Dear Friend of Radio Liberty
“Where government actions become inept and corrupt, the urban guerrilla should not hesitate to step in and show that he opposes the government, and thus gain popular sympathy…. The urban guerrilla fights not only to upset the tax collection system—the weapon of armed action must also be directed against those government agencies that raise prices and those who direct them as well as against the wealthiest of the national and foreign profiteers and the important property owners….
The government [then] has no alternative except to intensify its repression. The police networks, house searches, the arrest of suspects and innocent persons, and the closing off of streets make life in the city unbearable….
[T]he urban guerrillas must become even more aggressive and active, resorting without pause to sabotage, terrorism, expropriations, assaults, kidnappings, executions, etc…. The role of the urban guerrilla … is to continue fighting, keeping in mind the interests of the people and heightening the disastrous situation within which the government must act.” Brazilian Marxist terror theoretician Carlos Marighella, Mini-Manual for the Urban Guerilla
“[T]he [British] police are simultaneously bullying but ineffectual and incompetent, increasingly dressed in paraphernalia that makes them look more like the occupiers of Afghanistan than the force imagined by Robert Peel. The people who most fear our police are the innocent.” British essayist Theodore Dalyrymple of the London Spectator, describing London aflame in the August riots. (1)
London is burning – and it is merely the first of many major cities that will be put to the torch. The retreating tide of “liquidity” has left many urban areas high and dry; in process of time, they will become tinderboxes that even the smallest spark can ignite. This fact is understood and appreciated by revolution-minded pyromaniacs, who are preparing to exploit every opportunity to burn, loot, and destroy. And those pyromaniacs are controlled from behind the scenes by the same people who are prepared to extinguish those flames by clamping down totalitarian controls that will suffocate what’s left of civil society – in the name of “public safety,” of course.
“Keeping people safe is the first duty of government,” insisted Prime Minister David Cameron in an address to the House of Commons. “We will not allow a culture of fear to exist on our streets. And we will do whatever it takes to restore law and order and to rebuild our communities…. [N]othing should be off the table. Every contingency is being looked at.”
By “everything,” Cameron includes the aggressive use of Closed Circuit TV surveillance (CCTV), which has made London a virtual Panopticon:
“We are making technology work for us, by capturing the images of the perpetrators on CCTV - so even if they haven't yet been arrested, their faces are known and they will not escape the law.” He also made a frank allusion to the possibility of throwing the internet “kill switch”: “Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”
Cameron also indicated that – amid great and anguished reluctance, of course – literal martial law is a possibility. He described consultations with Scotland Yard regarding the question of “whether there are tasks that the army could undertake that would free up more police for the front line.” (2)
While Cameron praised the “courage” of the police, and reported asking “the police if they need any other new powers,” it must be understood that the police – as a conscious policy decision – withdrew from the conflict and allowed the widespread destruction of private property. In other words, they acted as an accessory to wide-scale violent crime, rather than as a deterrent to it.
British writer Philip Jenkins recounts that the London police, as the riots began, could be seen “literally ceding control of large areas of the city to mobs for whole nights.” For honest people living in those areas, “the right to property has been repealed.”(3)
That account was confirmed by the London Daily Mail, which reported – citing unnamed Scotland Yard sources – that “Police were ordered to 'stand and observe' rioters as they laid waste to London's streets instead of confronting them…. This left conscientious police officers understandably “frustrated at their inability to wade in and arrest troublemakers while they looted and burnt out shops. They had apparently been told to try and contain any violence but not to haul away offenders who would instead be identified through video footage later….” Days after the riots began, and large-scale property destruction had occurred, “tactics changed and armoured vehicles called Jankels were used to disperse the crowds.”(4)
In revolutionary parlance, this is called “heightening the contradictions” – or, in application, the “scissors strategy.” What remains of Tottenham’s middle class is caught between revolutionary violence from below, and totalitarian measures imposed from above. The opposing blades of that implement have been closing for many years, and now they are being operated even more forcefully.
Hal Austin, a British journalist of a leftist bent, observes that the riot-plagued areas of London display “the social breakdown that can take place when the police force has become an invading army, using paramilitary tactics, and has lost the trust of the people it is meant to serve.” Most of the police assigned to those inner city precincts live in other counties, commute to work, and “see policing the inner city as policing aliens, crooks, thugs, dope dealers and users, pimps and dole scroungers.”(5) And of course, that impression is entirely justified – because official policy has cultivated those pathologies for decades.
For more than a century, the collectivist elite ruling England has pursued the Fabian Socialist blueprint for cultural revolution. The first and most important institution targeted in that campaign was the traditional family. As Fabian propagandist H.G. Wells wrote in his 1919 book New Worlds for Old: "Socialism comes not to destroy but to save the family… Socialism regards parentage under proper safeguards ... as `not only a duty but a service' to the state; that is to say, it proposes to pay for good parentage -- in other words, to endow the home.”
The Fabian program, continued Wells, was to provide welfare subsidies primarily through the mother. This had -- from the collectivist perspective -- the very useful effect of making the state the de facto father of welfare children. It also turned the mother into a kind of state concubine; sure, the father retained certain marital prerogatives, but where raising the children was concerned, the mother was to be accountable to the state, on pain of separation from her offspring.
Beginning in the early 20th Century, the British ruling elite constructed a comprehensive welfare state apparatus that effectively supplanted the family. And just a few years ago, the government of then-departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced an initiative entitled the “Nurse Family Partnership” that would (in the words of the Guardian of London) “intervene as early as possible in troubled families, first-time mothers identified just 16 weeks after conception [who] will be given intensive weekly support from midwives and health visitors until the unborn child reaches two years old.”(7)
This program could be considered a form of pre-emptive parens patriae (fatherhood of the State). The Guardian captured the essence of the British early-intervention initiative in its headline: “Unborn babies targeted in crackdown on criminality.”
The Blair government “is prepared to single out babies still in the womb to break cycles of deprivation and behaviour.... Under the programme, which has been copied from the United States, young, first-time mothers will be assigned a personal health visitor at between 16 and 20 weeks into their pregnancy. They will continue to have weekly or fortnightly visits until the child is two....” (Emphasis added.)
The objective is for these intruders, who are clothed in the supposed authority of the State, to instruct mothers how to care for their own flesh and blood. The program, as originally introduced, was “voluntary.” It will not remain so. The Blair regime's NFP Action Plan made this quite plain, at least to people alert to the nuances of State-speak:
• Section 1.2 of the Action Plan claims a mandate for the government to assure that nobody is permitted to “waste” his “human potential,” since this is “bad for the whole country.”
• Section 1.6 asserts the State's right and capacity to take “preventative action” within the home in order to “tackle problems before they become fully entrenched and blight the lives of both individuals and wider society.”
• Section 1.9 attempts to cast “wider society” as a victim of unregulated families, since “the behaviour of some people — particularly some of the most challenging families — causes real disruption and distress in the community around them.”
The Nurse Family Partnership (NFP), as the Guardian noted, was actually devised in the United States by Dr. David Olds of the University of Colorado. It was implemented in 22 states, and there have been efforts to expand it nation-wide by way of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Initiatives of that kind are plentiful throughout the United States, albeit often disguised under various other names. In Missouri about two decades ago, the state government enacted a very similar “home visitation” program called “Parents as Teachers.”
Long before she became Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was merely First Spouse and all-purpose public busybody without portfolio. In that capacity she released a ghost-written tome entitled It Takes a Village. In that book, Madame Hillary rhapsodized that she “can't say enough” about the merits of home visitation programs. The Nation's Alexander Cockburn, whose household acquaintances in England included members of the Fabian Socialist movement, has pointed out that Hillary’s schematic for social engineering was adapted directly from the designs of Britain’s Fabian Socialists.
"Time and again, reading … It Takes a Village, I was reminded of [Fabian founder] Beatrice Webb," Cockburn has observed. "There's the same imperious gleam, the same lust to improve the human condition until it conforms to the wretchedly constricted vision of freedom that gave us social-worker liberalism, otherwise known as therapeutic policing."(8)
Through programs of this kind, four generations of Britons have been raised to look on the State as their parent, and infused with a collectivist “morality” in which one prospers through officially licensed plunder, rather than through private productivity. Once this is understood, the behavior of the feral packs that set London on fire shouldn’t surprise us at all. Nor should we be surprised that the same government that cultivated this affliction is now capitalizing on it at the expense of those segments of the population who retain their sense of individual morality.
Interestingly, the defense of person and property was initially carried out in London by recent immigrants – chiefly Kurdish Muslims from Turkey – who joined in spontaneous armed defense of themselves and their neighbors.
“The heroes of recent days for many (including, I must admit, me) are the Turkish shopkeepers patrolling Green Lanes, Hackney, with baseball bats to protect their businesses (and being threatened with arrest for doing so),” observed Charles Moore of the Daily Telegraph. (9)
Philip Jenkins, writing in all sincerity, praised three British Muslims who were killed during the riots – small businessmen Haroon Jahan, Abdul Nasir, and Shazad Ali – as “martyrs” in the cause of property rights for organizing neighborhood defense. “They lost their lives for other people, doing the job of police,” one witness testified. “They weren’t standing outside a mosque, a temple, a synagogue or a church – they were standing outside shops where everybody goes. They were protecting the community as a whole.”
Referring to the efforts of those men and others – many of them recent immigrants – to hold the line on behalf of civilization against mob violence, Jenkins writes: “If commercial life survives in the attacked areas, it will be entirely due to those defenders, whose contributions will be forgotten or maligned in the mendacious official reports that will appear in the coming months.” (10)
The de-humanized young nihilists who set London on fire, terrorizing shop owners and other small businessmen, are the children of a socialist welfare state that has spent decades destroying the traditional family and undermining the individualist ethos. “There is no form of bad behavior that our version of the welfare state has not sought out and subsidized,” Dr. Dalyrymple observes. “One-third of them never eat a meal at a table with another member of their household -- family is not the word for the social arrangements of the people in the areas from which the rioters mainly come.”
“For young women in much of Britain, dependence does not mean dependence on the government: that, for them, is independence,” he continues. “Dependence means any kind of reliance on the men who have impregnated them who, of course, regard their own subventions from the state as pocket money, to be supplemented by a little light trafficking.”
This is precisely the formula prescribed by the Fabians a century ago: Eliminate the father, make the mother the State’s consort, and treat the child or children as property of the State. Young people raised in that fashion have been indoctrinated to believe that they are entitled to the product of other people’s labor and effort. The government that has been their institutional father has imparted to them an incurable high time preference: They know nothing of focused exertion, discipline, deferral of gratification, and honest commerce based on reciprocal respect for individual rights.
The collectivized people burning down London, Dalyrymple points out, view “relations with other human beings in the same way as Lenin: Who whom, who does what to whom.”(11) That formula is the opposite of the Golden Rule, and the essence of Communism.
As we’ve noted before, the only option to governing ourselves according to Christ’s Golden Rule is to be ruled by the Iron Fist. It shouldn’t surprise us at all that those who covet the latter spare no effort to undermine the former. Thus it is that London is being torn down by the Children of the State, while the architects of this crisis quietly prepare to exploit this “sudden, violent shock” with the imposition of new totalitarian controls.
What we are seeing in London is a direct preview of what will unfold in the United States in the immediate future. By this time next year, not one but several major cities in the U.S. will see eruptions of this kind: Organized street-level violence supposedly inspired by official corruption that will target the embattled business class, rather than the ruling institutions. And preparations are accelerating to capitalize on this chaos to impose totalitarian “order.”
"If what happened in London ever happened in the US, the military has plans -- CONPLAN 3501 and 3502 -- to suppress the 'insurrection,'” reported Marc Ambinder, White House correspondent for the National Journal. Elaborating on Ambinder’s “mysterious reference to a numbered military,” John Hudson of The Atlantic offers this capsule summary:
“[The] CONPLAN (which stands for an `operation plan in concept format’ at the Pentagon) … is the U.S. military's plan for assisting state and local authorities in the event of a riot or major civil disturbance: `Tasks performed by military forces may include joint patrolling with law enforcement officers; securing key buildings, memorials, intersections and bridges; and acting as a quick reaction force.’”(12)
This is derived from the notorious “Operation Garden Plot” template, which was used as a mission framework for domestic military deployments during various episodes of civic unrest in the 1960s and early 1970s.(13) Current military doctrine envisions a much greater and forceful role for the military in the event of widespread urban violence or organized rebellion against Washington and the criminal over-class controlling the federal government.
"We have entered an era of persistent conflict.... [We] face new security challenges influenced by the effects of globalization, especially in failing states and in ungoverned areas,” began a 2008 Pentagon report on Army “modernization.” “Radicalism influenced by extremist ideologies and separatist movements will remain attractive to those who feel threatened and victimized by the cultural and economic impacts of globalization...."
That report anticipates an expanded role for the military as a police force in occupations abroad – and in supporting “law enforcement” operations at home, particularly as the economic collapse deepens and turmoil becomes more commonplace. The doctrines it outlines were put into place during the national political conventions in 2008.
During the Democratic National Convention, a specialized National Guard unit of 1,700 troops, "Joint Task Force-DNC" (JTF-DNC) was deployed in Denver. Ostensibly there for the exclusive purpose of backstopping "civilian" law enforcement in the event of a terrorist event, JTF-DNC also provided "information such as satellite imagery to assist law-enforcement authorities, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Secret Service," boasted an official press release. "About 40 Guard Soldiers assigned to the 1st Space Brigade's 117th Space Battalion have been preparing for the convention by monitoring computer images, uploading data and reviewing map printouts," continued the document.
These Guard troops weren't there merely to stand sentinel against terrorist attacks. JTF-DNC was sent to Denver following several months of specialized training, including weeks of practice in riot gear at a MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) at Fort Carson.
"If there are [violent] demonstrations, these National Guard Soldiers will have to protect people and business from protests that could get out of hand," explained Lt. Col. Don Laucirica.
There were no "violent" protests in Denver. Yet the National Guard JTF-DNC was there, along with its array of cutting-edge weaponry and intelligence-gathering assets, to provide defense in depth to a contingent of militarized police.
The same configuration was on display a few weeks later at St. Paul, where the Secret Service and local law enforcement agencies created an official institutional liaison with the National Guard’s JTF-RNC. Some 150 soldiers were deployed in St. Paul on the first day of the convention when the local police complained that protesters were becoming "increasingly aggressive."
That was the day when 284 people were arrested for the supposed crime of "aggressively" enjoying a late summer day without harming anyone.
"Our main mission is to support law enforcement," explained 1st Lt. T. Zdon, an armor officer with the Minnesota National Guard. "Soldiers in their uniform and gear provide a strong presence, or show of force, for local law enforcement, if they need us."
Spc. Ben Doran, an infantryman with the same unit, elaborated that the Guardsmen were there to use "shields and batons to keep crowds back. We want to use the minimum amount of force necessary to complete the mission."
That's the language of a military occupier, not a peace officer in a free society.
In his video-recorded speech to troops before the convention, Brig. Gen. Joseph Kelly, commander of JTF-RNC, pointed out that the task force was composed of members of the U.S. military from all branches of the service, including some who had been brought back to the "homeland" from overseas. "Our primary mission," he told the troops, "is to conduct military operations in support of civil authorities.... [W]e are working for the law-enforcement organizations responsible for the security of the convention."
While the Secret Service was the lead agency, and local police exercised operational control, some Soldiers would be expected to carry out routine security duties "to free up police officers for higher-level law enforcement tasks."
"As during any other operation, you must take care of yourself, each other, and your equipment. Please, be safe," intoned Kelly, as if preparing his troops for D-Day rather than an operation on their home soil in which they would confront – and intimidate, and abuse – unarmed fellow citizens.
All of the necessary components for undisguised tyranny – a corporate socialist order sustained by overt military rule – are in place, ready, and active. The long-anticipated meltdown of the fiat dollar system is well underway. Mob action – both spontaneous and organized – is becoming more commonplace. Reports are accumulating (complete with video documentation) of large movements of military assets within the United States. Those are assets that could be used either abroad or at home – and current military doctrine treats the Continental United States as simply another “command.”
We have passed over the Event Horizon, and we are falling into an economic and cultural singularity. From here on, things will grow exponentially uglier at an astonishing rate. Once again: We should spend time on our knees before the only Being whose right it is to rule – and then stand in defiance of those who presume to usurp that role.
(1) “British rioters the spawn of a bankrupt ruling elite,” Theodore Dalyrymple, The Australian, August 11, 2011.
(2) “Riots: David Cameron’s Commons statement in full,” BBC News, August 11, 2011
(3) “Three Martyrs,” by Philip Jenkins, The American Conservative, August 11, 2011
(4) “Why police were so soft on London looters: They 'were ordered to stand and observe' as capital burned (but in Manchester they were hunting looters within hours),” London Daily Mail, August 10, 2011
(5) “London’s Burning,” Hal Austin, CounterPunch, August 11.
(7) “Unborn babies targeted in crackdown on criminality,” Guardian of London, May 16, 2007
(8) “Hillary Clinton calls in the therapeutic cops; Her book on raising children allows for plenty of state intervention,” Alexander Cockburn, San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 1996.
(9) “Riots: a Tory PM must always deliver peace and order,” Charles Moore, London Daily Telegraph, August 9, 2011.
(10) Jenkins, op. cit.
(11) Dalyrymple, op. cit.
(12) “The U.S. Military's Plan for London-Like Riots,” John Hudson, The Atlantic Wire, August 10, 2011
(13) Department of the Army, “Civil Disturbance Plan,” 10 September 1968, .pdf copy in the author’s possession.
(14) See http://downloads.army.mil/docs/08modplan/Army_Mod_Strat_2008.pdf
You must tell people about the Brotherhood of Darkness, their effort to destroy the United States, and their effort to establish a world religion. I believe people are beginning to wake up, so don’t become discouraged. Remember Ephesians 6:12&13:
“:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”
Barbara and I appreciate you loyal support and your faithful prayers.
Yours in Christ,
Return to Radio Liberty home page