Wednesday, March 25, 2015

The Republic is Dead:Long Live the Republic!

by  


This is a very interesting notification I recently received from a reader that illustrates something I have been noticing for a while. It appears there is a broad “axis of dissent” that is developing in the United States that transcends the normal political and cultural boundaries, and whose common thread is a kind of left/right hybrid libertarian-progressive-populism. This axis is represented in the mainstream or relatively mainstream by such individuals as Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader, Alex Jones, Cindy McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Abby Martin, and other comparable figures. It overlaps with the Democratic/Republican duopoly on a peripheral level but is clearly outside the two-party duopoly for the most part.

It also overlaps with particular movements like the 9-11 Truth movement, the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist liberty movement, newer tendencies like Zeitgeist and the Venus Project, strands within the Occupy movements, and the wider conspiracy milieu. It runs through the entire spectrum of dissident ideologies such as patriots, religious fundamentalists, and white nationalists on the far right through libertarians, radical centrists, ethnic minority dissidents, leftists, progressives, anarchists, various counter-cultural tendencies, and certain dissenting religious perspectives. However, this axis cannot be identified as representing any one ideological tendency. The axis is largely independent of the Democratic/Republican duopoly, but it is also independent of the “normal” far right (fascists, neo-Nazis, theocrats) and the “normal” far left (Communists, PC/SJW totalitarian humanists).

Such an axis is precisely what I have always envisioned the left/right libertarian/populist conservative/progressive black/white radical center/radical fringe demographic base of pan-anarchism and pan-secessionism as actually being. Cultivating the various components of this axis as allies and constituents should be one of our primary strategy objectives as this point.
———————————————————————————————
The Democratic Republic of the United States was overthrown on November 22, 1963; on that day our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, was murdered in Dallas, and nothing has been the same since.

Kennedy was the last Constitutional President of our last Constitutional Republic.
On that day in November, the Anglo/Zionist Military Financial Oligarchs occupied our country. On that day we ceased to be a free people and our nation lost its independence.
We need to regain our independence and our liberty. We must accomplish this through the political process of Restoring our Republic.

Begin to Restore the Republic by organizing Alternate Elections for 2016.
This free electoral process will elect Independent Representatives, who serve only the people.
We suggest a slate of Revolutionary leaders to head our New Republic. Feel free to nominate your own favorites. Edward Snowden, Joan Baez, Cindy McKinney, whomever.
President: Ron Paul
Vice President: Dennis Kucinich
Secretary of State: Ralph Nader
Coordinator of the Militia: Jesse Ventura
Our candidates will be faithful to the existing Constitution of the United States: until the Next Generation can set up Committees of Correspondence where they will decide to continue this one, or to write a new Constitution.


Rules of Political Conduct in a Democratic Republic
  1. All candidates will have equal access to the media.
  2. No money may be spent on election campaigns.
  3. Candidates must be legal residents of ONLY this country.
  4. They must register their candidacy, and present a small number of petitions.
  5. All candidates may participate in public debates with the other aspirants.
  6. The People’s elections will be held in locals controlled by We The People.
  7. The voters will have to tell our election officials their name, which will be recorded.
  8. Then they will cast a paper ballot.

The results will be announced, and the new people’s government will begin a political confrontation of Dual Power. At first, the people’s new Republican Government will be smaller and weaker than that of the Totalitarian Oligarchs. With time and struggle, the new government will increase in power. Our government will take increasing responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, until, it can replace the usurping government of the Oligarchs and completely restore our Republic and our Honor.

For the New Democratic Republic!

Sons and Daughters of Liberty

IMAGINE

Towards an anti-colonial anarchism: Eurocentrism, re-colonization, and settler colonialism

 February 25, 2015
via:Intercontinentalcry 
  
Unnamed anarchist from Europe [interviewer]: "Particularly in Canada, the term "First Nations" is frequently used to describe Indigenous societies. This tends to confuse radical Europeans who consider all references to "nations" as necessarily conservative. Can you shed some light on the Indigenous usage of the term?"

Taiaike Alfred from the Mohawk Nation of Kahnawá:ke [interviewee]: " Europeans should not transpose their experience with nationhood on others. I myself do not think the term accurately describes our people - only our own languages and words can do that - but it is useful in a sense; it conveys an equality of status in theory between our societies and that of the colonizer. And it reiterates the fact of our prior occupancy of this continent" (Alfred, 2010).


 The languages that we speak build walls. The English language, for instance, is noun-based, territorial and possessive by nature. Behind this language, however, is a distinct way of relating – one that is exemplified by the interview excerpt above. Sharing a language does not imply consensus or commonality. In this case, although Taiake Alfred does not agree in full with the term ‘First Nations’, he does differentiate First Nation and Indigenous Nationhood from European, Westphalia conceptions of nation-state. He dually describes why, from his perspective as a member of the Mohawk Nation from Kahnawá:ke, this terminology resists Eurocentric impositions of governance but also responds to colonial power-imbalances. Social movements, especially in North America, often fall carelessly into colonial traps of Eurocentric thought and colonial universalism, as exampled above[1]. On the surface, though, it is clear why anarchist movements and anarchic theory may be attracted to anti-colonial struggles.

Opposition to the state and to capitalism, to domination and to oppression, are at the core of anarchist and autonomous movements; they are also at the core of anti-colonial struggles that see the state, and by mutual extension the capitalist system, as de-legitimate institutions of authority that ‘Other’ and colonize by way of white supremacist notions of cultural hegemony (see Fanon, 1967; Smith, 2006). Anarchist movements, however, often fail to account for the multiple layers of power that are at play, both contemporarily and historically. As Barker (2012) critically contends, many of the Occupy sites, for example, recolonized by uncritically occupying already occupied lands. The settler privilege of autonomous organizers within these movements upheld hegemonic/colonial territoriality.

Romanticized for stewardship and place-based relations to land, Indigenous peoples have even been idolized as the ‘original’ anarchist societies (Barker & Pickerill, 2012). Indigenous Nationhood Movements actively seek to rebuild nation-to-nation relations with settlers by re-empowering Indigenous self-determination and traditional governments (Indigenous Nationhood Movement, 2015). Nation-to-nation, though, cannot be taken in its settler colonial form; indeed, this assumption concerning a homogenous form of government was, and is, at the core of colonialism: “modern government…the European believed, was based upon principles true in every country. Its strengths lay in its universalism” (Mitchell, 2002: 54). Respecting Indigenous Nationhood as a culturally, politically, and spiritually distinct movement propelled by and for Indigenous peoples is integral. Reasons for and tactics in support of these movements may vary, however they inevitably overlap in many offensives with anarchist anti-authoritarian agendas.

With Eurocentric understandings of an anti-colonial anarchism at the core of many activist oriented renditions of such thinking, activists and scholars alike have heeded words of advice to those amidst struggles against colonial forces in settler colonial contexts. As stated by Harsha Walia in discussing autonomy and cross-cultural, colonial-based struggle:
“Non-natives must recognize our own role in perpetuating colonialism within our solidarity efforts. We can actively counter this by… discussing the nuanced issues of solidarity, leadership, strategy and analysis - not in abstraction, but within our real and informed and sustained relationships with Indigenous peoples.” (2012)

By respecting difference, even spatializing autonomy, settler peoples would do well to not transplant - to settle - their perceptions of autonomy, of solidarity, of leadership, and of strategy onto Indigenous movements. Alternatively in settler colonial contexts, anarchist struggles against colonial authority, and thus capitalistic systems, invariably require respectful engagement with Indigenous movements. This is integral if re-colonizing tendencies of anarchist movements--oftentimes primarily driven by European settlers--are to be prevented. Anarchist actors, especially when operating in settler colonial spaces, must understand the nuances of place specific histories and colonial processes. As Lasky suggests, there is “potential for directly relating to each other and changing our relationships with each other in ways that withdraw consent from ‘the system’ and re-creates alternatives that empower our collective personhoods now” (2011: np). As Alfred mentions however, Eurocentric tendencies have oftentimes perpetuated colonial relations of power. As a result, the very structures of oppression that anarchic thought starkly opposes, but also stemmed from, creep into relational geographies.

References

Alfred, T. (2010). Interview with Gerald Taiaiake Alfred about Anarchism and Indigenism in North

America. Retrieved from http://www.alpineanarchist.org/r_i_indigenism_english.html

Barker, A. (2012). Already Occupied: Indigenous Peoples, Settler Colonialism and the Occupy

Movements in North America. Social Movement Studies, 11(3-4), 327–334. doi:10.1080/14742837.2012.708922

Barker, A. J., & Pickerill, J. (2012). Radicalizing Relationships To and Through Shared Geographies: Why Anarchists Need to Understand Indigenous Connections to Land and Place. Antipode, 44(5), 1705–1725. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01031.x

Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Indigenous Nationhood Movement. (2015). About. Retrieved from http://nationsrising.org/about/

Lewis, A. (2012). Decolonizing anarchism: Expanding Anarcha-Indigenism in theory and practice (Masters thesis). Queen’s University, Kingston, ON. Retrieved from http://qspace.library.queensu.ca
 /bitstream/1974/7563/1/Lewis_Adam_G_201209_MA.pdf

Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Smith, A. (2006). Heteropatriarchy and the three pillars of white supremacy. In Incite! (Ed.), The colour of violence: The INCITE! anthology (pp. 66–73). Cambridge, UK: South End Press.

Walia, H. (2012). Decolonizing together: Moving beyond a politics of solidarity toward a practice of decolonization. Briar Patch, January/February. Retrieved from http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/decolonizing-together

[1] Adam (Lewis, 2012) explores this topic in depth.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

The Rothbardian Reconstruction of the Political Spectrum

 Via: ATS

Rothbard’s classic 1965 essay, “Left and Right: Prospects for Liberty,” is a must read for anarchists, libertarians, anti-statists, and decentralists of any species. This essay as much as any other really defines the historical context and trajectory of our common fight, irrespective of our other differences.

By Murray Rothbard
Mises Institute


[Originally appeared in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]

The Conservative has long been marked, whether he knows it or not, by long-run pessimism: by the belief that the long-run trend, and therefore Time itself, is against him, and hence the inevitable trend runs toward left-wing statism at home and Communism abroad. It is this long-run despair that accounts for the Conservative’s rather bizarre short-run optimism; for since the long run is given up as hopeless, the Conservative feels that his only hope of success rests in the current moment. In foreign affairs, this point of view leads the Conservative to call for desperate showdowns with Communism, for he feels that the longer he waits the worse things will ineluctably become; at home, it leads him to total concentration on the very next election, where he is always hoping for victory and never achieving it. The quintessence of the Practical Man, and beset by long-run despair, the Conservative refuses to think or plan beyond the election of the day.


Pessimism, however, both short-run and long-run, is precisely what the prognosis of Conservatism deserves; for Conservatism is a dying remnant of the ancien régime of the preindustrial era, and, as such, it has no future. In its contemporary American form, the recent Conservative Revival embodied the death throes of an ineluctably moribund, Fundamentalist, rural, small-town, white Anglo-Saxon America. What, however, of the prospects for liberty? For too many libertarians mistakenly link the prognosis for liberty with that of the seemingly stronger and supposedly allied Conservative movement; this linkage makes the characteristic long-run pessimism of the modern libertarian easy to understand. But this paper contends that, while the short-run prospects for liberty at home and abroad may seem dim, the proper attitude for the libertarian to take is that of unquenchable long-run optimism.

The case for this assertion rests on a certain view of history: which holds, first, that before the 18th century in Western Europe there existed (and still continues to exist outside the West) an identifiable Old Order. Whether the Old Order took the form of feudalism or Oriental despotism, it was marked by tyranny, exploitation, stagnation, fixed caste, and hopelessness and starvation for the bulk of the population. In sum, life was “nasty, brutish, and short”; here was Maine’s “society of status” and Spencer’s “military society.” The ruling classes, or castes, governed by conquest and by getting the masses to believe in the alleged divine imprimatur to their rule.
The Old Order was, and still remains, the great and mighty enemy of liberty; and it was particularly mighty in the past because there was then no inevitability about its overthrow. When we consider that basically the Old Order had existed since the dawn of history, in all civilizations, we can appreciate even more the glory and the magnitude of the triumph of the liberal revolution of and around the 18th century.

Part of the dimensions of this struggle has been obscured by a great myth of the history of Western Europe implanted by antiliberal German historians of the late 19th century. The myth held that the growth of absolute monarchies and of mercantilism in the early modern era was necessary for the development of capitalism, since these served to liberate the merchants and the people from local feudal restrictions. In actuality, this was not at all the case; the King and his nation-State served rather as a superfeudal overlord re-imposing and reinforcing feudalism just as it was being dissolved by the peaceful growth of the market economy. The King superimposed his own restrictions and monopoly privileges onto those of the feudal regime. The absolute monarchs were the Old Order writ large and made even more despotic than before. Capitalism, indeed, flourished earliest and most actively precisely in those areas where the central State was weak or non-existent: the Italian cities, the Hanseatic League, the confederation of 17th century Holland. Finally, the old order was overthrown or severely shaken in its grip in two ways. One was by industry and the market expanding through the interstices of the feudal order (e.g., industry in England developing in the countryside beyond the grip of feudal, State, and guild restrictions.) More important was a series of cataclysmic revolutions that blasted loose the Old Order and the old ruling classes: the English Revolutions of the 17th century, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, all of which were necessary to the ushering in of the Industrial Revolution and of at least partial victories for individual liberty, laissez-faire separation of church-and-state, and international peace. The society of status gave way, at least partially, to the “society of contract”; the military society gave way partially to the “industrial society.” The mass of the population now achieved a mobility of labor and place, and accelerating expansion of their living standards, for which they had scarcely dared to hope. Liberalism had indeed brought to the Western world not only liberty, the prospect of peace, and the rising living standards of an industrial society, but above all perhaps, it brought hope, a hope in ever-greater progress that lifted the mass of mankind out of its age-old sink of stagnation and despair.

Soon there developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies, centered around this new revolutionary phenomenon: the one was Liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was Conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the old order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with Liberalism on the extreme “Left,” and Conservatism on the extreme “Right,” of the ideological spectrum. That genuine Liberalism was essentially radical and revolutionary was brilliantly perceived, in the twilight of its impact, by the great Lord Acton (one of the few figures in the history of thought who, charmingly, grew more radical as he grew older). Acton wrote that “Liberalism wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is.” In working out this view, incidentally, it was Acton, not Trotsky, who first arrived at the concept of the “permanent revolution.” As Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, in her excellent study of Acton:
his philosophy develop(ed) to the point where the future was seen as the avowed enemy of the past, and where the past was allowed no authority except as it happened to conform to morality. To take seriously this Liberal theory of history, to give precedence to “what ought to be” over “what is,” was, he admitted, virtually to install a “revolution in permanence.”
The “revolution in permanence,” as Acton hinted in the inaugural lecture and admitted frankly in his notes, was the culmination of his philosophy of history and theory of politics… This idea of conscience, that men carry about with them the knowledge of good and evil, is the very root of revolution, for it destroys the sanctity of the past… “Liberalism is essentially revolutionary,” Acton observed. “Facts must yield to ideas. Peaceably and patiently if possible. Violently if not.” [1]
The Liberal, wrote Acton, far surpassed the Whig:
The Whig governed by compromise. The Liberal begins the reign of ideas… One is practical, gradual, ready for compromise. The other works out a principle philosophically. One is a policy aiming at a philosophy. The other is a philosophy seeking a policy. [2]
What happened to Liberalism? Why then did it decline during the nineteenth century? This question has been pondered many times, but perhaps the basic reason was an inner rot within the vitals of Liberalism itself. For, with the partial success of the Liberal Revolution in the West, the Liberals increasingly abandoned their radical fervor, and therefore their liberal goals, to rest content with a mere defense of the uninspiring and defective status quo. Two philosophical roots of this decay may be discerned: First, the abandonment of natural rights and “higher law” theory for utilitarianism. For only forms of natural or higher law theory can provide a radical base outside the existing system from which to challenge the status quo; and only such theory furnishes a sense of necessary immediacy to the libertarian struggle, by focussing on the necessity of bringing existing criminal rulers to the bar of justice. Utilitarians, on the other hand, in abandoning justice for expediency, also abandon immediacy for quiet stagnation and inevitably end up as objective apologists for the existing order.
The second great philosophical influence on the decline of Liberalism was evolutionism, or Social Darwinism, which put the finishing touches to Liberalism as a radical force in society. For the Social Darwinist erroneously saw history and society through the peaceful, rose-colored glasses of infinitely slow, infinitely gradual social evolution. Ignoring the prime fact that no ruling caste in history has ever voluntarily surrendered its power, and that therefore Liberalism had to break through by means of a series of revolutions, the Social Darwinists looked forward peacefully and cheerfully to thousands of years of infinitely gradual evolution to the next supposedly inevitable stage of individualism.

An interesting illustration of a thinker who embodies within himself the decline of Liberalism in the nineteenth century is Herbert Spencer. Spencer began as a magnificently radical liberal, indeed virtually a pure libertarian. But, as the virus of sociology and Social Darwinism took over in his soul, Spencer abandoned libertarianism as a dynamic historical movement, although at first without abandoning it in pure theory. In short, while looking forward to an eventual ideal of pure liberty, Spencer began to see its victory as inevitable, but only after millennia of gradual evolution, and thus, in actual fact, Spencer abandoned Liberalism as a fighting, radical creed; and confined his Liberalism in practice to a weary, rear-guard action against the growing collectivism of the late nineteenth-century. Interestingly enough, Spencer’s tired shift “rightward” in strategy soon became a shift rightward in theory as well; so that Spencer abandoned pure liberty even in theory e.g., in repudiating his famous chapter in Social Statics, “The Right to Ignore the State.”

In England, the classical liberals began their shift from radicalism to quasi-conservatism in the early nineteenth century; a touchstone of this shift was the general British liberal attitude toward the national liberation struggle in Ireland. This struggle was twofold: against British political imperialism, and against feudal landlordism which had been imposed by that imperialism. By their Tory blindness toward the Irish drive for national independence, and especially for peasant property against feudal oppression, the British liberals (including Spencer) symbolized their effective abandonment of genuine Liberalism, which had been virtually born in a struggle against the feudal land system. Only in the United States, the great home of radical liberalism (where feudalism had never been able to take root outside the South), did natural rights and higher law theory, and consequent radical liberal movements, continue in prominence until the mid-nineteenth century. In their different ways, the Jacksonian and Abolitionist movements were the last powerful radical libertarian movements in American life. [3]

Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a party of Hope in the Western world, no longer a “Left” movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: Socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.

In short, Russell Kirk, who claims that Socialism was the heir of classical liberalism, and Ronald Hamowy, who sees Socialism as the heir of Conservatism, are both right; for the question is on what aspect of this confused centrist movement we happen to be focussing. Socialism, like Liberalism and against Conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, Conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc. Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the Left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism: but especially the smashing of the State apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.” Interestingly enough, the very Marxian phrase, the “replacement of the government of men by the administration of things,” can be traced, by a circuitous route, from the great French radical laissez-faire liberals of the early nineteenth century, Charles Comte (no relation to Auguste Comte) and Charles Dunoyer. And so, too, may the concept of the “class struggle”; except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen vs. workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus. [4] Saint-Simon, at one time in his confused and chaotic life, was close to Comte and Dunoyer and picked up his class analysis from them, in the process characteristically getting the whole thing balled up and converting businessmen on the market, as well as feudal landlords and others of the State privileged, into “exploiters.” Marx and Bakunin picked this up from the Saint-Simonians, and the result gravely misled the whole Left Socialist movement; for, then, in addition to smashing the repressive State, it became supposedly necessary to smash private capitalist ownership of the means of production. Rejecting private property, especially of capital, the Left Socialists were then trapped in a crucial inner contradiction: if the State is to disappear after the Revolution (immediately for Bakunin, gradually “withering” for Marx), then how is the “collective” to run its property without becoming an enormous State itself in fact even if not in name? This was a contradiction which neither the Marxists nor the Bakuninists were ever able to resolve.

READ MORE HERE

Monday, March 9, 2015

NATA-NY Interviews Stomp Out Child Abuse (S.O.C.A.) Founder


Please introduce yourself and describe your organization, Stomp Out Child Abuse(SOCA).


I’m Dennis, co-founder of S.O.C.A. (Stomp Out Child Abuse). We are a direct action organization whose purpose is to raise awareness against child abuse & molestation.


How did the organization get started? Who are the founders, and when did this project begin?


We started in September of 2014 out of the need to bring a loud voice for children. It seems like abuse and molestation are society's dirty little secret that no one really wants to talk about or address. Me & Kel, the 2 founders of this group, decided that it was time for a serious change...not only from society but from the failure to prosecute to the light sentencing / protective custody / early release of these offenders.


Describe of the methods and approaches of SOCA. How exactly does the organization help victims of child abuse?


Our methods vary. We post fliers near schools advising of how many registered sex offenders are in the area, we do clothing drives for local abuse shelters and we are just done ordering free fingerprinting kits that we will be handing out to families. We are also building up to doing fundraisers for abuse shelters and for other groups that help with sexual trauma counseling. As far as helping victims goes, we offer to help the victims in whatever way they need. We do everything from helping them locate proper counseling services to accompanying them to court to teaching self defense to helping rebuild self confidence to showing them that there are people in this world who aren't afraid of predators of children and women.


What are some of SOCA’s biggest successes, in your opinion?


For me, I consider any help with victims we do a success. The one that means the most to me is victims actually reaching out for help. It’s been proven that a victim opening up about abuse can be just as traumatic as the actual crime itself. For someone to finally open up and come forward takes an amazing amount of courage and allows them the ability to finally reach out and get the help they need before they let it destroy them from the inside out .


What is your perception of government agencies like Child Protective Services (CPS)? Do these state organizations ever cause more harm than good?


CPS has proven to be a more of a business and less of an agency that protects children. All anyone has to do is do a simple search to find horror story after horror story after horror story. They seem to be doing a lot more damage these days than good .


What do you think the role of volunteer, community-based efforts against child abuse should be? Do you believe that grassroots efforts can be more effective than bureaucratic state-run programs?


I wholeheartedly believe grassroots activism accomplishes much more than any program that is involved with bureaucracy. With any kind of government involvement, you have red tape, politics, favoritism, nepotism and have to get approval from 50 people and a legal department just to say hi to someone...let alone actually offer to help them.


Based on your knowledge and experience, what role do global elites (e.g. political, corporate, religious, etc.) play in child exploitation, trafficking rings, and other systemic abuse operations?


Based on what has been coming to light, I’d say sexual abuse and torture is more prevalent then people would ever believe. For anyone reading this who has a doubt, go to youtube.com and look up the Franklin / Boys Town pedophile sex ring documentary and they will be disgusted, if not surprised. If no one has heard, members of England's royal family have been INDICTED by a world court for child rape / child torture / ritual child murder. Prince Andrew is being exposed now for soliciting a 15 year old sex slave who is now providing times/dates/places, and her pimp has already been convicted. Hollywood is finally catching karma as childhood victims of sex abuse by the famous & wealthy are now stepping out of the shadows and confronting their abusers....AND THERE ARE CONVICTIONS. The only difference between these elites and “regular” pedophiles is the amount of money and attorneys they have to protect them, keep them out of courts and threaten the victims. Lord willing, all who prey on children will be exposed and justice will be served.


How has the general public responded to SOCA’s mission and work?


SOCA has been met with an unbelievable amount of positive responses to our presence. From bikers to punks to skins to blue collar families to moms/dads to grandparents, people have approached us to find out who we are and what we are about. Once we explain, the responses have varied from shaking hands/hugs to requesting cards that they could hand out to people they know. We do get quite a lot of people who try donating money to us, be we refuse every time. Our purpose isn't to make money, it’s to raise awareness and get people motivated to help make a change. There are a million other groups who would benefit from donations more than we could and offer therapeutic & counseling services.


We’ve heard that the organization RASH (Red Anarchist Skinheads) has presented SOCA with opposition. Could you describe their criticism and explain the effects of this controversy?


The situation with RASH is both disgusting & ridiculous. Several weeks ago, several of our members started being approached by people who knew these mentally deficient wannabes. My understanding is that RASH has been defending pedophilia & pedophiles and claim that we are simply picking on them and that we are "in their realm". The very same day, we were warned that anytime RASH sees anyone wearing a SOCA patch, they will assault them and remove their patch. SOCA has NO POLITICAL or RELIGIOUS VIEWS AS AN ORGANIZATION. We have members from ALL political viewpoints/affiliations and religions ranging from Christians/Satanist/Asatru/Buddhist/atheist. I knew that once religion & politics were set aside, we could accomplish anything we set our minds to...and we have. RASH, on the other hand, is what is commonly referred to these days as Left Wingnuts or Duh Leftwaffe. They believe in a diseased and corrupted ideology that has killed 50 million people worldwide since its inception. They would like to see anyone who doesn't agree with them dead and have become prone to attacking people who they don't agree with. I once saw a RASH member assault an elderly truck driver after ordering him to take off his "nazi hat"...the "nazi hat" was a POW/MIA hat with the driver's military tabs/buttons on his hat . Anyone can think or believe in whatever they like, that's what makes America great...but when you start talking about attacking people whose sole purpose is to raise awareness against child abuse and help victims of it , it makes you really start to wonder what their true purpose is. I digress as I’ve already given these clowns about 25 more sentences then they are truly worth .


How can interested parties get involved with your organization, or help with the cause as individuals?


For anyone who is interested in joining or helping out, they can reach out to us several ways. The two easiest methods are these: Locate SOCA Family group on Facebook and leave a message OR they can go to our website, where they can locate their closest chapter on our chapter link page.


What else would you like to add?


We would like to thank you for taking the time to interview us and help us get the word out. We'd like to thank anyone/everyone across the world who fights to help & protect children and would like to see sexual assaults be a thing of the past. We would like to applaud everyone who can look the ugly truth in the face and take up the challenge of changing it. I’d personally like to thank every member of SOCA & Odin's Children who have just been the most amazing people I've ever known and am proud/honored to call my family every day. We'd like to thank the bands on our family webpage who have had the courage to stand with us side-by-side and represented us. But, we'd especially like to thank the following businesses who have had our back since the beginning and are DIRECTLY responsible for us still being here and as large & growing as we are:


Hubie & Hooligan Street Merch
-&-
Dave & Never Surrender Records


One last thing, in the next 90 days, we will be releasing a Double CD compilation from bands all over the world who have joined us in our mission. From punk to oi to hardcore, we have those bases covered. After recouping the manufacturing costs, EVERY PENNY will be going to an a group called Safe Horizon who does truly amazing work. Please stop by and check them out at SafeHorizon.Org

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Nationalism & Class Struggle


By Eugène Montsalvat
via: counter-currents.com
 
Father Charles E. Coughlin: Social Justice Warrior
Father Charles E. Coughlin: Social Justice Warrior

Today, the Right finds itself in a revolutionary situation. All of the mechanisms of power have been seized by a hostile elite. The economy, government, and academia are solely in the hands of corporate internationalists or full scale multiculturalists.
In its economic dimension, capital is aligned against the interests of nationalists, the traditionally religious, and the workers. Capital is international, the common people are patriotic. The capitalist has no country. He can move to whatever location suits him and take his wealth with him. He has no need to develop any loyalty to a nation. As Alain Soral notes in the essay “Class Struggle Within Socialism,” “internationalism which is, on the contrary, the main characteristic of the traveling elites and the nomadic manipulators, doing their businesses above the people’s head, who, due to their Praxis, are fairly immobile and rooted.”

Thus the war of classes is also a war of cultures. Cultural globalization and economic globalization go hand in hand. The sole beneficiary of both is capital. The battle lines are forming: liberal, capitalist internationalists versus conservative, populist nationalists. Of course, at the moment the latter has yet to organize to the extent that the former has.
Much has been written about the failure of the Right to transcend the capitalists versus communists dialectic of the Cold War. It will suffice to say that this failure has hampered the development of a truly nationalist Right since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Left has adapted well to the global realignment, internationalist Trotskyites simply became neo-conservatives or found fruitful employment in the advertising departments of global fashion corporations.
One ray of hope on the Right has been the recalibration of the Front National’s economic policies from neoliberalism in the late 1970s and 1980s to protectionism. In doing so, they have developed a new appeal to the patriotic workers of France. Today a significant group of major Left-wing union members support the Front National. French Leftist journal L’Humanité published a poll showing that one third of Force Ouvrière supported Front National, closely followed by the l’Union Syndicale Solidaires at 27%, and the Confédération Générale du Travail at 22%.

While this move can be attributed to the reconciliation between labor and the Front National, the Left’s betrayal of the class struggle cannot be downplayed. The French Communist Party under Georges Marchais opposed mass immigration, and Marchais himself had little time for New Leftists like Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Today the French Communist party supports immigration, gay marriage, and other concerns of the chattering classes, it is mostly indistinguishable from the other socially liberal parties in the country. In this rare instance, the French Right has acclimated to the new political realities better than the French Left. They have reached out to abandoned French workers with a nationalist economic theory, one the fights the global plutocracy.
There is still much to be done. The alliance between patriots and labor is still fairly embryonic at this time. Moreover, much of the fault still lies with the Right. The Left has done everything in their power to show that they no longer care about the common man. They spit on his faith, his country, his family, and everything he held sacred. They have become embroiled in concerns about race or sexuality that have zero bearing on the average life of a transit worker.

In a eulogy to the union leader Bob Crow, Spectator columnist Ed West said, “it’s funny that most people who consider themselves vaguely leftie or at least holding the ‘correct’ views have zero sympathy for the Tube strikers . . . That’s the curious thing; judging by the world of commentary, most Left-wing people are basically more interested in debating intersectionality or microaggressions or their own genitals, irrelevant and meaningless twaddle that future generations will laugh at.”
In truth, today’s Leftist elites are just as alienated from the working class as their putative enemies the plutocrats, and just as willing to replace them with more grateful peasants from the Third World.
In the face of this immense betrayal, the Right has thus far failed to seize an opportunity, out of what appears to be little more than mere snobbery. Even in “alternative” Right-wing circles, the intellectuals imagine themselves as aristocrats of the pen who refuse to consort with plebeians.
But history provides many examples of genuine aristocrats fighting alongside workers and peasants. In French Revolution, workers and peasants were underrepresented among the bloodthirsty Jacobins and bankers and lawyers overrepresented. The aristocrat Henri de la Rochejaquelein rallied an army of peasants in the Vendée to resist the bourgeois revolutionaries who fattened themselves off the seizure of church property, much of which had been devoted to helping the poor.
The past has seen many movements that fought greed with patriotism. While these ended in defeat, there is much to be learned from their struggles. The National Revolutionaries in Weimar Germany are a fruitful case study. Like the nationalists of today, they found their country dominated by a hostile, foreign elite. The old conservatism of the Kaiserreich was insufficient for their purposes. Seeing that the Communists were stepping into the power vacuum, they sought to offer a new nationalism to the workers, one that would turn the revolution of 1918 towards a higher ideal. Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck reached out to the workers in his 1923 book Germany’s Third Empire:

In its need the proletariat is seeking new leaders. It is beginning to realize that these can only be found amongst men who have no mind to be proletarians. We cannot ask that the proletariat accept the leadership of that generation which lost the war and against whom the radicals carried out the revolution; but a new generation is coming on. The men of the new generation will not endorse the revolution, but they will accept the mental revolution that has taken place. They owe no loyalty to the age of William II, whose greatest crime was that it allowed conservative forms to fall into decay. No barrier severs the new generation from the proletariat.
The German working man must recognize that he, who was said to possess no fatherland, today possesses nothing else.[1]

Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck sought to seize the opportunity presented by the defeat of Germany and fall of the monarchy to realize a national revolution. He stated, “Even the world revolution can only be realized nationally. Each nation has its own particular mission. We believe that it is the mission of the German nation to translate the world revolution into the salvation of Europe.” Rather than accepting the class politics of the Marxists and the failed monarchy, he realized that the workers were a part of the nation, and therefore part of the national mission. He correctly identified liberalism, synonymous for all practical purposes with capitalism, as the death of nations. Van Den Bruck’s basic criticisms of capitalism and conservatism, infused with a nationalist spirit, laid the foundations for a rich body of Conservative Revolutionary thought.

Within this milieu the worker was given a transformed, indeed a transcendent meaning in Ernst Jünger’s treatises, Der Arbeiter [The Worker] and Total Mobilization. While Der Arbeiter has not been translated into English, there is commentary available which allows us to grasp the essence of the piece. The worker is a heroic figure, a new titan. His actions are as much metaphysical as they are material. The worker is essential to the process overcoming the industrial bourgeois society to reach a state of total mobilization. He is the builder of the new civilization with a higher ideal, a warrior of industry. His worker stands in direct contrast with the bürger type, who seeks tranquility and security above all. He stated, “Our belief is that the rise of the worker is synonymous with a new ascent of Germany.”[2]

This fusion of labor and nationalism was developed further by Ernst Jünger’s friend and colleague Ernst Niekisch, founder of the journal Widerstand [Resistance], to which Jünger contributed. Niekisch is considered the founding father of National Bolshevism, merging nationalism with radical anti-capitalism and socialism. He saw the German bourgeoisie and their political mainstream as treasonous, working with the victors of World War I for their own financial gain. He viewed the resistance of German nationalists as a resistance against international capitalism, and favored withdrawal from the international Western economy and turning towards an alliance with the Soviet Union.

The alliance of pro-labor politics and nationalism had an influence on the National Socialists as well, most prominently with Strasserism and Ernst Röhm’s calls for a “Second Revolution” to sweep the pre-war financial elite from power. However, the ossification of National Socialism after Hitler’s centralization of power resulted in the end of Conservative Revolutionary Movement. The Strasser brothers and Röhm were purged from the Nazi party. Niekisch was imprisoned. Germany went on to defeat in World War II, and the literature of the Conservative Revolutionary Movement was viewed with much suspicion in the postwar era.

It is not unreasonable to say that proletarian nationalism was a major faction of the interwar Right. Even in America anti-capitalist nationalism found expression in the mass audience of Father Coughlin’s radio broadcasts and his periodical Social Justice.
With the end of the Cold War, there is really no more reason for nationalists to pay tribute to capitalism. The capitalists have no interest in faith, family, tradition, or anything that speaks to the soul of common man. It is time for the nationalist Right to develop ties with labor unions and syndicates, to join hands with fighters against globalization, privatization, and plundering of the environment. To fight the forces of evil.
As Ezra Pound said, “No! it is not money that is the root of the evil. The root is greed, the lust for monopoly. ‘CAPTANS ANNONAM, MALEDICTUS IN PLEBE SIT!’ thundered St. Ambrose—’Hoggers of harvest, cursed among the people!’” It is time for the people to break the curse of finance.
Notes
1. Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck, Germany’s Third Empire (London: Arktos, 2012), pp. 148–49.
2. From p. 122 of Der Arbeiter, cited in Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 103.

Procés Embat: The desire for anarchist organisation

Via:anarkismo.net


Carlos Taibo recently defended the need for a nation or iberian wide anarchist organisation to unite, consolidate and give greater resonance to anarchist activism (click here). This latter is weakened by dispersion, above all in the face of more organised movements or political parties that endeavour to absorb and assimilate grass roots social movements grounded in direct action. If the context for Taibo’s intervention is spain, similar appear to have surfaced in greece. And Syriza and spain’s Podemos, are perhaps on the “left” the immediate menace to a politics of generalised autonomy, for they present themselves as the representative voices of social movements.

In spain, this idea gains concrete expression in something that has came to be called Procés Embat, originating among catalan libertarian in 2013, and today engendering similar initiatives elsewhere.

Procés Embat is a network of social militants of the libertarian tradition, who have started with the objective to articulate a social trend, organised and willing to contribute to, from a libertarian perspective, the development of the popular movement and the empowerment of the people to achieve a sovereign Catalonia through the development of popular power for greater economic and political democracy.

Procés Embat is not the desired organisation finalised, but a process towards such an organisation, a process that will require extensive debate and reflection. The ambition is not to create a vanguard, but a more incisive network of activists who can “push for the necessary organs for our daily revolutionary practice and accompany the popular sectors and workers in their struggles, while maintaining strategies and resources for the short, medium and long term.”

If we raised questions regarding Taibo’s proposal, it was not to dismiss it (click here). And our attitude remains the same in this instance. Below, we publish in translation an interview accorded to the CNT newspaper by militants of the initiative, to further clarify views and positions.

For the activists of Procés Embat, anarchism today lacks organisation. It tends to it, but it is not yet so. Those who consider themselves libertarians are disorganised, or organised according to personal affinities and not on the basis of defined political positions. This considerably weakens the potential of anarchist ideas and practices, tactics and strategies, and socio-political goals. The aim then is to seek a greater organisational coherence, rooted in practice and not ideology, so as to be able to influence, even shape, broader social movements. “Power should be in the streets, this is our role. To help organise society.”

But is the movement in fact disorganised? Or is its dispersion not a sign of its intrinsic plurality, rather than a symptom of disorder? And what is an anarchist organisation beyond relations of affinity? (For a discussion of anarchism and friendship, click here). Is there not a danger here of institutionalisation, bureaucratisation, in sum, vanguardism? If an anarchist group or movement engages in a politics of creating autonomy in the here and now, that autonomy is inevitably plural. And what organisation is necessary will presumably come from within the plurality according to felt needs and desires. Is not then the effort at organisation on a national scale the effort to give a unity where not only is there none, but where it is not seen to be possible or necessary?

Again, these questions are not intended to be read as a rejection of the initiative. There are more than enough reasons to be interested in it, and thus our concern. But the hesitations, the doubts, are born of ideas expressed not only today, but by older controversies. We may conclude by citing Gustav Landauer.

… this is yet another crucial fallacy: that one can – or must – bring anarchism to the world; that anarchy is an affair of all of humanity; that there will indeed be a day of judgment followed by a millennial era. Those who want “to bring freedom to the world” – which will always be their idea of freedom – are tyrants, not anarchists. Anarchy will never be a matter of the masses, it will never be established by means of military attack or armed revolt, just as the ideal of federalist socialism will never be reached by waiting until the already accumulated capital and the title of the land will fall into the people’s hands. Anarchy is not a matter of the future; it is a matter of the present. It is not a matter of making demands; it is a matter of how one lives. Anarchy is not about the nationalization of the achievements of the past but about a new people arising from humble beginnings in small communities that form in the midst of the old: an inward colonization. Anarchy is not about a struggle between classes – the dispossessed against the possessors – but about free, strong, and sovereign individuals breaking free from mass culture and uniting in new forms. The old opposition between destruction and construction begins to lose its meaning: what is at stake are new forms that have never been.

The interview follows …

Procés Embat presented itself recently in society with the intention of articulating an organised anarchism. In the following interview, they tell us of their vision of the current libertarian movement and their intentions with this new project.

Question. – How does the Procés Embat arise? Why this name?

Response. – Those of us who initiated this Procés Embat felt the necessity of articulating an organized response to the problems of our society in our time. That is to say, to escape from the typical finalisms of revolutionary ideologies and apply our values here and now in an organisational process centred in the social sphere.

We met many who had abandoned the movement, or were in the process of doing so, dispersed in numerous social platforms, movements and organisations, sometimes unrelated to the libertarian. It was a matter of re-establishing contact with these people and to continue contributing to their own struggles, but working from a libertarian perspective, for in spite of the distance we noticed that they continued to work within our own desires.

Embat means blow, or shock, in English, like the shock of a wave against a rocky shore. We believe that the name graphically captures what we wanted to mean, as much for the current libertarian movement as for the social movements.

Q. – We speak of the need for an organised anarchism. But does it not already exist?

R. – Anarchism is not organised. It tends towards organisation, but it is not. Relative to the social sphere, it is organised uniquely in anarcho-syndicalism. But beyond that, the movement is profoundly atomised, with each one acting very much in her/his own space, without their being the possibility of responding as a movement. We believe that we are still in a stage of collectives and not of organisations. That is to say, that those who consider themselves libertarians became disorganised or organised by personal affinities (and not on the basis of political positions), active in small collectives of a local ambit. Some dedicate themselves to cultural activites, others to managing a space (cultural associations and social centres), others to their neighbourhood and others to social questions. There are however more general ambits of work, such as for example, how to give a libertarian response to the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), how to intervene in the issue of housing, what response do we have as a movement to health, retirement pensions, education, unemployment, etc. These are matters that concern us all and the responses that we offer are fragmentary and even at times contradictory. What work is pursued in this direction is not the outcome of efforts on the part of the libertarian movement, but of the organisations of social movements, with the exception of anarcho-syndicalism. We therefore believe that it is necessary to generate this space which presently does not exist.

At present, there exist ever more coordinating bodies of collectives and groups. We think that it is a step forward in the direction of constructing organisations. Nevertheless, we do not believe that it is a solution. We have in fact participated in various efforts at coordination. All failed for the same reason: the absence of shared political positions. Each group thought differently, and even within each group there were divergent positions and this made it practically impossible to arrive at agreements of any importance. Whatever positive that emerged would remain at the level of creating newspapers, making posters, organising campaigns, calling for demonstrations and little more. Of course, this coordinating activity served to meet new comrades, to see with whom you can work and to initiate lines of activity. But having reached this point, we believe that we have arrived at the moment of organisations, in the plural, depending on different tactical and strategic positions or the way of functioning.

Q. – Is there any experience at the national or global level that has motivated you to set out on this process?

R. – Nationally, there are very few. The greatest influence upon comes comes from the social anarchism of Latin America, represented by the FAU (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya) of Uruguay and the FAG (Federação Anarquista Gaúcha), of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), and the long list of organisation that they have generated in the last decade. But despite that, we do not follow them to the letter. We want as our point of departure a close territorial reality. Consequently importing models from the past or from other territories makes little sense.

In fact, we find greater inspiration in the social and popular struggles of Chiapas, of Oaxaca, of the peasants of Columbia, of Kurdistan, in the student movement of Chile, etc., than in the local or international libertarian movement of the last years. Our movement must be adapted to the times, to the organisational traditions and to the struggle of the territory.

Q. – Why until today are anarchist ideas far from, no longer of acquiring relevance, but of winning sympathy in society?

R. – We don’t think that we give rise to excessive antipathies; on the contrary, many people approach us who find in a utopian movement. And this is what is sad, that we don’t give the feeling that one day we could realise our end goals and sometimes we also give the sensation that we don’t believe that we can either. During approximately three decades, the libertarian movement lived closed in upon itself. First in anarcho-syndicalism and its internal conflict, after in the counter-culture and the okupation movement. In each domain, anarchism was too weak to provide a response to the problems of society.

But we believe that we have traveled far. The atmosphere is not as strained as in other times and there are many libertarian people who became active in the last years, with a profound change that is noticeable in the movement. It is then from optimism, humility, militant work, openness, direct contact with social struggles, that we can again gain the sympathies of society.

Q. – However, it can be said of many initiatives of a social character that they drink from libertarian principles. Look at 15M …

R. – 15M is the confirmation that an important part of society has affinities with libertarian ideas. But to have an affinity is not to be a libertarian; it does not have to want the final goals of anarchism. That was the task of the libertarian movement. Anarchist ideas impregnate the fabric of struggles, but there is always someone who tries to appropriate them as if they belonged to their own tradition. It is like the old revolutionary syndicalism that was created at the margins of Marxism and anarchism, and that thanks to the work of very many libertarian activists it ended up being a movement associated with anarchism. In this case, we have to think that movements are not neutral; that in all of them are activists from all of the political parties and that each has their own agenda. Ours is to have social movements be autonomous, independent of parties. And having attained that, we are succeeding, in that in the future this movement will be an ally of the libertarian movement.

Q. – Do you believe that the libertarian movement has in recent times sinned due to an excessive dogmatism? What are the principal weaknesses and strengths that you see in it?

R. – The dogmatism of the libertarian movement we see confirmed in its excess of ideology. In the face of any problem, a collation of principles is reached for. And the principles often impede action in conformity with what reality demands. Accordingly, we want to centre ourselves in practice. A practice based on principles, of course, but also a strategy to attain some objectives. That is why our organisation will be comprised of activists, of persons who militate in movements and who share in the daily struggles of society. That is, we speak of anarchism as a socio-political movement and not only as an ideology. To close oneself in the ideology has been above all an excuse to avoid a reality that was to us adverse. As everything which surrounds us is contrary to our principles, we don’t act and we criticise from our spaces, from within our spaces of comfort. We believe that we have to break with this dynamic and confront the problems that surround us, even equivocally if necessary. Anarchism is a tool for liberation and if it ceases to be so, then it will be no more than a pose.

Q. – What opinion do you have of political organisations such as Podemos or Ganemos [a series of radical political municipalist movements seeking power at the local city level. In some cases, they have allied themselves with Podemos for the upcoming spanish municipal elections. For example, Ganemos Madrid] ? They have in same way taken our territory? How do we recuperate it?

R. – They are expressions of discontent in society. Before the lack of evident victories in the street, people move towards electoral politics. In this case, new versions of a parliamentary left appear. The libertarian of course opposes the electoral game as the easy solution and denounces that electoralism forgets what is truly important: to empower the people. We do not believe that one can attain a great deal through the institutions, given that those who hold power in this country are the capitalists, and not those who govern. Local governments have relatively limited power and what they can realise will be meagre. But neither will we remain with our arms crossed and letting a moment pass without struggling, without carrying with us the demands of people to their end and also proposing new, more ambitious, ends. Power should be in the streets, and that is our role: to help organise society.

Q. – You present yourselves as ambitious … What objectives would you like to reach with this initiative? What will be the stages to attain them?

R. – Let us make it clear that for the moment we are a process of organisation and not an organisation formally constituted. This occurred when different groups that constitute Embat so decided. We have a long journey before us, but recently we have noticed a significant acceleration. In any case, what must grow is not our organisation in itself, but the influence of our ideas and our ways of acting within the social and popular movements. If we can count on some well politicised and autonomous social movements, and furthermore organised between them, we will have something like an organised people. The role of organised anarchism should be that of catalyst and motor of initiatives and that of avoiding the recuperation of struggles by other political movements. At that moment, we will be in a new stage of struggles in this country.

Published: Peridico CNT n° 415 – January 2015

Saturday, March 7, 2015

NATA-NY @ Shutdown AIPAC Washington D.C. March 2015

Several Neturei Karta Anti-Zionist Jews protesting outside the AIPAC Conference





NATA at AIPAC stands with Neturei Karta and other antizionists


Zionist salutes "Old Glory"


Zionists appropriating the American flag with their Israel  First agenda


Zionists fly IDF flag.


A Zionist group from our neck of the woods


Real 1%ers know better than to support Israel, unlike this weekend warrior.




Heavy police presence surrounding Neturei Karta






NATA stands with Neturei Karta


No police presence surrounding Zionists


The great Patriot John Wilkes Booth


Sic Semper Tyrannis


Red Terror


NATA at FBI