 |
Note:
This is a lightly-edited transcript of a radio
presentation on "9/11 In Context" on the Resistance
Radio Network on December 9, 2010
Today’s show
I’ve titled “The Global Fascist Terror State,” and this is my term for
what I think is under construction, and well along the way toward
realization. Today’s program is a continuation of the program I did a
couple of weeks ago, on “Planning, Propaganda, and Purposes.” I ran out
of time and I didn’t finish with everything I had to say about the
purposes behind the attacks; in fact I just sort of got started. So
today I would like to carry on with my discussion of purposes.
So I’ve got some ideas that I’ve been working with for a long time,
trying to explain to myself what’s going on. I talked a couple of weeks
ago about the dual nature of the objectives. The Global War on
Terrorism that was launched by 9/11 has both an external purpose and an
internal purpose. An external purpose of waging war anywhere in the
world for purposes of conquest, conquest of resources, space, control,
all of that, to govern the “ungoverned spaces” that they’re worried
about. But then internally as well, a major focus of the false-flag
attack of 9/11, in my view, was to enable states to massively increase
control of their domestic populations. This is mainly what I want to
talk about today. I have a few more things to say about the external
purposes, however, before I go on to the internal ones. And they’re
connected. The achievement of both sets of these purposes, internal and
external, will allow the construction of this global control system,
that I call a Global Fascist Terror State.
My contention is that there is really only one enemy in the eyes of the
planners and propagandists and perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. And
that that enemy is the working class, the world’s population,
basically. The “working class” is a technical term; I will define it.
It doesn’t just mean blue collar workers; it means virtually everyone
who lives on the planet, the vast majority of people, who do not have
independent wealth and have to work for a living, have to sell their
ability to work to some buyer of their labor in order to get a job and
get the money they need to live. Anybody who’s in that situation,
whether they’re high-paid or low-paid, is in the working class. So I’m
going to make a case today that the principal target of the 9/11
attacks is the working class.
This is a different sort of an approach from that taken by most folks.
It’s an outgrowth of my own personal history and things I’ve studied
and learned over the decades. I think it’s a plausible analysis and I
want to lay it out for you and you guys can evaluate it. I’ve put links
up for today’s show at the usual place, the Resistance Radio Forum
(http://www.resistradio.com/forum/4-shows/63-9ic-the-global-fascist-terror-state-129-links).
I want to talk a little bit more about the ideas of Zbigniew
Brzezinski, whose book in 1997, The Grand Chessboard, laid out a
long-term plan, a long-term strategy for the United States. And really,
when that book was published the US was already well-advanced along
this line. He was really rather articulating a consensus, I believe.
The consensus he articulated was the notion of controlling Central
Asia. And the purpose of controlling Central Asia was that any power
which did control Central Asia would be able to dominate the entire
region called Eurasia. It’s like a “two-continental” region, a vast
portion of Europe, plus all of Asia, Eurasia. It’s everything to the
east of Germany and Poland, all the way to the Pacific coast, is the
way Brzezinski defines Eurasia. So he felt that a power which
controlled Central Asia would really be able to dominate Eurasia.
The US is already well underway in establishing control of Central
Asia. Central Asia are the “Stans”; I think Afghanistan properly is one
of them, but this is Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan,
and Tajikistan. These were former Soviet Republics in the USSR which
became independent when the USSR fell apart. The plan was to peel these
countries off from Russian control, to take them out of the Russian
zone of influence, so to speak. The US has already essentially done
this; we have now military bases in all these countries. Right after
Brzezinski’s book came out in ’97, the US Congress in March 1999 passed
a major bill called The Silk Road Strategy Act, and this laid out in
Congressional formulations basically the same strategy that Brzezinski
wrote about in his book, and so his strategy has been formally adopted
by the United States government, there’s no doubt about this.
Here the idea is that the US, by controlling Central Asia, would be
able to control the flow of natural gas and oil in whatever direction
it desired, it would reduce Russia’s influence over these resources, it
would be able to control what kind of access China would have to these.
Brzezinski’s big notion is, that if you control Eurasia you control the
world. And he has an argument to back that up. Brzezinski considered
Russia, at that time, the mid-90s, the greater threat to the United
States, United States “interests”, that is. And so the book is
formulated with Russia in the center more than China. A lot of the
goals that he laid out have been achieved, or are in process of being
achieved, and so we’re in a later phase now, another fifteen years,
approximately, down the line, and in that period China has surged
upward in prominence and power. And probably right now the planners are
looking more closely at China than Russia, as the recent ramping-up of
tensions with China that you may have noticed, especially around what
is happening in the Koreas, indicates.
Now, let’s see, the US has got military bases in Central Asia, and we
also have bilateral relations with the rulers of each of these Central
Asian countries. And although Russia still has relations with these
countries as well, we’ve definitely moved in on Russia there, and it’s
sort of a mixed situation there, [as to] how complete US control will
be. This is forcing Russia to look more toward Western Europe for its
economic activity, its trade and sales, and it doesn’t have access to
the resources in Central Asia to the degree that it did before, so it
has forced Russia to change its orientation, it has sort of put Russia
back on its heels. It’s also allowed US corporations to have access to
these Central Asian countries, and has permitted US-run agencies like
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to penetrate and
offer [so-called] “aid” and loans. And it’s even involved the
“dollarization” of these countries, that is, some of them have given up
their national currencies and have just adopted the dollar as their
money. So it’s a very deep penetration.
Brzezinski’s book is pretty extraordinary, and it’s an interesting read
in Machiavellian thought in the modern context for anybody. It’s worth
checking out. I’ve got a few passages, I thought I’d try this, I
haven’t done this before but I thought I’d try a read you a few
passages that are interesting. He introduces the language of “Pearl
Harbor”, the concept of Pearl Harbor, early in the book, on page 24 he
says:
“"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of
American power has been … ambivalent. The public supported America's
engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)
So here’s he laying out an element in his argument that such a shock
effect may be necessary to launch the kind of control [in Central Asia]
that he forsees as necessary for the US. And then he says:
“How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's
largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates
Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and
economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests
that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's
subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania
geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75
per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's
physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and
underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's
GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
(p.31)
So here he’s laying out the stakes here, this is the Big Prize. Whoever
controls this, and if it’s the US, which already controls the Western
Hemisphere, then you’ve got it all locked up. Whoever controls Eurasia
controls the world, especially if the US can pull it off.
And then he says:
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be
autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially
its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist
democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is
not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a
sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic
well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and
the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers)
required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts.
Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
He’s stating these things as facts. The perspective is that this is not
good. He’s complaining, he’s arguing against these restrictions on what
he calls “military intimidation.” Military intimidation is a positive
for Brzezinski.
Then he translates his notions into the language of an earlier period.
He says:
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of
ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy
are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the
vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the
barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
But then he says,
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society,
it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy
issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely
perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
So you can see how Machiavellian his thought is. And in November 2001,
right after September 11th happened, Michael C. Ruppert published an
article on the subject of Brzezinski’s book, and he went further and he
quoted [from an interview he did] with a German, a former German
defense ministry official who had also been in NATO, associated with a
former Director General of NATO, Manfred Woerner, and this guy,
Johannes Koeppl, had had contact with Brzezinski in the ‘80s and the
‘90s, and he realized in the ‘80s that he was a madman and that he was
planning global domination. And he spoke out about it and his career
was destroyed, he was locked out of his diplomatic career after that.
Ruppert interviewed him, and Johannes Koeppl had this to say about
Brzezinski. This is after 9/11 happened; he says:
“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The
Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller -
and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to
implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are
not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.
"This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the
citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear
that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is
a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years.
There may not be another chance."
Well, this fellow, Johannes Koeppl, he’s not a radical, I don’t even
know if he’s a liberal, he’s someone who saw what was going on and
spoke the truth about it, and I think his view has to be taken very
seriously. I especially feel that way because it coincides with my own
view. I think that he basically goes right to the heart of the
situation. 9/11 for him was a wake-up call, and it has been for many of
us.
The enemy in the War on Terrorism is the people. It’s quite a
remarkable situation to contemplate. We didn’t imagine our society was
like this in earlier years. But now apparently we’re in a new
situation. How could it be that the enemy of the United States, and of
all the countries in the world, is their own people, that is, the
people of the world? Well, actually, one thing that we need to wake up
to, and that I want to devote today’s show to, is that this is actually
a natural outgrowth of the nature of our society, our capitalist
society. This capitalist society that we’re living in now has been in a
situation of crisis, economic crisis, since about 1970. It’s been a
long series of crises, which I’ll go into. So that now, the inherent
tensions within capitalist society, which is a class society, with
classes opposed to one another, one class trying to survive, the other
class trying to dominate completely, these inherent tensions and the
internal contradictions that are always present in capitalist society
have reached a very extreme pitch.
So I want to talk about capitalism a little bit, and talk about the two
classes that are contending in this situation, and why one class, the
people of the world, is the enemy of the ruling class. In capitalist
society there are two primary classes, the ruling class and the working
class. I’m laying out a sketchy version of a Marxian analysis. Marx is
extremely valuable in trying to understand the world we live in. I
recommend him highly to people who like to read. In capitalist society
the two classes are in opposition, their interests are opposed
basically. The society is based on private property, and especially
private property in the means of production, that is, machinery, the
things that go to producing people’s needs and desires. The machinery,
the factories that make things, these are all held privately so that
there is control by the owners of the means of production over those
who do not own the means of production and have nothing but their own
ability to work to sell, in order to have any way of living.
Under capitalism, the purpose of all this economic activity is not
satisfying people’s needs or satisfying people’s desires, but is to
make profits. Marx’s technical term for this is the accumulation of
value. Value is a theoretical concept that he uses, which explains a
lot of different things. Value is the basis of money. Commodities that
sell, they have prices; those prices are based on the values of those
commodities. So what is value? Value, in Marx’s analysis, the value of
a commodity is the measure of the socially-necessary labor-time that
went into its creation. How much time, how much human labor-time was
involved in the creation of the commodity, is its value. And that’s
expressed phenomenologically as money. The accumulation of money, value
in the money form, is the accumulation of profit. And that’s the
purpose behind it, so capitalists invest in a particular line of
production, some particular thing that they make, because it’s
profitable. If it’s not profitable then they will bail on it and go do
something else. So when capitalist enterprises become unprofitable,
they’re closed down, people are fired, workers lose their jobs and the
capitalists move on to something else.
It’s human labor that’s the source of value and the source of profit,
and there is an internal contradiction within capitalism which is the
cause of continual crisis, which is that because of the pressure on all
capitalist enterprises to be profitable and to out-compete their
rivals, they do everything they can to cut back on their labor costs.
The principal way this is done is by developing machinery that can take
over for people. So over time people are thrown out of productive work
and replaced by machinery. But the thing is machines do not create
value, only people create value. So there is this contradiction, in
which capital, in trying to accumulate profit, throws out the very
source of future profit by eliminating workers and replacing them with
machinery. So over time there [occurs the tendency] of profits to fall.
Profit rates fall over time. So it’s a continual scramble for
capitalists to keep their enterprises profitable.
So let’s just look at the general impact of these contradictions and
these tendencies of capitalism. Cyclical recessions are a common
feature, boom years-bust years , boom years-bust years. In the 19th
Century, there was a about a ten-year cycle, that went through most of
[that] century, of boom followed by bust. Some of these recessions are
very severe and go into depressions. These are much longer periods and
much more severe. Stock market crashes. And these can lead in extreme
periods to wars, and to rebellions, and to revolutions.
The nature of life in capitalist society, according to a Marxian
analysis, with which I agree, is basically class war. It’s a continual
battle between the two principal classes, over the terms of social
existence. And work, this wage labor that we’re all required to do,
this is a form of social control. We’re required to work, and as long
as we’re at work we are contributing to the reproduction of this set of
social relations, of this class set-up, and we’re actually working
against our own interests.
Now I want to talk a little bit about the history of capitalism in the
20th Century, that led up to 9/11, because I think it’s pertinent to
understanding 9/11. In the period 1914 to 1945, from the beginning of
the First World War to the end of the Second World War, it was a
continual crisis period. Two major wars, millions of people killed, a
huge depression in between the two wars. There was this one period in
the ‘20s, which was a sort of a boom period, but a lot of that was
based on speculative activity and finance chicanery and Ponzi schemes
just like what’s been going on since 9/11. That whole period,
1914-1945, was a crisis period. But the result of it, at the end of it
after World War Two, so much old machinery and factories had been
renovated or destroyed by war production or by being bombed into
non-existence, that new machinery, new methods of production came into
use. And the US built up Germany and built up Japan after the war, and
profitability was restored. The cost of things that people need to
live, the cost of food, the cost of clothing, of consumer goods like
refrigerators and cars, all declined, because of the increasing
productivity that the new generation of technological developments had
brought about. And so there was a period after World War Two, from 1945
to approximately 1970, maybe not quite that long, when workers seemed
to be relatively prosperous, especially in the industrial countries.
The post-war prosperity really peaked in the late ‘60s. And it
coincided with a period of radical contestation in the United States
and in Europe, and actually around the world. There was of course the
anti-war movement, and there was the anti-materialistic counter-culture
where many millions of people just decided they didn’t want to buy new
things, they didn’t want to work long hours, they wanted to work part
time or not work at all, they moved out to the country. And there were
radical political movements in the US and especially in Europe. In the
US there was a wildcat strike wave in the ‘50s and ‘60s. In the late
‘60s and early ‘70s there were radical political movements like the
Diggers in the Netherlands, the Autonomen in Germany, Autonomia in
Italy, and as I said, wildcat strikes. And of course the events in
France, May-June 1968 in France, essentially a six-week general strike
that definitely posed the possibility of revolution. The result of this
was that the ruling class in the US and Western Europe was very scared.
And this was precisely when the terror attacks under Operation Gladio
started.
The first big bombing in Italy was in December, 1969, and the whole
series of bombings in Italy [lasted] into the mid-‘80s, and other
related atrocities carried out by the state in other Western European
countries, all of this organized by the CIA, through NATO. Next week
Daniele Ganser is going to be on the show with me and we’re going to
talk about Operation Gladio across Europe in some detail. The purpose
of these attacks was to characterize this upsurge in radical left
politics as associated with terrorism. And so these attacks were blamed
on the left, and the result was that thousands of radical leftists were
imprisoned and charged with having been involved in these terrorist
attacks. Many of them were in prison for many years. Of course, many
other kinds of attacks on the working class and the contestation of the
class to continued domination by capital were undertaken, not just
false-flag attacks: attacks on unions, cutbacks of wages, Thatcher and
Reagan came in and imposed wage-cuts. And another strategy was to shift
production out to lower-waged countries where they wouldn’t have to
deal with high-waged and uppity workers. So there was a decline in real
incomes after 1970, that has continued to the present. There was a
multi-faceted response by the capitalist ruling class in the US and
Western Europe to the upsurge of contestation in the ‘60s.
This coincided, however, with the critical onset of profit crisis in
capitalism that started in the early ‘70s. You will remember the oil
crisis and recession from ’73 to ’75, and a whole series of economic
crises through the ‘80s and the ‘90s. From the mid-‘70s to the
late-‘90s, there were a whole series of economic crises all over world,
financial crises, the Third World debt crisis, the US became a debtor
nation, the Savings and Loan meltdown, the Japanese stock market crash,
Mexico defaulted twice on its debts, there was the Asian crisis in
’97-’98, and of course Russia defaulted on its debts in ’98, Long Term
Capital Management collapsed and was bailed out by the Fed, and then in
2000 the DotCom collapse, when the NASDAQ tanked by sixty percent and
has never recovered. So the whole period from the mid-70’s to 2000 was
a continual crisis. There was a big stock market crash in 1987.
Real wages were falling throughout this period. At the same time, in
response to the economic crises in Third World nations, the IMF and the
World Bank were imposing austerity on the global south and on
developing nations. As a response to all of these worsening economic
conditions, very intense class war being waged by the ruling class on
workers all over the world, the imposition of austerity, there was a
resurgence in the late-‘90s in what’s come to be known as the
anti-globalization movement. And the occasion for the real breakthrough
was in 1999 in Seattle, where the World Trade Organization tried to
hold an important round of talks to set up its agency’s operations. The
World Trade Organization is the key agency for capitalist globalization
because it’s going to harmonize the conditions for investment
worldwide, but at a tremendous price to the working class. And in 1999,
over 300,000 people from all over the world took to the streets in
Seattle and they shut it down. They stopped the World Trade
Organization in its tracks. And the World Trade Organization has never
recovered. It has never been able to get its momentum going again, it’s
essentially been stymied ever since.
The ruling class was unprepared for this. There was no preparation by
the ruling class in the United States for any kind of eventuality like
this. They really didn’t have their repressive forces in place. The
people very effectively stopped the business at the WTO from going
forward. So imagine how upset the ruling class was at this eventuality.
From that day forward, every single major demonstration at meetings of
the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, were met with escalating repressive
force, and this got more and more extreme in the run-up to Genoa, where
people were actually shot in the street. Clearly the ruling class had
decided that they needed to crack down physically and prevent this
[contestation]. And of course these attacks, e.g. in Genoa, this was
classic fascist attack. Then 9/11 happened, two months after Genoa.
From that point forward big demonstrations like the ones that had
happened earlier stopped completely. At all subsequent meetings there
has been incredible security.
I think it’s highly plausible that the timing, at least, of the 9/11
attacks was affected by the growing anti-globalization movement. And of
course the people who were killed on 9/11 were working people, just
like all the people who were killed in the bombings in Europe under
Operation Gladio. So this Global War on Terrorism – there are some
things we need to realize about it. “Terrorism” has just replaced
“Communism” as the name for an enemy which is everywhere and must be
defeated at any price, and this strategy is designed to reduce the
public to putty in the state’s hands. The War on Terrorism is a method
of controlling domestic populations by fear, just like Operation Gladio
was. Demonstrators, leftists, workers, are now either explicitly or
implicitly considered to be terrorists. And all states, not just the
United States, all states are colluding in this. This is not just the
US, it’s happening in Europe, it’s happening all over the world.
So now, given the nature of our society – it’s a class society based on
class struggle, class war, with a long history of crises and
resistance, and with a long history of state terror, as proven by
Operation Gladio, and the WTC in ’93 and the Oklahoma City bombing in
’95, I think it’s very plausible that control of domestic populations
by police states is the main purpose of 9/11, or co-equal with the
[objective] of controlling Eurasia. And I think the long-term goal of
the US is what I call the Global Fascist Terror State, in alliance with
the UK. The UK has attached itself to what it perceives will be the
winner in this contest. So we’ve got a US/UK alliance. Their purpose is
to set up a global system of fascist control, with themselves on top.
They’ll control Eurasia, and that means they’ll control China, Russia,
the whole world, and then they [will have] set up the first-ever global
empire.
So what’s happening right now? They haven’t conquered China and Russia
yet, but in all countries all over the world right now police-state
measures are being instituted. They’re all moving toward fascism.
They’re all effectively there already, it’s just that there’s a cover,
a gloss on it, that looks like they’re still democracies, but the real
decision-making is not democratic. There’s some resistance on the part
of European countries to US domination, but it’s not clear how long
they’ll be able to hold out. But the ruling class in all the countries
is in agreement on this domestic population control aspect.
I’m not sure the US and the UK are going to succeed in pulling off
their global conquest. They may just upset the balance and find that
they’ve brought themselves down, ultimately. But in the meantime we’ve
got fascism developing in all the individual countries, so we’re being
subjected to false-flag attacks. Or fake terror scares: you don’t
really need to bomb people, you can just do these fake terror scares
like we’ve had so many of recently. They can be openly the product of
government manipulation, but there will be no press commentary about it
because the press is in lock-step with the state on this. The
false-flag attacks have been not just 9/11; there was the 7/7 bombings
in London, the Madrid bombings, etc. We’re going to have total
surveillance, we’re going to have checkpoints, body scans, drones
overhead, no legal rights; we’ve got concentration camps that have been
built by FEMA all over the United States; we’ve got a worldwide network
of black sites, secret prisons; countries in Europe are rendering
captives to these secret prisons on the command of the United States;
people are [subjected to] psychological operations; microchips; no
health care; the whole thing. This is a fascistic picture and its
happening in every country, and it will become global when the global
conquest is completed. And if the US and the UK succeed, then states
will just become population control units, like domestic police
agencies. People will be controlled with propaganda, and entertainment,
and virtual realities and soporifics of various kinds, and of course
the threat of hunger and torture, so they’ll keep working for their low
wages.
This vision that our masters, our wannabe masters, have of a harmonized
fascistic [global] state under unipolar control, this is really the
dream that the Nazis had. The Germans lost World War Two but the Nazis
did not lose. Of course the Nazis had a long earlier relationship with
powerful elite families in the United States. The Bushes were involved
with the Nazis going back into the ‘20s, and probably everyone in the
audience knows about this. They were bankers and business partners for
the Nazis. After World War Two the Nazis came into the United States.
The CIA brought many, hundreds of Nazis into the United States, under
Operation Paperclip. I’ve got a link in the forum to information on
Operation Paperclip. And many of the experts that the CIA brought in
were Nazi researchers into mind control, techniques of mind control and
ways to control populations using fear. They hired these people because
they were technically advanced, and could tell them the kinds of things
they wanted to know and help them develop their abilities in these
areas.
Now I want to talk about what fascism is. It’s a frequently chosen
option of capitalist ruling classes; this isn’t the first time. Fascism
is always available. Germany, Italy, and Japan in the ‘20s, the ‘30s
and the ‘40s all went into fascism. It’s a response to perceiving that
the population is uncontrollable. Virtually every fascist state has
come into existence after a period of insurrection or radical upsurge
in the population. It’s a way for the state to merge with corporations
to reimpose control. So it’s a merging of the state with dominant
sectors of the corporate universe, banks, arms firms, energy companies,
finance. Mussolini called his form of government “corporatism.” The
interlock between corporations and the state is the key feature of
fascism.
But fascism is just one type of a broader category that’s called state
capitalism. This is capitalism where the state is making many major
decisions or is very, very involved in maintaining the situation,
maintaining the capitalist social set-up. And actually, the USSR, the
Soviet Union, was not communist. The Soviet Union was state capitalist
as well. It was a different variety of state capitalism from fascism.
The social set-up in the Soviet Union had absolutely nothing to do with
anything that Marx ever wrote about. They called themselves “Communist”
in order to bask in the radical reputation of Marx, but it was a
complete inversion of Marx. The Soviet Union was a state capitalist
society, and so the similarities between what it was like to live in
the Soviet Union and what it was like to live in Nazi Germany, those
similarities were not accidental; they were because the situations were
really very, very similar. In the Soviet Union workers worked for a
wage just like in Germany, they were paid with money just like in
Germany. The surplus value that they created was appropriated by the
state instead of by private corporations; that’s the major difference.
And of course there was totalitarian police-state control of the
population.
So fascism is a form of state capitalism. Even today we have state
capitalism in the United States and Europe. The state handing over its
treasury to financial corporations, what is that but state capitalism?
We need to try to understand the societies that we live in. We’ve been
told a lot of lies and we need to get past mistaken ideas and we need
to try to understand this situation.
Fascism is selected when the crises reach an extreme point, and the
ruling class is afraid of losing control. The working class’s real
enemy is capitalism itself, not the specific form that the capitalist
class chooses at any given time. So getting rid of fascism, viewing our
struggle as an anti-fascist struggle, to restore the fake democracy
that may have preceded it in some places, is a losing strategy. We’re
in a fight obviously to the death, we’re being killed by the millions
worldwide, with capitalism in any and all of its forms. 9/11
demonstrates precisely what we’re up against. I would describe it as a
ruling class gone mad, with bloodlust, ready to drown us in blood.
Forgive me for the melodramatic nature of this, but I think that once
in a while you need to speak starkly.
And what we have to do is fight back. Collectively, because we can’t
fight back as individuals. We have to fight back collectively. This is
a class war that we’re in. To do that we need to understand our
history, the nature of our society, and we have to organize and
collectively defend ourselves and try to create a post-capitalist
society, to move beyond capitalism to a classless society, and a
stateless society, and a society of equals. And get these masters off
our backs.
|
