical backgrounds to unite against the common enemy.

Look at the world that these people have created for us! Every three years, globally, more people die from starvation-related causes than were killed in the entire Second World War. Over 123 million people were killed in 149 wars between the end of World War II and 1996 alone and with America and Israel becoming more murderous with every year that passes the end to this kind of barbarism is nowhere in sight. We could cite the spiraling AIDS figures in Africa and Asia (as I write these words, the incidence of HIV infection in Botswana is exceeding 35%), and the decadence and lax immigration controls that will surely import this scourge into Europe in a matter of time. We could point to the sham, media-controlled two-party ‘democracies’ of the Western world that serve only to legitimize the spread of American imperialism and American values throughout the world and to render impotent any effective challenge to America’s new empire.

By concentrating on the nefarious nature of the common enemy, and deliberately marginalizing theoretical justification and discussion, non-sectarianism can be encouraged and the damaging nature of sectarianism can be exposed and decried.

Unite around achievable strategies and objectives

All too often anti-Establishment groups and individuals feel that if they simply exist this is sufficient and that there is no need to engage in any form of planning. Such people are characterized by a tendency to rationalize their complete lack of activism and their complete lack of strategic planning by a sort of tired fatalism. They will lament their lack of resources and the stupidity of people in general and will see themselves as serving simply to symbolize (some would say fossilize) a particular viewpoint in the general marketplace of ideas. As Guardians of the Fossils, these people are very adept at defending the theoretical niceties of their own version of The True Faith, and will savagely turn against those who do not share The True Faith, even if those they turn against happen to be enemies of the Establishment. In short, the Guardians of the Fossils, as archetypal sectarians, are generally excellent targets for divide et impera.

Some Guardians of the Fossils are sufficiently motivated to wish to give the appearance of having a strategy without actually worrying about its finer details. They are characterized by a tendency to produce pie-in-the sky strategies that either involve completely unrealistic assumptions or millenarian-type strategies that delay the need to do anything at all until some remote date or event such as the collapse of the entire New World Order throughout the world. Once again, the emphasis on theory rather than action leads to a sectarianism that makes these people vulnerable to divide et impera.

Unity around simple, achievable strategies and objectives pushes preoccupation with theoretical niceties to one side and focuses on areas where anti-Establishment activists from different backgrounds can work together in a rewarding way. If two people or two groups from very different theoretical backgrounds can co-operate to achieve a goal that is useful to both of them, this increases the resource base of both groups and widens the armoury of strategies open to each.

Expose their filthy tricks at every opportunity!

It is one of the principal tasks of all those with influence within the anti-Establishment movement to expose the strategy of divide et impera. International, national and local leaders, writers and ordinary radicals all have a role to play in educating themselves and others about this strategy, how it has been used in the past, how it is currently being used, and how to counter it. The simple act of drawing attention to it can reduce its effectiveness by creating an awareness of the importance of unity and the dangers of bickering and disunity.

Much is at stake. The technological resources of the New World Order are such that if it achieves hegemony over all the earth it will be difficult or impossible to reverse the situation. A global concentration and entrenchment of imperial power will ensue that will dwarf every other tyranny that the world has ever known.

Folk and Faith

Reflections on Anarcho-Syndicalism

Anarcho-Syndicalism is not left wing

The terms "left", "right" and "centre" are, in the purest sense of the words, parliamentary concepts. These “directions” within the political spectrum are derived from the perspective of the representatives in parliament. On the right there were the Conservatives, on the left the Social Democrats or Communists and in the centre the Liberals.

These terms traditionally include some political associations, trade unions and (other) political alliances, who because of their Anarchist principles refrain from parliamentary participation. These can't actually be categorized within these terms because they are fundamentally distinct from the Social Democratic and Communist movements. They are not centralized and don’t promote statism, nor do they subscribe to the doctrine of historical materialism as the sole explanation for the history and for the future. They don't find their strength in submission, authority or personality cult, but in thinking for oneself, self awareness and a respect for individual emancipation. They represent a movement that begins at the base, without representatives, bureaucrats or leaders.

Anarcho-Syndicalism has as much in common with "Socialist" parties, as it has with the authoritarian Monarch or the Capitalist despots. Throughout history free and emancipatory never have been inspired by parliamentary activities, but rather strictly rejected it. Under both the "left", "right-" and "centre" governments freedom-loving ideas and activities are strongly suppressed. Under all of these regimes Anarcho-Syndicalists were oppressed, persecuted, put in prison or even killed. Both in Fascist and "Democratic" Italy and Germany, Tsarist and Communist Russia, Capitalist and Communist Cuba, monarchist and Fascist Spain. In each state with a centralized structure of police, secret services, bureaucracy and army, they were persecuted and oppressed. Anarcho-Syndicalism, both in theory and in practice, has little in common with Marxists, Capitalists, and Fascists or with terms such as "right", "left" or "centre".

These directions and terms are typically used to insinuate that there existed no difference between Marxists and other authoritarian movements on the one hand and Anarcho-Syndicalism on the other hand. But the boundaries don’t run between "left" and "right" but always between "under" and "above". Parliamentary representatives and governments of any kind, whether these are "rightwing" or "leftist" governments, are fundamentally rejected. Anarcho-Syndicalism takes a clear class position in its principles, socialism will be completely free or it won’t. There is no "left unity" within the class struggle. There is only the self-organization of the emancipatory movement against all forms of domination. Thinking in terms like "right" and "left" only leads to sectarism and an aversion away from the real front position. This thinking, which is based on fallacies, will only lead from bad to worse, from Capitalism and its prisons, the concentration camps of statecapitalism to the Gulags of the Marxists. "Left" and "right" are nothing more than divisive notions that are used by those in power to atomize our thinking and to send us in a fake direction. Moreover these meaningless concepts and substantial terms hamper a good description for the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement. Anarcho-Syndicalism is almost always classified in nearly every article or signature as "left wing" - in that manner they throw Anarchists, Marxists, Socialists and Fascists all over the same ridge. What a mockery of these principles! Anarcho-Syndicalism can't be "left" without emancipation, self-consciousness and grassroots, without being oriented on human needs. Nor can it deny being against the state, against parliamentarianism, against dogmatism and much more. One must therefore simply give content to Anarcho-Syndicalism and not blur the truth or juggle false similarities with meaningless and empty concepts.

If we want to take life in our own hands, we first must give meaning to concepts and categories, rather than let them be dictated to us. Self-organization, self-awareness and emancipatory action begins with oneself. If our opponents think they can dictate our thinking, then the battle is already lost.


That both "centre", "right" and "left" are drawn into "extremism" is well known; claiming that this isn’t the case is simply not true. The "right wing" and "left wing" extremes are considered as totalitarian by the "centre" - and rightly so. But we also know that every so-called "Democracy" from the "centre" can take a totalitarian form as well. Therefore "Totalitarian" is only a divisive term used by the "centre" to make a fundamental difference between "Democrats" and the other "extremists". In fact this difference is not entirely true. The transformation of the Netherlands into a "totalitarian state" may indeed be fully carried out legally. After all the legal means for this are already available (police laws, fundamental rights and claims for an emergency) and the means to implement it (police, secret services and military bureaucracy) are also present.

"Democrats" and "extremists" actually have much more in common than they want to admit. Both are centralized and hierarchical, statist, bureaucratic, authoritative, subversive for the free will, anti-emancipatory, patronizing and Capitalist. The distinction is therefore only found in small differences, whether one pursues a private economy (Capitalism) or a state economy (State capitalism). The class relationships are basically the same. In contrast Anarcho-Syndicalism is directed against any form of domination. It relies on the organization from below and on the Anarchist principles that all forms of oppression and exploitation should be abolished. This to establish a society of self-conscious, emancipated individuals, who are able to enter free agreements with each other and who are capable to solve problems among themselves. Personal responsibility and self-discipline have to replace paternalism and dependency. Self-government takes the place of hierarchy in all parts of life.

Just like Marxism the "Democratic centre" pushes Anarcho-syndicalism in the left wing and by that presents itself as the absolute bastion of reason, justice and civilization. But the global oppression and exploitation is not a result of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Anarcho-Syndicalists did not systematically destroy food and did not starve 7.000.000 children on an annual basis to keep the prices of the world market stable. Anarcho-Syndialists did not install puppet-regimes in other states to serve their global imperialist interests, nor did they supply them with weapons and torture gear to do so.

The term "Left wing"

First off, we have to get rid of meaningless definitions by truly free and undogmatic thought. The term "left wing" is nothing more than a meaningless indication of direction and can mean a multitude of things: a wing within the NSDAP, various Hegelian tendencies, authoritarian Jacobins, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyists, Maoists, Castro, Republicans in the Fascist spectrum or Che Guevara. "Left wing" is an elastic concept that is very arbitrary and relative. Instead of setting up categories and concepts like "left wing" and "right wing, we must point out the real differences to people. Differences such as rich and poor, Capitalists and proletarians, bureaucracy and social assistance, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Parliamentarianism, state and free society, authoritarian and emancipatory, will for power and will for freedom and much, much more. Only then we won’t unnecessarily have to search in the dark and we can finally witness the truth. This offers a better start for the implementation of the idea for a truly free society. The term "left wing" we simply have to ignore.

Vrije Nationalisten Noord-Brabant / Netwerk Nationale Socialisten


woensdag 11 januari 2012

What is Fascism?

On the 23rd of May, 1919 the former revolutionary Marxist Benito Mussolini established the "Fascio di Combattimento" (combat union) with a small group of sympathizers in Italy. Until 1920 it remained a marginal group in the extreme leftwing of the political spectrum. The opportunistic swing to the right, along with the sudden sharp frontal stance against communism and socialism, ensured that the fascist movement got an unexpected strong impulse in the period 1920-1921. After the "red tidal wave" (september 1920), when striking workers in northern Italy started with factory occupations and the establishment of worker soviets, the fascists could count on the warm sympathy and benevolent support from the Italian bourgeoisie.

Within a short period of time, thanks to the support of the liberal bourgeoisie, the state bureaucrats, parts of the army and the Catholic Church fascism got a further influx and became a mass movement in Italy.

"Nothing outside the State, nothing against the State, everything for the State" was the notorious and one hundred times repeated formula of the totalitarian fascist State. The concept of the State is the ideal that fascism persues. It is their highest value, and therefore other important values such as selfcontrol, people and culture were considered by fascism to be secundary, if they recognized it at all. From the perspective of the Italian masses the fascists always stayed the murderers of workers and agents of the hated landlords and factory lords, on which fascism indeed was depended throughout it's lifetime.

Fascism can not be possible without a strong State, which opresses the people and considers workers to be the slaves of the State. Fascism puts the interests of the State before the welbeing of the people. Examples include the Franco-fascism in Spain (1939-1975). Also the Hitlerite variant of National Socialism was similarly constructed in a Statecapitalist way, just as the fascist ideology; it also suppressed its own people, advocated a bourgeois State nationalism and persued imperialist utopias.

However, Anti-Fascism, is defending the rights of the nation and of every human individual, the right for own life, the right for self-determination, the right for a non-polluted environment, thus the right for a humane future!

The Secretary-General of the Communist International (Komintern), G. Dimitrow, was right when he defined fascism as "the terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital with the aim of maintaining the capitalist relations of production".

The development of Antifascism

The original Antifascism exists since the 1920's. It arose from the need for a political organization to achieve their own goals against the opponent and to maintain themselves.

Therefore the authentic Antifa came forth from the political will; in this case on the part of the KPD, but also on the part of the SPD. They did not consider all their opponents objectives as opposed to their own worldview and in fact there were many examples of open meetings and debat assemblies between national socialists and communists. Most of the activists in the divided camps were mainly concerned with the fortunes of ordinary people and the achievement of a fair society. Also common combatmeetings were arranged against the hated Weimar system, because they all saw that the interests of the State were put above those of the people.

Ofcourse every communist knew why he was against the nazi's, just as every nazi knew why he was against the communists. In that time Antifa-work was only a means to achieve a goal, with which they could achieve their own objective. Untill the 70's Antifascism was driven by political motivation and formed a part of the respective socialist, communist and anarchist groups, where it fullfilled a similar function as in the twenties. In that time the Antifa did not have any kind of "controlling function" against their own people and their own scene, nor was it wanted as a gang to fight opponents. In those days publications exclusively devoted to Antifa-work did not exist at all. The emphasis in the socialist and communist publications, was shaped by particular ideological and philosophical articles, in which they were intensively and critically concerned with their own ideas and goals.

Over the years, especially in the eighties and nineties, the situation radically changed: The search for new (pseudo-)identities made sure that Antifa-work, which really was meant as means to achieve a goal, became a goal on it's own. Anti-fascism became the actual raison d'etre for many groups.

But a group, which is exclusively engaged with the enemy, is situated on the defensive. It only responds instead of acting!

From then on the struggle against fascism degenerated into a fight solely against the "nazis" (and against all who were seen as such!). At some point this led to the fact that every advocate for the struggle for national liberation (in Germany of the '70s) was labeled as a "neo-nazi". Activists of the KPD/ML - one of the most nationalist ML-organizations in the BRD at that time - who explicitly advocated the right for the German people to have national self-determination (motto: Deutschland den Deutschen! Amis raus!), suddenly became "nazi's" with all the fysical consequenses. To this day the so-called "Antifascists" (actually they're not anymore) are stuck in an almost hysterical hatred against all things which even remotely contains the concept "national". Everything that's slightly more parttriotic then Chancellor Merkel should be fought if it's up to them. Some groups draw the ultimate conclusion from their hatred against their own people and their own cultural identity and began to call themselves "Anti-German" ("Anti-Deutschers").

We can come to the conclusion that the term "Ant-fascism" was completely distorted and abused over the years and that they are now openly collaborating with the enemy, namely imperialism.

Under the pretext to fight for "democracy" and "human rights", the "Antifascists" are today acting as the most agressive warmongers (latest example: Libya). In each country that offers serious resistance against global imperialism they see a "new Hitler ", who should be made harmless by American bombs, because otherwise inevitably a new "Holocaust" would take place. A part of these self-appointed "Antifascists" (the "Anti-Germans") even manage to praise the racist State Israel and its Stateterrorist politics as the true "Antifascist" stronghold against "fascism".

The New Fascism

In recent decades a new type of fascism arose from the Western imperialist metropolises.

The political structures that were formed since the 60's, mainly within the United States, can best be characterized as modern "fascism". This because the large capitalist concerns, the various secret services, the armed forces, the two major political parties and organized crime became so closely intertwined and partly identical on a personal level. This fascism reinforced itself in the United States since September 11, 2001, when George W. Bush threatened; ""Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists". The former presidential adviser John Dean commented on this subject: "I'm worried, because this constitutes a fascist behavior, a characteristic behavior of a fascist nature."

In France (President) Nicolas Sarkozy is the head of this new fascism. In the BDR this is epitomized by the CDU politician (and prolonged Minister of Interior affairs) Wolfgang Schäuble. He is supported by the capitalist business organization ("Bund der Deutschen Industrie"), the central union apparatus of the DGB ("Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund") and is closely intertwined with the state apparatus and the bourgeoisie, as well as the groups of reactionary conservatives ("Junge Freiheit" and "Pro NRW") who seek alliance with Zionism (the offer of alliance with the Zionist Ralph Giordano).

Directed by Schäuble a Secret State Police (Gestapo) is created. To name a few examples: Computer search, Rasterfahndung, Grosser hausangriff (systematic monitoring in private homes), vorratsdetenspeicherung (systematic preventive storage of all telecommunications data). Moreover Schäuble intensified with all his might his struggle to combat Islamists and other German "extremists", who refuse to comply with the so-called "Western community of values".

Anyone who speaks English and made the "political correctness" his own, who submits to the imperialist worldorder and thus the American consumerculture, is part of the game - everybody else has the risk to become labeled as the enemy or as an extremist. They end up on the blacklists of the Verfassungsschutz (State Security), or in extreme cases at Guantanamo Bay.

Everywhere in the West, politics put the interests of the State over the welbeing of the people. That's called fascism! However, this new fascism has no nationalist, but rather a globalist profile.
Unfortunately, today's Antifa is unable and unwilling to aim their Antifascism against this new form of fascism and against the extremists of the mainstream.

Instead, they are determined to fight against the "neo-nazi threat". But who stands in the tradition of the Third Reich today? Admittedly, there is indeed a colorful mix of micro-groups and individuals, acting as Hitlerites and Third Reich-nostalgics who actually believe that even today they still have to defend the Reichs-chancellery. But are these groups a serious threat? Hardly. So why this fixation on an insignificant edge and a-political group? The answer is obvious: The current "Antifascism" is degenerated into a meaningless pseudo-ideology, which has totally surrended to the mercy of the imperialist New World Order and now itself has become an essential element of the new fascism!

Nationale & Socialistische Actie / Autonome Nationale Socialisten

dinsdag 10 januari 2012

Bio-industry in the Netherlands

At the end of the forties one of the aims of the Dutch government was to assure food was cheap and available for everyone.

In the fifties it became clear that the growth and intensification of business was inevitable, because of the increased prosperity, to meet the demand for meat. Intensive farming that is the bio-industry was born. The Dutch government argued that agriculture and livestock had to experience the same kind of growth as seen before in other industries. Mechanization of farming and agriculture were encouraged, small businesses were liquidated or combined in large industries.

At the end of the fifties, the European Economic Community was founded resulting in a larger market for agriculture and livestock products. Expansion, mechanization, rationalization and specialisation were the key issues at that time. The Government sent out employees to convince farmers of the alleged need for expansion. The motto of that time, labour rationalization, meant that there had to be an as big as possible production in the least amount of time. The Dutch government hired scientists to investigate how agriculture and livestock production should be changed to increase as much as possible. Experimental farms were established where scientists did studies and tests, for example increasing the number of piglets a sow can give birth to annually. These experimental farms still exist today!

In the following years many major changes were made in livestock and agriculture in the Netherlands. Government employees found inspiration in other countries where after the government decided that it would be economically efficient to introduce so-called “battery systems” to the Dutch farmers. Chickens from then on could be kept in small cages on grids. Then it was the pigs turn, they from then on could also be kept in small cages on grids. Everything to generate more revenue per surface. Farmers were told that if they didn’t comply with the “inevitable growth” it wouldn’t take long for them to go bankrupt. If they wanted to survive, they had to cooperate. Everything was marked by economic progress, the welfare of the animal was never considered.

Animals are considered as products in the bio-industry, as much animals as possible have to be produced in the shortest amount of time and taking up the least amount of space. Labour, land and energy has to be saved upon. Most actions in the process, from breeding to slaughter, are carried out by automated machines such as chicken sorters, milk robots, conveyor belts, chicken sweepers, meat machines etc. To prevent animals from hurting each other because of frustration, boredom or mutual aggression they are adapted to their environment. Teeth, wattles, beaks, tails and horns are removed or even burned off without any form of anaesthesia.

The animals life expectancy is modified, animals are especially bred for fast growth. This makes it possible to slaughter more animals in a year’s time. Because of this unusual fast growth the animal experiences a lot of health issues and risks. Many animals don’t make it to the defined slaughter age, but that is perceived as economically acceptable.

Alarmingly is the use of large amounts of antibiotics in the bio-industry. These antibiotics come in handy for farmers, because it works both growth enhancing and inhibitory to virus
es. It is estimated that in the Dutch livestock sector 400.000 kg antibiotics are used annually. The antibiotics end up in the final product, and thus ultimately in the consumer. The feeding for the animals is artificially made up to enhance the fastest possible growth. Cheap raw materials are imported from third world countries to construct the most economically efficient possible food.

In southern European countries it is possible to slaughter the animals a few cents cheaper then in Holland, so many animals are put on transport to foreign countries. For days the animals are trapped without any food or water. If at birth it shows that an animal may not be sufficient enough the animal is killed immediately. The current legislation doesn’t talk about animals, but about products or kilograms per square meter.

Some examples of the gross animal abuse that takes place within the bio-industry:


Tens of thousands of chickens are thrown together in a hall. In the beginning they still have some room to walk around, but chicks grow rapidly. The limited space they had is fast gone. When the chicks reach the age of 6 weeks, they are considered “ripe” for slaughter. So called chicken catchers grab the chickens and stuff them into crates. This happens so roughly that many chicks contract wing or bone fractures. When the crate is closed often a chick has its wing or leg clamped between the crate and the lid of the crate. The crates overfilled with chicks are loaded into trucks and put on transport to the slaughterhouse. On arrival they are unloaded on a conveyor belt. This conveyor takes them to a place where they are manually put on hooks (by their legs). Then they are run to a low voltage electrified bath by their heads. The strength of the electric shock they are submitted to is very low; so many animals are not sufficiently anesthetized. Then the chicks are passed through a rotating blade, where their throat is cut through. It often happens that the throat of the chick is not sufficiently cut through, so the “work” is manually finished.


Chest calves are placed in a box after birth in which they can move as little as possible, so the calf can’t grow any muscular tissue. The calf never gets to drink milk from his own mother, they get fed a bucket of milk twice a day. This milk contains little iron, a nutrient necessity for the protection of the calf’s health. Because of the little iron the calves take in they are sure to suffer from anaemia. This anaemia makes sure their flesh stay white in stead of turning red as it is supposed to. The white meat of the calves brings up more money in the market so farmers keep the calves deliberately sick.

Ducks and geese

Ducks are confined in individual cages and geese are kept in small communal areas. The ducks get two times a day and the geese three times a day a 30 inch long funnel tube stuffed down their throats, by which they get 1 kg of corn porridge immediately inserted in their stomachs each time. Another way to force feed the ducks and geese is by stuffing a tube down their throat which shoots down (by air pressure) dough balls soaked in milk or oil, or grain and fat immediately into the stomach of the animals. Beside that the ducks and geese only get salted water so thirst can be generated. All these interventions are used so the liver will experience an abnormal growth.

These are just some of the harrowing stories about how animals are abused and mistreated by the bio-industry. Every animal has its own suffering!


Because of the many measures applied in the bio-industry Holland is the most cattle dense country in the entire world. Every year the bio-industry “produces” 450.000.000 animals.

The Netherlands daily exports 1.000.000 “pieces” of live poultry, 20.000 pigs and 60.000 piglets. Approximately 5.2 million living farm animals leave the Netherlands annually. In the first place because it’s a few cents cheaper to slaughter the animals abroad and in the second place because the countries which import the animals prefer to slaughter the animals in their own way or country.

Dutch businesses spend approximately 250 million Euros a year for the promotion of Dutch agricultural export products, which is the biggest amount of money a country spends in the entire EU. The large amount of money is spend in this fashion is easy to justify when you see the millions of profits these companies make every year. Holland is one of the biggest meat exporting country of the world.

Source: Green Nationalists

Ernesto "Che" Guevara

Anti-Capitalist protest in Milan

In the spirit of the worldwide revolts against capitalism, a strong protest took place in the streets of Milan on the 3rd of december 2011. Over 100 activists held an impressive protestmeeting in the financial heart of Milan. It was directed against the cutbacks of 24 Billion Euros, the banks and their new puppet goverment led by Mario Monti. Without elections the Italian bourgeoisie ruthlessly implemented their agressive crisis-politics over the backs of the Italian workingclass and sold out Italy to international imperialism. The same process is going on all over the world where national sovereignty is destroyed by supranational institutions and the regional economy is sold out to foreign investers.

Black and red flags, banners and signs adorned the square at the Central Station and pamflets were distributed to bystanders. Most speeches were aimed against the economic crisis and the financial sector which caused this, but also themes like animal- and enviromental welfare, the struggle against patriarchism were dealt with because they are a essential part in the total struggle against Capitalism. Capitalism abuses man, animal and nature to keep her consumerism running with destructive effects as the consequense.

After the protest there was a meeting held, where several interesting political discussions took place and the foundation was laid for the international ACN/AKN (Anti-Capitalist Network) initiative.



maandag 9 januari 2012

Globalization and the loss of our Environment

The inexhaustible belief in economic growth as the key to progress, begins to falter as the systems that support life on earth become more and more affected and as the signals that indicate an ecological disaster continue to increase. Globalization geared to stimulating growth by increasing the consumption is an overload for the environment and widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

Neo-liberals opt for "free" market solutions to increase the consumption by the population. Examples of this include tax cuts and low interest rates, which are supposed to stimulate investment and make consumers spend more money.

Until recent the environment was completely ignored in the whole globalization process. The economy, that's getting increasingly global, is completely dependent on a good management of our planet Earth, but everything around us indicates that the ecological health of our planet is in serious danger.

In the last two centuries the industrial production has consumed irreplaceable vast amounts of natural resources. Whole ecosystems and habitats are not only destroyed in an alarming rate, but it is also becoming clear that our natural resources (the "natural capital" of the economy) is exhausted. We produce waste at a rate that exceeds the capacity of nature to renew and heal itself. All around us we can find the evidence of the destruction of our planet. There is an urgent need for the disintegration of the basic systems for sustaining life, but we just take them for granted. The water cycle, the composition of the atmosphere, waste disposal and recycling of nutrients, pollination of crops, the delicate interplay between different species: all this is in great danger.

This huge decline of our planet is registered and endorsed by many studies. The deserts are spreading, whole forests are felled, fertile lands are ruined by erosion and desalination, fishing grounds are depleted and groundwater reserves are drained. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise due to the excessive use of fossil fuels. All this in order to provide our consumerism. Since 1950, global economic output has nearly quintupled, from $ 3,800,000,000 to $ 18,900,000,000 U.S. dollars. In this relatively short period, a larger part of the natural capital was destroyed than in the entire history of mankind before 1950.

Several animal rights groups warn that the global extinction of animal and plant species is accelerating, just as the dramatic decline in populations of several species. The loss of habitats, human cultivation and invasion of alien species are seen as the greatest threats to nature. Scientists believe that the natural rate at which species extinct is one species per 4 years. The current rate is estimated to be at 1000 to 10,000 times the natural rate.

By the export-led growth and the debt of Third World countries, bodies such as the World Bank and IMF, have collectively boosted the pace of rapid consumption of the irreplaceable natural resources of the earth. The adjustment policies that are imposed on Third World countries as the price for access to the global trading community, means that they are obliged to repay their debts before they are allowed to do anything else. Their only option is the acceleration of the export of raw materials to the worldmarket. Herein lies a major problem; because all the poor countries have to increase their export a so-called market saturation is created. This will cause the prices of recources to fall, so the poor countries have to increase their production and exports to meet their debt obligations. Because the production and export of these countries has to grow, more and more forest is felled for agriculture and less and less resources are available for their own markets. This is definitely not good for the environment in their country and also forms a major attack on our planet as a whole.

Quote ecologist Robert Ayres: "Everything indicates that human economic activity, supported by a mistaken policy of trade and growth, is a long way to destroy our natural environment more quickly than any other known disrupting event in the history of the planet whatsoever, except perhaps for the large asteroid impact that brought the extinction of the dinosaurs. It could well be that we are heading towards our own extinction."

And yet the neo-liberals still believe in their "free global trade". The (apparent) logic of globalization is seductive because it is based on a simple premise: free the market of its restrictions, and her self-organizing dynamics will bring employment, wealth and prosperity. The carrying capacity of our earth would be infinite. Through a combination of ingenuity and technology it would eventually be possible for anyone to live like the American middle class. But despite the (self-) confidence of those who are preaching "neoliberal gospel", there is clear evidence that the common people begin to lose their faith in the neoliberal world of free trade. Worldwide, more and more protests start against this state of affairs. Even in circles of power, globalization is increasingly criticized and nationalist sentiments are growing worldwide. Some previous supporters of the neoliberal policies are forced to revise their opinions by the repeated proof that the neoliberal approach is not working and only leads to all sorts of terrible crisis and a growing gap between the rich and the poor.

Source: Vrije Nationalisten Noord-Brabant / Netwerk Nationale Socialisten

The National Revolutionary movement in the Weimar Republic - Part III

Some National Bolshevik movements in the Weimar Republic

Ernst Niekisch, a teacher at the elementary school in Augsburg, developed from a right-wing Social Democrat into a radical National Revolutionary (National Bolshevik) in the Weimar Republic. After an interlude at the Volkischer-National "Hofgeismarer Kreis" of the SPD, he left the party in 1925. The same year he founded the "Alte Sozialdemokratische Partei" (ASP) together with August Winning. In 1926 he began publishing the magazine "Widerstand - Blätter für und National Revolutionäre Socialist Politik". Winning became a co-publisher the next year. After Niekisch moved to Berlin in 1928 he started the "Widerstand-Verlag", this magazine appeared with the additional "National Revolutionare Zeitschrift für Politik ". During this time he developed a close friendship with Ernst Jünger and his brother Friedrich Georg, who both actively contributed to "Widerstand" (untill its ban in 1934).

The largest response "Widerstand" found within the Nationalist part of the intelligentsia was in the circles of the youth. Especially within the Bündische Wehrverbände (paramilitaries), such as the Bund Oberland and the Jung Deutsche Orde. De Bund Oberland had approximately 12,000 men with strongholds in Franconia, Bavaria and Austria. After the bloody suppression of the councils movement, Oberland developed itself into a sort of central for the creation of a Nationalist cadre. It could count on a large influx from the youth movement, where the Bund spread the magazine "Das Dritte Reich" (over time, the editor of the "Third Reich" Dr. Sondermann, became a close associate of Niekisch).

Niekisch maintained good relations with all major Wehrverbände: In October 1928 he succeeded to bring together the leadership of the Jungdeutsche Orde, the Wehrwolf, the Stahlhelm and the Bund Oberland to form a "united front" with all the Wehrverbände. He also maintained excellent contacts within the circles of the Reichswehr. Around 1929 Niekisch his National-Bolshevik views were fully developed. During 1930 he formed so-called "Widerstandskreise" in many German towns, around 4000 people grouped around these "Widerstandskreise". They orientated themselves on the periodical publications of Niekisch. These activists descended mainly from circles around Oberland and the university.

Niekisch made repeated attempts to get the Communist Party (KPD) to join a common political front, especially after the Programmatic Declaration of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1930. However, this came with little result. Against the Young Plan *** Niekisch managed to form an alliance of 32 national youth organizations, including the Deutsche Hochschulring, Jung Stahlhelm, Hitler Youth, Wehrwolf and Verein Deutscher students, as well as numerous Bündische organizations (1929/1930). After the "Machtübernahme" of the NSDAP in 1933, "Widerstand" still appeared until the end of 1934, the "Widerstandskreise" stayed active until 1937, when Niekisch and 70 others were arrested. In 1939 Niekisch's sentence followed; a life of imprisonment for alleged "high treason" and because of the "strive for the reestablishment of political parties". After his liberation by the Red Army in 1945, he was almost blind and was paralyzed on one side. After the war he became deputy of the People's Chamber of the DDR. In 1953 he moved to Berlin (W.), where he died in 1967.

Besides Niekisch most of the National Bolsheviks in the final phase of the Weimar Republic came from the Bündische youth. This was also the case with the "Gruppe Sozialrevolutionärer Nationalists" (GSRN) around Karl Otto Paetel in Berlin, which was founded in 1930. Their magazine "Socialist Nation" appeared since 1931 and was also known for a long time as "Nationalbolschewistische Blätter".

Paetel, who had also participated in the creation of the ASP of Niekisch and Winning, already regularly published in the "Nationalsozialistische Briefe" of Gregor Strasser, a discussion platform within the NSDAP. The GSRN initially worked together with the "Kampfgemeinschaft Revolutionärer Nationalsozialisten" (KGRN) of Otto Strasser for some time. He (unlike his brother Gregor) had already left the NSDAP in 1930. However, soon it came to a break with Strasser, because the GSRN - unlike Strasser's idea of "49% state property" with respect to the major industry - stuck to a "socialization without compromise". The GSRN advocated class struggle and had the "autarky of the socialist economic zone, Russia and Germany" as a main objective. The GSRN sought a merger with the KPD: Shoulder to shoulder they had to work together with the proletarian power to bring a Volkischer substance within this alliance. In 1932 they supported the campaign of KPD president candidate Ernst Thälmann with all their force. The offer on the part of the GSRN to create an alliance, was welcomed with skepticism by the KPD.

End of January 1933 Paetel launched his National-Bolshevist Manifesto, which called for the establishment of a "National-Bolshevik political party" headed by Ernst Niekisch and the leader of the "Landvolk" movement Claus Heim (KPD). The Gestapo confiscates the Manifesto in February 1933. Paetel was imposed with a publication ban. In 1939 he was sentenced to death (in absentia), he however succeeded to emigrate in time.

Yet another National Bolshevik tendency in the final stage of "Weimar republic" grouped around the magazine "Gegner", that was published in 1932 by Harro Schulze-Boysen, a friend of Paetel. The readership existed, especially in Berlin, for the majority out of students. In a series of cities "Gegner reading circles" formed themselves, in Berlin there were about four of them.

"The world view of "Gegner" was essentially a typical mixture of Neo-Nationalism and the "Jugendbewegter" ideology. They sought "furchtlosem Einsatz" and stressed the "unconditional Schulze-Boysen". The despicable opportunism of Hitlerism was distinguished from the true Nationalism." (Louis Dupeux)

Just like Niekisch and others they advocated a "Querfront", a "new front for the younger generation". Terms like "left" and "right" were outdated in this context. Gegner, repeatedly let Communists speak on his meetings and in his publications. The goal was the creation of a "Third Prussia." Hostility towards the bourgeois democracy and a elitist vanguard thinking characterized much of the ideology of "Gegner kreis".

"Belief in the majority is replaced by the insight that only a very disciplined and internally sealed minority can force the decision". (Gegner, April 5, 1932)

In the last issue of Gegner, which appeared on April 20, 1933, the Hitler regime was attacked from a - so to say - "rightwing" standpoint. The regime was still very connected to the reaction, therefore, the National revolution should continue with all its strength. Schulze-Boysen and several sympathizers were arrested on April 26 by the SS and severely beaten. Schulze-Boysen saw the SS beat one of his comrades, Henry Erlanger, to death. Because of the good connections of his parents with high National Socialist officials Schulze-Boysen was already released after five days. What remained was his hatred for the Hitler regime.

Around 1936 he began building an underground network that was working for the Soviet military intelligence since 1939. It became one of the most effective resistance movements against the Hitler regime, known as the "Rote Kapelle". In 1942 most members of the Berlin group of the "Rote Kapelle" were arrested, Harro Schulze-Boysen himself was executed in the end of December 1942.

*** Young Plan
This plan from the victors of the first Worldwar (the Entente Powers) in 1930 in The Hague, which determined the final settlement of the reparations
of by the Reich.

Nationale & Socialistische Actie / Autonome Nationale Socialisten

zondag 8 januari 2012

The National Revolutionary Movement in the Weimar Republic - Part II

National Bolshevism

The term "National Bolshevism" is often discussed nowadays. Historians, such as Kurt Sontheimer and Ernst-Otto Schüddekopf, apply this concept to both Nationalist initiatives within the Communist Party as well as to trends within the National Revolutionary Movement: "It (the concept of "National Bolshevism") concerns Nationalist tendencies within the German Communist and Socialist movements as well as tendencies within the radical right-wing camp." Because of their radicalism the two movements necessarily had to meet each other again and again, in friendship or as enemies. This equating of "Nationalism of the left" with "Socialism from the right" is not only of little help by clarifying the concept but also historically incorrect. The radical Nationalism of the Communist Party (KPD), as expressed in the Schlageter directive (1923) and later in the "Programmatic representations regarding the National and Social liberation of the German people" (1930), was one case. The "Bolshevism" in the National movement was of a completely different case.*

The "Schlageter- (and later "Scheringer-") directive was in the first place conceived to get closer to the National-minded masses. The KPD tried to profile themselves as the "true representatives" on the case of the German people. **

A much more accurate definition of the term "National Bolshevism" is provided by the Frenchman Louis Dupeux (a bourgeois historian). He describes the "real" National Bolshevism as the "purest and hardest form of German Nationalism." "National-Bolshevism is not actually a separate ideology, but only another system of Konservative Revolution of which it endorses all its fundamental values: The people with their own "Volkischer" identity, the "bound" and structured society and above all the State and Nation who have the only claim on politics. Most protagonists are very often rejected to be qualified as a "National-Bolshevik" and it would be better to call them "radical National Revolutionaries". In their unconditional Nationalism they went far beyond the historical "Fascism" of the ideological reaction.

The ideology of National-Bolsheviks

One of the main representatives of the National Bolsheviks in the final phase of the Weimar Republic was Ernst Niekisch. Based on his statements one could broadly draw the ideological lines of the radical National Revolutionaries (or National Bolshevism). Not only the Nationalism, but also the absolute hostility to the ideas of 1789 - that of the Great French Revolution and the idea of liberalism - characterized National Bolshevism as part of the Konservative Revolution.

"Because it's about to be or not to be, if it wants to continue to exist, Germany remains not to be spared: the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the Sicilian Vespers against everything Western that lives inside of her. With relentless hardness it has to eradicate everything in her that is connected with the West." (Niekisch, E)

In his work "Gedanken über Dutsche Politics" (1929) Niekisch formulates the "Querfrontstrategie" to form a "new front" (Neue Front) for the National movement, a strategy which at that time was embraced by almost all schools of the "Konservative Revolution"(except the NSDAP!). The National-Bolsheviks wanted - and that distinguished them from other movements - the German Communists (KPD) to participate in this "new front". However Niekisch was strongly opposed to a Soviet Germany:

"Germany rejects to be taken over by Bolshevism. Rather, it develops her own special ideas, diametrically opposite of 1789, a lifeform from itself ".
(Niekisch - Entscheidung 1930)

The biggest difference between the National-Bolsheviks and other National movements, such as Jung Konservativen, the Strasserists or the NSDAP, was their concept of foreign policy. They were the most radical advocates of the so-called "Ostoriëntatie"; the alliance of the Reich with Soviet Russia against the plutocratic West. Niekisch:

"Where Germanic blood mixes with Slavic blood, there will arise a real state. Prussia was created from a mixture of the Germanic and the Slavic. In Ostraum, of Germanic-Slavic lifeblood, Prussia rose to greatness. We move to the east and find new roots and our mission. A new center will emerge, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Rhine, from Vladivostok to Vlissingen. Germany as the brain, the organizer and part of an extending block from the Pacific Ocean to the Rhine States". (Niekisch - Entscheidung 1930)

Niekisch's anti-Hitlerism

In 1932 Niekisch stated in his pamphlet "Hitler - ein Deutsches Verhängnis" that Hitler was a typical representative of the Occident - just like everyone else - because of his fierce opposition against Bolshevism. "This while the "schanddiktat" of Versailles was much more pernicious for Germany than Bolshevism ever could be." Above that Hitlers legalism was heavily criticized.

"Hitler his legalism stems from the fact that he comes from the Catholic Austria and Bavaria, which always had been under the influence of the decadent Rome and the Mediterranean. This is in contrast to the Protestant Prussia." (Niekische - Hitler, ein Deutsches Verhängnis)

* "Schlageter" course of the KPD. After the Reich government had fallen behind with reparations to the Entente, French imperialists (supported by Belgium) occupied the Ruhr in January 1923. Then it came to armed resistance (sabotage and "direct action") on the part of the Nationalist actiongroups. In May 1923 a French courtmartial convicted the first lieutenant and Freikorps veteran Albert Leo Schlageter, a leader of a sabotage unit, to death. His execution led to a wave of Nationalist outrage in the Reich. The KPD joined them and launched the call "down with the government of National shame and betrayal of the People" (directed against the Reich Government - Cuno). Karl Radek (specialist of the Communist International on German issues and part of the leadership of the Communist Party) held his legendary "Schlageter-Reason" in June 1923, in which he praised Schlageter as a "martyr of German Nationalism", murdered by "the henchmen of French imperialism".

** Programmatic Declaration on the National and Social liberation of the German People (call of the Central Committee of Communist Party) Quote: "We will tear the rapacious peacetreaty of Versailles and the Young Plan, which made Germany a servant and cancel all international debt and reparations." "Is the present-day Germany helpless and isolated, the Soviet-Germany does not have to fear foreign imperialists."

Source: Nationale & Socialistische Actie / Autonome Nationale Socialisten