|
|
Editorials
|
|
|
 POLITICAL
COLUMN
|
|
Populism
Versus
Elitism
(Published
July 04)
There is a need to
overcome the elitist mentality that prevents
us from achieving majority consensus.
Granted, an elite provides an ideological
core, it establishes a stronghold and gives
any movement vitality and strength. Elitism
provides mindguards creating a pool of human
resources from which future leaders may
emerge.
However, elitism has
serious drawbacks, it is both selective and
restrictive, the process must also guaranty,
without failing, that only the best, most
reliable elements are chosen. These
individuals must be beyond reproach to serve
as role models for the rest of the
populace.
The elitist
mentality is very prominent in our midst, its
cultural roots transcends the financial,
corporate, industrial, academic sectors, to
name only a few. What can be observed is that
societal manifestations of elitism in all
forms has not heralded the advancement of
humankind, it has in effect really been
detrimental to growth, social rights,
financial security, justice, it "hinders
survival of the many to insure the comfort of
a few."
The only way to
ensure that our political movements can grow
and reach a maximum popular base, is to
swiftly move beyond the confinements of the
core groups. To break the shackles enslaving
the masses, we need to break the monopoly of
power that has instituted the social pyramid
scheme on which our nation rests. We cannot
trickle the discontentment of a few, here and
there, and expect any positive changes to be
made in society at large. What we need is a
torrent of votes, a mass protest that will
flood the gates of the electoral system and
rock the foundations of the establishment. To
create a rally of such magnitude, which has
characterized our movements in the past, we
need to reach out to as many as possible,
inclusion is the key operative word here, not
isolation. Contrary to opposition claims,
ours is is not a movement of seclusion and
hate, for it is they (the establishment) who
rely on the worst forms of elitism to secure
power, use force and threats to protect
privileges amongst citizens of a same
nation.
There is no need for
mindguards, there is no time to waste
worrying about the best ways to create future
leaders in this period of social unrest,
moral, financial ruin and near anarchy. Today
the role models, the martyrs our movement
seek to honor, are no figments of our
imagination, they are the souls sacrificing
their lives to the establishment on a daily
basis, they are called citizens. It is
patriots who go hungry everyday, who are kept
from jobs, who are excluded in every way from
office and voting booths who must regain
their rights and voices. Any one who usurps
these fundamental rights and basic survival
needs for political gains are no better than
the culprits who maintain the system in place
for the sake of monetary gains. Elitism today
epitomizes profit for profit' sake, it seeks
to establish well lofted and sheltered
positions away from the nightmare of the
streets and living conditions in urban
cities, it builds nations within nations to
insulate against the collapse of the
government and financial crises now looming
on the horizon, it seeks to reinforce shadow
economies by providing rewards and jobs
through contacts and connections in return
for favors and illicit acts.
A populist culture
is the only means to take power away from the
ruling elites. Populism is the only means by
which to restore nationalism as the reigning
doctrine for all. What we need is to
strengthen, not weaken, grass root politics
in order to achieve victory for the masses.
It is imperative to defend a patriotic mass
culture in order to overcome divisions, unify
our strength and rally popular support in the
widest sense of the word.
Culture, Identity,
Ethnicity and Nationality need to be hoisted
high as banners under which membership can
expand. We will have no political success in
the future without relying on these four
fundamental pillars, to loose sight of them
effectively relegates our parties to four or
five digit memberships. Not satisfied to
fighting our enemies we also fight amongst
each other. Today we offer divisions and are
marred by endless quarrels to find leaders
and elect exemplary officials, in the
meantime irreparable damage is done to the
fabric of society. When we will have found
the perfect leader, there may be no
government left worth ruling, no populace
left saving, no structure worth preserving,
no land worth defending. It is imperative our
political generosity overcomes our selfish
tendencies, it is time to give back to the
people a little of our strength, so that we
as a collective entity may be able to build
up our common values, build up our moral base
without expecting any monetary rewards or
positions of influence. The strength of a
movement is recognizing that dialogue is the
best most important weapon, not soldiers of
fortunes, it is rhetoric not fists in the end
that will win the majority consensus.
Dialogue is not expensive and it is genuine.
A national political forum of expression
builds popular consensus because the process
allows all voices to be heard, the slogans
are not hammered out in some technocrat's
office but really represent the opinions of
the people of the street. It is the soundness
of our arguments that will rally crowds, not
empty promises or acts of
intimidation.
Every citizen must
have the right to become his or her own
master of destiny. If any of our parties
succeeds in giving back what has been usurped
from them for so very long, then and only
then will we have achieved a major victory
against our enemies and the
establishment.
Copyright 2004 by
Erik-Albert Englund
Back To Top
|
|
National
State of Social Conscience
(Published
July 04)
We are
Socialists
Yet we oppose the
manipulation of Socialism, we stand against a
politicized form of socialism.
For decades the
Liberal left and Social-Democrats have
manipulated socialist doctrines as have the
Marxists and Communists. In doing so they
have taken every positive elements of
Socialism, such as social rights, humanist
causes, anti-capitalism, aso., and have
usurped them to fashion a political weapon
with which to subjugate and oppress the
classes and the masses.
Left-wing militancy
has managed to forge a weapon of socialism
itself. In their hands it became a
manipulative tool instead of a reason of
being. Something that should have remained a
neutral guiding light for the masses,
something which should have basically
remained apolitical. In the division of
social causes by distinct political wings,
the only achievement was dividing the
people.
By creating fictitious conflicts, amongst
citizens, these movements have usurped the
fundamental rights of entire nations. They
have managed to buy, on the cheap, military
victories for their factions.
Socialism was no
longer to remain a neutral terrain, a
worthwhile preoccupation for all citizens, it
was to ensure the dominance of Marxist elites
and the the creation of Stalinist, Bolshevik,
Menshevik, Trotskyist, Communist and Maoist
dictatorships.
Having successfully
fought for doctrinal isolationist policies,
what logically followed was the achievement
of large scale international territorial
divisions and national partitions of lands
and continents.
Their ultimate aims, as we have seen, was not
social justice, universalist principles or
unitary internationalism... simply because
theirs was a dividing force.
Stalin even openly
allied himself with Nazi Germany when the he
saw the opportunity to divide and conquer the
Western continent. In a famous pact, signed
in Moscow by Ribbentrop for Germany and
Molotov for the USSR, there was a classified
protocol that provided for a partition of
Poland and cleared the way for the Soviet
occupation of all Baltic states. The pact
remained in force until the invasion of the
USSR in 1941, when Stalin's hopes were
dashed. But Stalin then allied himself with
the victors of the West, this in turn led to
the partition of East Germany behind a great
big fence.
Communist countries
such as China and the USSR also remained
separate sovereign states, divided and
bitterly opposed to each other until the very
end. This is because the true ideal of
Communism was always opportunistic
parasitism; it was neither militarist,
socialist nor nationalist: it was but an
hybrid multicultural blend drawing always
from the worst elements in every
socioeconomic manifestation.
Its true aims was to usurp ideals of social
causes paying only lip service to their grand
humanist theories. The socialist cause, which
all Marxists try in vain to embody, became
corrupt and ultimately only manifests itself
as a source of social conflict and economic
misery.
The idea of turning
a national state into a socialist one--opting
for one or the other, instead of both as
fundamental rights--is from the onset not
only a political aberration but a crime.
Socialism, in order to remain international,
cannot have any territorial boundaries. In
order to remain effective it cannot create
borders, ideological or otherwise.
Socialist militancy in this light is no
better than capitalism as both have
demonstrated their uncanny ability to create
social rifts in the population and between
classes. The active political wing fights for
its members on the left when it should be
fighting for all people.
We are
Nationalists
Yet we oppose a
political form of nationalism that forsakes
all social responsibilities.
For the same reason we oppose a politicized
form of socialism, Social Democracy or
Communism because they manipulate the masses
and force citizens to choose to live in a
complete state of denial.
The political right has no more claims on
patriotism than would any other factional
elitist group in society. Our nationalism
would never turn its back on the workers of
the nation.
Our nationalist
movement could not condemn patriots who have
lost their jobs due to corporate
restructuring or downsizing due to pursued
profit margins.
We could not deny shelter to those homeless,
but proud nationalist, families on the
street.
Our populist
movement would never deny national pride to
any of its citizens due to momentary economic
difficulties or financial circumstances.
We could never fall to the depths of the
Marxists by forcing the poor to follow our
cause simply because they suffer
financially.
And, we could not politicize our cause to
such a degree that only our elites would
profit from the work of the
people.
If socialism is
about hating nationalism and vice-versa, then
both on their own should have no
representatives among the people. For the
same reason someone poor may make a model
citizen if the only thing they lacked is
monetary wealth. A nationalist may become the
champion of human rights if the only thing
lacking is a populist cause.
Modern politicians,
here, take masses as hostages, forcing them
to choose sides in some irrational battle.
Meanwhile, the endless political bickering
only succeeds in preventing us to achieve a
fair and balanced order, they manage to
divide the people and turn them against the
would-be national-social state.
Being nationalist is precisely about not
losing sense of who we are as a people, not
losing our names and identities in some great
socioeconomic melting pot; not to become a
nameless, soulless member of an anonymous
international mass; one that would not owe
allegiance to a foreign power--such the
Soviet or European Union. It is about not
mistaking intrinsic identity, biological
characteristics and nation-caring for
relativist dogma, imaginary social groups and
worldism utopia.
Without a
politicized form of socialism every citizen
would be a model Nationalist, likewise every
nationalist would be a model Socialist. For
our form of populism is one that can gather
the masses under the same banner for a just
nation one "without an extreme form of
uncompromised nationalism, inciting overt
militarist tendencies," and "without an overt
socialism calling for allegiance to foreign
institutional dictates--thereby forcing the
populace to forsake national heritage."
Believing in nation, worker and God should be
protected fundamental principles that would
signify the end of political militantism
plaguing our societies. Only in this manner
can capitalism be willing to contribute to a
social system and likewise have workers
willing to work for an enterprising
nation.
The only ones with the most to lose are those
currently in power, the elites, the
establishment, the international
institutions, aso., not the true nationalist
and socialist at heart.
The aim is to
nationalize socialism so it becomes a
compulsory function of state
affairs.
Without the endless
expansion of the capitalist and socialist
empires, we, as a nation and people of
national states could start to foster our own
common values, not work for greed but in
tandem with our fellow citizens for the
betterment of our society.
The function of the state is to ensure that
all its citizens are cared for, if any
government fails in this basic function--it
should be held accountable for its moral and
spiritual bankruptcy.
No force is required to impose any political
will against people's wishes--if its policies
are sound and activities are beneficial to
the nation then it will prove its merits to
other followers.
In fact if any system is imposed by force or
military might, it means a failure of its
doctrines and the power of its
convictions.
Prosperity for all;
for a better future; for a quality of life
that eliminates classes, wants and needs; for
a cause that does not divide its people into
camps but truly unites them under a nation's
banner.
We need a state of
social conscience to stop the current abuse
of power.
Copyright
2004 by E.A. Englund
Back To Top
|
|
EU =
Soviet or US Model?
(Published
July
04)
The history of
the nineteenth century is littered with
failed attempts at establishing some kind of
European political order, starting with the
Concert of Europe (1815), right through to
the foundation of the League of Nations
(1919). In each case the partnership had
depended on governments recognizing that they
had a common interest in establishing a
framework for the orderly conduct of
international relations and the settlement of
disputes; each one collapsed when one or more
of the states concluded that their national
interests was better served by aggression
than diplomacy.
- Will the European
Union succeed where other federal unitary
systems failed?
- Will the Community suffer the same fate as
the Soviet Union?
- Shall we see the founding of a lasting and
much awaited United States of Europe?
- Shall the EU be marred by democratic
deficit'?
Comparative studies
should give us an insight on these and other
questions, while no doubt beckoning further
research, as the initial most obvious answers
can sometimes raise controversies, for this
article of course the central issue is the
repeating historical patterns.
On the issue of the
much talked about United States of Europe: if
we compare the USA and the USSR we can say
that the two forms of unions are dissimilar
in the way they have achieved regional
globalization. The former is late-colonial
union of individual and quasi-autonomous
states sharing common cultural heritage and
language, whereas the latter was a modern
union of multi-cultural and fully autonomous
republics spread over large territories. If
we further compare both systems we can see
that the European Union more closely
resembles the ill-fated federal state of the
Soviet model instead of the deemed more
stable United States inspired
model.
If the Imperial
colonialist aims have, in the past, been
regarded as utopian, then all regimes that
have sought to achieve them like Soviet
federalism, European federalism etc., should
be placed in the same category.
Globalization models pursuing these aims
today--no matter in what forms--means
interdependence, being interdependent
economically, socially, and politically; it
means creating a collective body covering or
influencing everything in all societies.
The problem with this globalization process
is that it cannot be truly democratic, as it
seeks to impose a global political agenda
circumventing local democratically elected
legislative bodies; seeking to
institutionalize common preferential cultural
norms by supplanting local religious and
identity ties. These aims contradict the
objective sought by a true democratic process
because here the 'globalist' or
'universalist' world-policies advanced are
destructive, not just of undesirable
differences between societies, but of
desirable and desired differences. The
'acculturation' effect occurring by the
diffusion of culture traits and institutions
worldwide--in my view, occurring as a direct
result of an increased cultural globalization
(creolization) process--is highly contestable
and destructive to what truly is world
multiculturalist principles.
Multiculturalism, yes, but not at the expense
of other cultures where one would reign
supreme over all others.
These are points
contributing to the fears of the much talked
about European 'identity crisis' that would
need to be addressed, or at the least be
taken into consideration before convincing
most peoples of the world--Western cultures
but even the Third-World--of the well-founded
basis for such a project resurrecting the
specters of by-gone colonialist
designs.
Copyright
2004 by E. A. Englund
Quotes from academic Thesis Paper Submitted
to Economic History Dept. Stockholm
University Sweden, 2003.
Back To Top
|
The
Speech We Hate To
Defend
(Published July 2004)
A great free speech
battle is taking place, pitting those who
want to prohibit political discourse on the
internet against those who believe that the
First Amendment must protect all speech -- no
matter how controversial or politically
incorrect.
Supremacist, far right and ultra nationalist
discourse on the internet has grown rapidly
-- through Web sites, email, bulletin boards
and chat rooms -- according to a study
published by the Anti-Defamation League. The
ADL actively monitors the internet looking
for anti-Semitic speech propagated by white
supremacist groups. In the study, "High-Tech
Hate: Extremist Use of the Internet," the ADL
notes that hate websites more than doubled in
one year, from 1996 to 1997. The organization
estimated their number then to be 250. And
pressure is maintained to shut down these
sites, or at least, to limit access to
them.
According to a Washington Post story dated
Oct. 24, 1997, the ADL, was already working
with America Online to develop software to
filter out hate sites. The United Nations
held a seminar in Geneva to discuss how to
curtail speech on the Internet. The Australia
B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission even
petitioned Australia's Internet Industry
Association to make racist websites illegal
in that nation. The New York Times reported
that Canada, using that country's anti-hate
legislation, had begun cracking down on hate
speech on the Internet.
Hate speech can be
loosely defined as:
<<< Speech
that reviles or ridicules a person or group
of people based upon their race, creed,
sexual orientation, religion, handicap,
economic condition or national origin.
>>>
The HateWatch
organization, directed by David Goldman
currently monitors more than 200 active
overtly racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay,
Holocaust denial, Christian Identity pages
found on the Internet. These include
Hammerskin Nation, Orgullo Skinheads, White
Aryan Resistance, White World, Siegheil88.
Goldman in fact credits Don Black, the
ex-Grand Dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux
Klan's Realm of Alabama with creating the
first racist Web site, Stormfront, in March
1995, yet Stormfront remained
online.
There are those
organizations, like the ADL, that push for a
rating system for every web page, with stiff
fines for those who don't rate their sites or
rate them wrongly. Presumably an Aryan
Nations or Ku Klux Klan site would have to
rate itself so that no one gains access to
their sites -- when the appropriate filtering
program is installed to read the ratings and
block some categories.
The Southern Poverty Law Center in
Montgomery, Ala., sometimes ago labeled the
Nation of Islam as a hate group in an
intelligence report, because of anti-Semitic
comments made by Minister Louis Farrakhan.
However the parade of hate also includes the
anti-Arab sites (Jewish Defense League), the
anti-Muslim web sites (Kahane Homepage), the
anti-Christian sites (Altar of Unholy
Blasphemy and Chorazaim), black racist sites
(House of David, Blackmind).
Interestingly enough, neither the ADL nor
HateWatch nor even the Southern Poverty Law
Center lists the Jewish Defense Organization
as a group that advocates hatred on its
website.
Who makes the decision about which websites
cross the line into hate speech? The federal
government? Internet service
providers?
In this confusing
climate some unforeseen consequences have
occurred. Microsystems Software, the
manufacturer that makes the filter called
Cyber Patrol, decided to block out the
American Family Association's Web site
because it contains prejudicial statements
against homosexuals. The right-wing American
Family Association, ironically, had pushed
parents, schools and libraries to use
Internet filters, including Cyber Patrol.
Richard Delgado, Jean Stefancic and other
academics argued in "Must We Defend Nazis?
Hate Speech, and the New First Amendment"
(New York University Press, 1997) that hate
speech should not be protected by the First
Amendment. Fortunately, their arguments have
not been persuasive against the long and
honored tradition of free speech.
While some may despise the comments made on
some of these "hate-filled" Web sites, it is
difficult to argue they are not espousing
political positions. Often one man's hate
speech is another man's political statement.
And political commentary has -- and should
continue to have -- the higher First
Amendment protection.
White supremacist David Duke, who was once
elected to lead the Republican Party in the
GOP parish in the State of Louisiana, had a
website that denigrated blacks. Certainly,
his Web page, hate and all, was certainly an
officially endorsed political statement.
Duke exposed the reasons why the KKK and
other white power groups have flocked to the
Internet: "Since the new millennium, one can
feel the currents of history moving swiftly
around us. The same creative spirits that
created the brilliant technology of the
Internet, have awakened from its long sleep.
And indeed white supremacist websites are
some of the most technologically
sophisticated on the Internet
today."
On the Issue
journalist, lecturer and First Amendment
expert Charles Levendosky writes:
<<< As the
U.S. Supreme Court noted in finding the
Communications Decency Act unconstitutional,
anyone with access to the Internet can be a
pamphleteer sending email messages to
thousands of recipients with one click of a
button, or posting websites that are
eventually seen by hundreds of thousands. It
is the most democratic communication media
yet devised. However, to remain truly
democratic, it must allow any viewpoint to be
posted and debated.
The leading edge of any social or political
movement cuts a path to recognition by using
radical, sometimes outrageous rhetoric. The
rhetoric is there to define or redefine the
landscape in terms that suit that particular
movement. It is there to shake up the
prevailing state of affairs. This has been
true in this nation from the time of our own
revolution to gain independence from Great
Britain to the present. Certainly, the
British Crown could have considered the
Declaration of Independence a form of hate
speech.
The Journalist Workers of the World, the
labor movement, the socialist movement,
anti-war movements, the Black Power movement,
poverty marches, veteran's marches, the
temperance crusade, women's liberation
movement, the anti-abortion movement -- all
used inflammatory rhetoric like a blowtorch
to burn a hole in the status quo. To demand
that people take sides. And see the world
differently.
If hate speech were
prohibited, socio-political movements could
be crushed before they even
started.
The current cliche
about "civility" in debate may be fine when
all agree to basic premises and we're all
well fed and treated equally. We can afford
to be polite to one another and even
friendly. But civility does not serve the
downtrodden, the forgotten, the invisible,
the persecuted, the hungry and homeless.
Civility in pursuit of justice plays to the
power structure's selective deafness. To be
effective, the voice must be raised, the tone
sharpened, the language at a pitch that
slices the air. Americans know this at heart
-- we were born in a revolution.
Hate speech is not the cause of bigotry, but
arises out of it and a sense of political and
social powerlessness. Allowing those who see
themselves as powerless to speak -- salves
the speaker. Venting frustration, anger and
hurt is an important use of language. It may
actually short circuit an inclination for
physical violence.
Suppressing speech,
even hateful speech and perhaps especially
hateful speech, would inevitably lead to
violence.
We don't protect the
civil rights of those who are targets of
hateful speech by suppressing the speech of
hate mongers. For eventually, inexorably,
such suppression turns and bites those it is
supposed to protect.
When civil liberties are lost, civil rights
follow. When a chunk is carved out of First
Amendment protections, we all lose a portion
of our rights as citizens. Speech laws that
have been adopted to protect racial
minorities are actually used to persecute the
very people they were created to protect.
This has been true at universities in the
United States. Those who censor others,
eventually censor themselves. They bury their
own messages.
When the University of Michigan put its
speech code against racist speech into effect
and before the code was struck down in 1989
as unconstitutional, 20 students were charged
with violations. Ironically only one was
punished, a black student for using the term
"white trash."
It was no accident that the first person to
be charged under a U.S. hate crime
enhancement law was a black man. It added
years to his sentence.
The power structure interprets and enforces
the law. Where white males dominate, white
males are less likely to be prosecuted under
such laws -- a cynical observation, but
true.
If the federal
government were to be given the authority to
limit speech on the Internet, that authority
would spread to all media. And the government
would have the unholy power to stifle dissent
and protest.
Suppressing hate speech by forceful measures
is more dangerous than allowing it to exist.
Like it or not, hate speech has a role to
play in a nation dedicated to vigorous debate
about public issues.
If we come to a
point in our history when we fear messages
that we despise, then we will have lost the
strength and will to govern ourselves. Or as
the great First Amendment scholar Alexander
Meiklejhon put it so succinctly when
testifying before Congress in 1955, "To be
afraid of any idea is to be unfit for
self-government.">>> (Gauntlet
52/Vol, II)
Selected
quote sources: Charles Levendosky
(1998)
Back To Top
|
Home
- Welcome
Introduction -
About
Us - Who
We Are - What
We Do - Our
Program - Our
Products - Our
Markets - Career
Opportunities -
Television
& Video - Radio
Broadcasting -
Art
- Music
- Writing
& Publishing -
Editorials
- News
- Sponsors
& Membership Info -
Links
- Contact
Us
|