The Decadent Worker

…I have describe it (the Iroquois Constitution) in some detail, following (Lewis H.) Morgan, because here we have the opportunity of studying the organization of society which still has no state. The state presupposes a special public power separated from the entire body of the permanent members of the given society… (p. 112)

And a wonderful constitution it is, this gentile constitution, in all its childlike simplicity: No soldiers, no gendarmes or police, no nobles, kings, viceroys, prefects or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits — and everything takes its orderly course. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole of the community affected, by the gens or the tribe, or by the gentes among themselves; only as an extreme and exceptional measure is blood revenge threatened — and our capital punishment is nothing but blood revenge in a civilized form, were many more matters to be settled in common than today — the household is maintained by a number of families in common and is communistic; the land belongs to the tribe, only the small gardens are allotted provisionally to the households — yet there is no need for a trace of our complicated administrative apparatus with all its ramifications. The decisions are taken by those concerned, and in most cases everything has been already settled by the custom of centuries. There cannot be any poor or needy — the communistic household and the gens know their responsibilities towards the old, the sick and those disabled in war. All are equal and free — the women included. There is no place yet for slaves, nor, as a rule, for the subjugat- of other tribes. When about the year 1651 the Iroquois had conquered the Eries and the ‘Neutral Nation,’ they offered to accept them into the confederacy on equal terms; it was only after the defeated tribes had refused that they were driven from their territory. And what men and women such a society breeds is proved by the admiration inspired in all white people who have come into contact with unspoiled Indians, by the personal dignity, uprightness, strength of character, and courage of these barbarians.

We have seen examples of this courage quite recently in Africa. The Zulus a few years ago and the Nubians a few months ago — both of them tribes in which gentle institutions have not yet died out — did what no European army can do. Armed only with lances and spears, without firearms, under a hail of bullets from the breech-loaders of the English infantry — acknowledged the best in the world at fighting in close order — they advanced right up to the bayonets and more than once threw the English into disorder and even put them to flight…

That is what people and human society looked like before the division into classes… It is by the vilest means — theft, violence, fraud, treason — that the old classless gentile society is undermined and overthrown. And the new society itself during all the 2,500 years of its existence has never been anything else but the development of the small minority at the expense of the great exploited and oppressed majority; today it is so more than ever before. (p. 112-6) — Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1978)

LANGUAGE IS THEFT/Indian giver: A term coined by early white settlers to designate anyone who gives you something — such as the Western Hemisphee — and then wants it back afterwards. — Ho Chi Zen

ASSASSINATION BY LIST (ABL)

So who do you assassinate by list? Not the obvious targets the politicians narcs and pigs. They are servants who obey orders. So the targets are not the front men but the higher-ups behind the scene. You announce that you have a list of these secret controllers and that they will be killed one after the other. The list is guesswork of course but the real higher-ups will soon expose themselves. So for a start we assassinate a Swiss banker, never wrong on that. Just get a list of high Swiss bankers and pull his name out of a hat. This is Assassination By List (ABL). The rich an powerful cower behind guards and electric fences.

Bookmark to:

“Despite the efforts to break up the coal and steel empires into smaller units, most of them have in fact come together again. The one victory the Allied ‘decartelisers’ can point to is that the Verinigte Stahlwerks, the notorious giant steel cartel that dominated the Ruhr before the war, has not been re-formed. But even that is only a hollow victory, for the Thyssen Group, welded in 1963 out of just two segments of it, is today far bigger than the old VS ever was. Similarly with IG Farben, the mammoth chemical concern, which was split into three by the Allied ‘trust-buster’ — now each of the three offshoots is larger than its former parent!..” (p. 280)

Significantly, it was John J. McCloy, who later served on the Warren Commission and who had worked for Morgan banking interests (which I believe are involved in financing the Vril Burgs) who pardoned from war crimes the notorious German industrialist, Alfried Krupp: “He had also to many people’s surprise decided to cancel the order confiscating Krupp’s properties — it had not been expected he would go quite that far. McCloy’s justification for his generosity was that no other war criminal had been punished this way: ‘Confiscation of personal (sic) property does not belong to the practices of our legal system and in general is in contradiction to the American conception of justice.’…” (pp. 233-4) No other war criminal was rich enough to be punished that way!

These quotes are from The House of Krupp by Peter Batty (Stein and Day, 1967), a book that also explains how the Russians became post-war customers of Krupp steel and uranium, although not as soon as they would have liked. Evidently American bankers were alarmed and many negotiations “broke down on credit terms.” Not to be daunted by that much, however, “Kruschev himself took a hand in the next stage of the wooing when, at the Leipzig Trade Fair in the following March, that is March of 1959, he made the East German press drop their usual denunciations of Krupps as warmongers, and of Alfried in particular as a convicted war criminal. Moreover, he visited the Krupp stand at the Fair and drank a toast to the firm out of a Krupp stainless steel tumbler filled with French Cognac, expressing regret that the head of the House was not there in person, but sending Alfried his good wishes all the same. Today, Alfried’s name no longer appears on the Soviet list of war criminals and until quite recently the House of Krupp maintained a permanent office in Moscow…” (pp. 257-258) Was Chernobyl built for the Russians by Krupp? I am asking.

“Luce too was to be a good friend of Krupp’s, for in August 1957, on the occasion of “Alfried’s fiftieth birthday, a largely complementary cover-story entitled The House that Krupp Built appeared in Time magazine. Time’s proprietor was also believed to be instrumental in Alfried’s getting a visa to attend a conference for international businessmen and statesmen which his magazine was sponsoring in San Francisco that same autumn, at which Alfried had been invited to speak on ‘The Partnership Approach.’…” (p. 253)

LANGUAGE IS THEFT/Fabian Socialism: An ideology which even George Bernard Shaw failed to anticipate might produce a society with capitalism’s looks and Communism’s brains.

Bookmark to:

STATE CAPITALISM VS. TRUE COMMUNISM

“Today, along with a host of western companies, General Motors and Ford both have factories in Russia and supply the Red Army with much of its transportation. One bit of knowledge that the public is carefully protected from, on both sides, is the fact that the trucks that carried over 50,000 Russian troops into Afghanistan were built by American companies. And the computers that organized the invasion were built by IBM, who supply both the KGM and the CIA with their intelligence technology. American ambassador to Russia at the time of Afghanistan was Thomas Watson Junior, son of the head of IBM. Vague Magazine #18/19: Programming Phenomena and Conspiracy Theory (BCM Tanelorn, London WCIN 3XX 2 pounds)

The Kronstadt soldiers and sailers soviet, a strong fortress with 15,000 men, called for immediate reforms in War Communism — and to grain requisitions, free peasant markets, and to the Cheka’s terror and terror within the military, democratic elections of a new Soviet government, revitalizing the power of the soviets over state and the economy — that amount to an insurrection against the Bolshevik state from March 5 to 18, 1921, in solidarity with the stiking Petrograd workers. The Kronstadt revolt was under the influence of anarchist/Left SR elements and allied with the revolutinoary Petrograd soviet, both demanding ‘All Power to the Soviets’ and “Soviets Without Bolsheviks.’

Trotsky, under Lenin’s command, removed Red Army units sympathetic to the revolt from the Baltic area and assembled a large, select force of Red Army troops, first moving on Petrograd, suppressing the workers’ insurrection and killing its leaders. The Bolshevik command decided to act before the ice melted around Kronstadt, permitting the Kronstadt sailors to move their battleships to the aid of the Petrograd proletariat. Red Army troops led by General Tukhachevsky transported cannons across the ice and attacked Kronstadt relentlessly, killing thousands, until its downfall March 18, 1921. Even survivors and prisoners were executed in the move to stifle all remnants of the insurrection. The Cheka went to work in Petrograd to stamp out all remaining sympathies.

The Petrograd workers and Kronstadt sailors, who had prepared the ground for the 1917 Revolution with 1905, who had supported the Bolshevik October Group with strikes and an armed uprising, found themselves starving, exhausted, war-weary and unable to dislodge the Bolshevik regime they had aided to power. Revolutionary soldiers, sailors, workers and peasants had little choice but to accept the one-party Bolshevik rule after 1921. Radical peasant socialists and anarchists considered 1921 the final betrayal of the Russian Revolution, though in point of fact the Bolsheviks had centralized all economic, political and military power in the country and suppressed democractic freedoms well before 1921. The Bolshevik regime tried to mask this phase of the Civil War by calling Makhno a kulak, the peasant revolts, workers’ strikes and soldiers’ mutinies a product of ‘White’ agitation, and Kronstadt a ‘White’ General conspiracy. Anarchism celebrated these events as the high point for the anarchist movement in modern socialism. New Indicator Collective, Socialism: A Brief History, USCD

“For the multinationals, a cheap strike free workforce held tightly in control by a firmly entrenched authoritarian regime.” — Vague Magazine, Ibid.

Bookmark to:

“Kerry, do you believe someone can be subjected to mind control technology and yet retain their own identity?”

“Yes I do, because of the definition of man. We define man in terms of his behavior. So a man is everything that influences him to the extent that it influences his behavior, because that is what we mean when we say ‘he did this or that’ — the collection of impersonal forces, both within and without, causing him to do ‘this or that.’” This metaphysical realization first occurred to me intuitively, one night at Subic Bay in the Philippines, when I was standing under a tree in a light rain storm, watching lightning flash in the sky beyond a distant horizon. I discovered confirmation for it in The Upanishads and in discussions with fellow Marine, Raoul Gayon, and placed a rap about the whole notion in the mind o one of my fictional characters, Raoul Santana, in a novel I started in New Orleans — leaving it unfinished because my friends all said Santana was too intellectual to be convincing.

I regarded my discovery as the answer to the debate about free will versus determination — neither side being correct because the determining forces are what we mean by the will. And I was so proud of my great idea (which I fancied was heretofore uncontemplated in the West) that I could not be bothered, just then, with the common sense implications of what I was saying in sanctioning mind control — which seemed both to amuse and please Brother-in-law.

Recently I had written a poem about this experience of penetrating the relation of will to environment and when I tried to explain it to anyone who did not immediately grasp it, I became impatient. Swept up in the beauty of an abstraction, I was not paying attention at all to what was happening with this man in this room in this particular here and now. So I freely granted him permission, in effect, to brainwash me. (I imagine a Zen master could cite this as an example of the dangers of partial enlightenment!)… (pp. 72-3)

“Kerry, the Fascists are now experimenting with advanced thought control techniques. You know, there are Fascists in this country/. Among them is Henry Luce, who publishes Time and Life magazines. They are planning to build a society comprised of nothing but human robots, with transistors installed in the backs of their heads, so that they will be absolutely obedient to subliminal messages.”

“Yeah. There are people who say it can’t happen here. But I guess it can.”

“Remember the saying about how you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink?”

“A friend of mine used to say, ‘You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.’”

With characteristic unfairness about such things, Brother-in-law seemed annoyed at the irrelevant nature of my remark… (p. 141)
— The Dreadlock Recollections (c) by Kerry Wendell Thornley, 1984

A pathetic desire to believe I’m expressing myself cryptically continues. Unless I “tag” my communications with a clearing of my throat or by saying “quote end quote” they aren’t cant — to which I almost never resort anyway. Confusion often arises when what I say in plain English coincidentally sounds like I’m saying that I’m talking in cant. What is more, I’m telling the truth and the gullibility of people who believe those who say I am lying for some incredible ulterior reason not only makes me look like a monster who would lie (illegible after this point)

Bookmark to:

…That upon other occasions I was placed in a formal hypnotic trance is also a distinct possibility. Once Brother-in-law discussed the Bridey Murphy case with great enthusiasm and asked me if I thought further examples of reincarnational memory uncovered with hypnosis should be researched — but adequately, he emphasized, by someone with resources.

When I objected that I did not believe in reincarnation, he replied with sympathetic approval, “Neither do I, Kerry, but I think the possibility should be investigated anyhow, by someone with more money than those guys who wrote the Bridey Murphy book, someone who could conduct a very thorough investigation.

He made sure to obtain my agreement. But I do not remember personally volunteering to be the subject of any such probe.

I do possess a distinct memory of sitting with Slim, late one afternoon, close to twilight, in a corner bar in some podunk Louisiana town, waiting from Brother-in-law to return. That we were sipping beer in a place that resembled in structure the Napoleon House (with openings to the streets instead of walls on two sides) but was plainer – with Seven-Up signs instead of wrought-iron frills. I cannot at this point recall how we got there or where we were afterwards. Possibly related to an earlier time in the same day is a memory of breakfasting with Slim one blazing morning in a tiny restaurant on Lake Pontchartrain, with Brother-in-law inside a houseboat just across the narrow dock from the front window of the cafe. Again I don’t recall how we got there or where we went afterwards.

More than once I have wondered, though, if I was hypnotized aboard that houseboat that day, perhaps by means of drugs, and then methodically programmed. For I have a number of memories which are dream-like in quality and seem unrelated to anything else ever happened to me, except that they are vaguely associated with Brother-in-law. Woody Guthrie singing about the “arch and the stones” in one of his albums reminds me vividly of these disassociated fragments of memory, of a few pertaining to images of myself as the “first post-revolutionary man” of uncharacteristically utopian and romantic Marxian rhetoric, and as a lonely anarchist harmonica player wandering in America. Also I seem to recall in the same sense having received instructions regarding a future mission of saving the U.S. from a Russian invasion, and of being told that I would be able to rely on the radio for help just by listening to the music.

Such things cause me to speculate that Brother-in-law may have been a high-level double agent who sold projects to hypnotically program me to both Russian intelligence and Division Five of the FBI — without telling anyone but Slim what an outrageous practical joke he was playing on us all. An alternative possibility to his involving the Russians is that he might have sold such an idea to an Eastern European bloc nation, perhaps Albania or Bulgaria or Poland.

“The only thing wrong with Communist theory as the Russians practice it, Kerry, is that they have no mechanism in their system to guarantee the withering away of the state.”… (pp. 70-2) The Dreadlock Recollections (c) Kerry Thornley, 1984

Bookmark to:

“The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no idea of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which necessarily involve the split of society into classes, the state became necessary because of this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production. They will fall just as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong — into the museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.” — Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, p. 210

To listen to the critics of Natural Law, you would think that we go out into the wilderness, count the rings in tree stumps and maybe observe aborigines mating, and then return to civilization, like Moses, with a list of commandments — insisting that if they are not obeyed, Nature will punish us. That’s called Ecology.

Marx took Proudhon’s term, Natural Law, and changed it to Historical Necessity. Perhaps it would make great sense to speak of Necessary Law, or indispensable custom, and Necessary Rights. An idea of Historical Necessity in action is illustrated by Engels.

Social customs, like all inventions, become more and more efficient — all other things being equal — as knowledge accumulates.

Marx and Spencer, each in his own way, improved on Proudhon and others Proudhon benefited from and refined upon Thomas Paine and John Locke, et. al. Among the most valuable contrbutions to Natural Law theory was that of Benjamin Tucker whose book, Instead of a Book, is in the Atlanta Public Library.

A crusty New England Yankee with no respect for authority, an unsentimental skeptic — a Nihilist Egoist, in fact, with unstinting praise for Max Stirner and Michael Bakunin — Benjamin Tucker shows that Natural Law needs neither mystical faith nor metaphysical speculation to make its point. Invasion, he wrote, is all society need forbid. (Coercion, fraud, technological snooping and manipulation and organized persecution can all be defined as invasive.) How invasion is to be abolished is, strictly speaking, outside the realm of Natural Law and Rights; enforcement is a matter of political science; Natural Law seeks only to discover what laws or customs or social norms are indispensable, while Natural Rights seeks to determine which are intolerable, as in, “Congress shall make no law…”

Tucker rejected Natural Rights and Aleister Crowley rejected Natural Law, insisting, however, that “Man has the right…” to certain freedoms — and both men reached very similar conclusions. Indeed, taken together they are redundant, but by the same token one discipline exists without the other in words alone. Both also begin with the same premise: society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. (c) Kerry Thornley

Bookmark to:

Anarchist, syndicalist and Left SR fores in the Russian proletariat and peasantry led the revolutionary unrest from 1920 to March 1921, with anarchists spearheading working class uprisings. Russian anarchism produced Tolstoy, Bakunin and Kropotkin, but its influence was sharply curtailed by the use of Narodniki-style terrorist tactics of assassination. From 1905 to 1971 anarchist, anarchist-syndicalist and syndicalist forces established themselves firmly once more in the Russian working-class with ideologies of decentralized soviet power. Throughout the 1917 provisional government phase of the Russian Revolution the anarchists, with the Bolsheviks, remained at the militant, insurrectionary edge of the proletarian struggle, gaining political strength alongside the Bolsheviks. When the Bolsheviks instigated their October Coup, Russian anarchism split. The majority, while in support of armed proletarian and peasant insurrection, remained wary of Bolshevik intentions. A minority of anarchist elements, considering themselves anarcho-Bolsheviks, critically supported the Bolsheviks. As the Civil War progressed they quickly became either anarchists or Bolsheviks, and anarchism dramatically increased its influence in the Bolshevik military and the Petrograd proletariat.

Usually excellent barometers of the Russian Revolution, the Russian military and the Petrograd working class had to content with the iron hand of the party. Demobilized Red Army units after the civil war proper were assigned critical tasks in the war shattered economy, and the working class was partially militarized under Trade Union discipline the officials of which were appointed by the party. Anarchist and Left SR agitation, produced no fewer than 105 serious peasant uprisings from 1920 to 1921. The Soviet bureaucratic requisition system under War Communism eliminated the urban/rural system of direct worker/peasant cooperative exchanges and prohibited barter between starving, freezing urban workers and the peasants surrounding the cities for goods needed to survive. The SR/anarchist bombing of the Moscow Bolshevik Party headquarters in fall of 1919 marked a revolutionary alliance between Russia’s insurrectionary peasant socialism and an insurrectionary proletarian sovietism, an alliance that Bolshevism under Lenin’s demands for party vanguardism, centralism and unity could not make.

The second phase of the Civil War from 1920 to spring 1921 was nothing less than an anarchist/Left SR-inspired uprising against Bolshevik rule that was supported by the Russian peasantry, proletariat and minority elements in the Bolshevik military. And a decentralized, proletarian soviet/peasant socialist revolution had been historically possible out of the Russian Revolution, not in 1917, but in 1920/21. Had this insurrection only to contend with the Bolsheviks, Russian revolutionary history and Soviet society might have been different. — The New Indicator Collective, University of California at San Diego (B-023, La Jolla, CA 92093), Socialism: A Brief History (p. 40)

Bookmark to:

IT LOOKS LIKE DANIEL

So far my reading on U.S. Nazism includes Charles Higham’s American Swastika, Sander A. Diamond’s The Nazi Movement in the United States 1924-1941, Greg Hill’s collection of letters from Co-man Ra as well as those I received directly, articles by Mae Brussell, John Judge and Eric Wynants — so I’m not an authority. What little data I have absorbed coincides with instances in my own life so often and in so many ways, though, that I cannot avoid the nerve-shattering conclusion that a Nazi eugenics experiment produced me.

Such projects in breeding were, according to Wynants, called Burgs and were sponsored by the Vril for the purpose of creating a super race. (Most conspirators think the cant word, “super,” refers to all children instead of the “harvest” of these Burgs.) Diamond goes into more detail about the structure of U.S. German activities, albeit without mentioning the Vril per se. What struck me was that each Burg of a German organization in the U.S. — including the Bund and probably the camouflaged propaganda network (pp. 126-7) — was administered by the municipal government of a city in Germany.

A sister cities program with teeth, the U.S. half could include anything from a regional chapter of openly organized Nazi sympathizers to, presumably, any covert unit of German intelligence.

I could not help thinking of good old Mrs. Dannenberg. About when the picture above was taken (17 April 1944) Mrs. Dannenberg was renting the cottage in back of the house behind me (at 909 W. 77th St., L.A.) My grandparents, the Switzers, lived in the front house and my grandmother, Minnie, used to spend a lot of time visiting Mrs. Dannenberg who, as was no secret, was German-American.

Get this: There is a town in Germany, near Hamburg, called Dannenberg. Remember Lisa Phillips Layton of DW#47? She was an active supporter of Jonestown from a rich Hamburg banking family. There are so many indications that Jonestown was somehow intimately connected with my own life that I cannot do the subject justice here. And once when I was wandering in Florida I wound up spending a night on a yacht in Hypoluxo. Docked nearby was a German who had been accused, though not convicted, of war crimes. Intent on pumping him for information about the Thule Society, I neglected to get his name — bu his boat was the Edda, Hamburg. (Coincidentally, or at least incidentally, he said the teachings of the Thule Order or based on a Norse epic, The Edda.

All I recall of Mrs. Dannenberg is that, before or after she lived out back, Grandma and I used to take the streetcar to see her. She claimed to have a son overseas, in the U.S. Army Air Corps, who was killed by the Germans — almost too perfect a cover story to be anything else — and she frequented fortune tellers, which my Baptist grandmother thought foolish.

No name occurs more often in the conspiracy cant with which I am gradually becoming familiar than “Dan” or “Daniel” — and if little else is clear, it is evident this “Daniel” is a conspiracy.

–Kerry Wendell Thornley

Bookmark to: