From El Mozárabe
(Also take the time to read Enemigo Mio – an interesting corrective to the blind Putinophilia rampant in certain sectors.)
I was looking at the interesting new(ish) blog Traditional Right and was struck by a recent post there by William Lind. Lind was associated at one time with Paul Weyrich‘s Free Congress Foundation and is best known for his role in developing Fourth Generation Warfare theory but has also written on the Culture War and against what he calls “Cultural Marxism.” The post, What’s Wrong With “Tolerance?”, was, I thought, an excellent illustration of the point I made in my own of a couple of weeks ago on the current state of the Culture War.
The point of Lind’s piece was that, while the left claims to promote a an ethic of tolerance, its commitment is really to a
…tolerance for all ideas and movements emanating from the Left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. In other words, when cultural Marxists demand “tolerance,” they are really calling for intolerance toward conservatives and their beliefs….
He goes on to argue that
We [on the right] should… reaffirm the benefits of true tolerance, tolerance as practiced in two of my favorite traditional societies, old England and Prussia. Both were famous for their broad toleration of eccentrics, and both benefited from it. At one point in the 1880s, General Helmuth von Moltke, chief of the Prussian General Staff, ordered the organization to go out and recruit the oddballs and the eccentrics, on the grounds that they usually have the best ideas. That is still true, especially of us eccentrics on the traditional right.
Of course, the left’s refusal to accept the legitimacy of any dissent from the multiculturalist line and its intent to stamp out all opposition is old news. I mention the article not because it offers any new insights into our dilemma, but because of its plaintiveness – its complain that the left is not “playing fair.” Its entire groveling tone – ending with its hope that there will be a place somewhere for “us eccentrics” – is really an acknowledgement of defeat and an implicit plea for terms from an enemy which will be satisfied only with complete and unconditional surrender. Mr. Lind should know better.
(For more of my posts on Lind and 4GW, see here.)
Note – By the way, I suspect that the Traditional Right blog has its roots in the New Traditionalist project founded under the auspices of the Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation some (10 or 12?) years ago. It was an interesting effort at the time but one which never seemed to really take off, at least as far as I could tell. In any case, I don’t mean this post to be overly negative as far as TR is concerned. There’s a lot there that’s interesting and it is a blog definitely worth following.
Filed under: 4GW, American Left, American Right, Conservatism, Culture Wars, Fourth Generation Warfare, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, The American Right, US Left, USA | Tagged: 4GW, TraditionalRight, William Lind | Leave a comment »
What the DTOs [Drug Trafficing Organizations] are really selling is logistics, much like Wal-Mart and Amazon.com…. Amazon may have started as a bookseller, but its dominance, as Fast Company put it, is “now less about what it sells than how it sells,” providing a distribution hub for all sorts of products. Drug-trafficking organizations are using the same philosophy to cut costs, better control distribution, and develop new sources of revenue. – Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels
I’ve not written much lately about the Mexican drug wars partly because I just haven’t written much lately period, and partly because the news has been pretty much of the always-gruesome same. Still, I thought that the recent Foreign Policy article on the topic by Evelyn Krache Morris was interesting in that it makes clear that the Mexican cartels have gone far beyond the drug smuggling operations of their early days and are now heavily involved in moving (illegally, of course) whatever will turn a profit. This could be drugs, could be precursor chemicals for meth production, could be pirated software and DVDs, could be people and could be something even worse.
Logistics, then, are the DTOs’ main source of revenue, and illegal drugs are but one of the products they offer. As the cartels’ revenue streams become increasingly diversified, the drug trade will become less and less important. In fact, the prospect of the DTOs’ selling their services to terrorists, say by transporting weapons of mass destruction across the U.S.-Mexico border, has begun to frighten analysts both inside and outside government.
Morris also outlines the growing presence of the cartels within the US – not only as a means of supporting their smuggling operations (essentially the “wholesale” side) but also moving into the street-level “retail” side. (See, for example, this LA Times article from a few days ago on the indictment of some 2 dozen members of a Pasadena-based gang working with the Sinaloa cartel to sell heroin, meth and cocaine in that city and elsewhere.)
Overall, given the cartel’s diversification, the profound corruption within Mexico and the resilience of the cartels themselves, Morris argues that neither legalization of drugs nor intensified policing will succeed in defeating them. Instead, she says, the US should “follow the money.” Outlining the involvement of some of the largest banks in the world in the laundering of the massive amounts of cartel funds, she argues that the best way to hurt the cartels is by aggressively pursuing the cash:
The staggering profits of illegal trade would be much less attractive if the DTOs could not launder, deposit, and ultimately spend their money…. Stanching the cartels’ profits will do more to end the bloodshed than any new fence or law.
An overstatement perhaps, but still an article well worth reading.
(For more of my posts on Mexico, see here.)
Let’s be clear – the Culture War has entered a new phase. The war over gay marriage – the metaphor for the entire conflict – has been decided. The forces of tradition have been defeated by the forces of modernity. There will be more battles of course, with victories and defeats for both sides, but it has become clear that the traditionalists are fighting for an ultimately losing cause. The question now is what sort of victory the forces of modernity will demand and whether they insist on – and succeed in imposing – an unconditional surrender on the part of the forces of tradition.
This will be answered in a myriad of small ways – many of them centered around how iordinary people live their lives. One of these is being fought out now in Colorado, where the a bakery owner has been ordered to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple after refusing to do so for religious reasons. (Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple)
This is hardly the first such ruling (see, for example Colliding causes: Gay rights and religious liberty) and parallels widespread efforts to force the Catholics and Catholic institutions to provide contraceptive and abortion services (Catholic Bishops: We Will Not Comply With the HHS Abortion Mandate. (And Catholics are hardly the only ones under attack on the “healthcare” issue. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the cases involving other small business owners seeking exemption from the requirements of the Affordable Healthcare Act. (The righteousness in Hobby Lobby’s cause.)
In fact, the best evidence of the fact that the Culture War is now a fundamentally defensive one on the part of the forces of tradition is the proliferation of organizations aimed at protecting religious liberties, not in communist China or the Islamist Middle East, but here at home. (For example, LDS Church joins ‘growing chorus’ of faiths asking followers to defend religious liberty.
It is increasingly clear, however, that the forces of modernity will not be satisfied simpling winning on the issues of Gay Marriage, abortion and contraception. They will insist that there be no opting out and no real expressions of dissent. They are committed to a war of annihilation and the pleading of the faithful for “religious freedom” and toleration fall on deaf ears.
How things will turn out is hard to predict. Whether America’s Old Believers will be allowed a public existence in the next decades is a very real question – and one which will be answered by the ability of the forces of tradition to wage a successful rearguard action. Defeat cannot mean surrender.
“In most of the world, democracy is not an option. The only real options are tyranny or anarchy, and when you work against tyranny, you are working for anarchy.” – William S. Lind
It was nice to see William S. Lind of Fourth Generation Warfare fame re-surface with a sensible little article 4GW is Alive and Well at the blog Slightly East of New last month. (Yes, I know that he frequently appears at The American Conservative, but that is typically on public transportation issues.)
Written in response to a blog post answering “yes” to the question Is 4GW Dead?, the article includes a brief survey of the state of the world and concludes (unsurprisingly) on a rather pessimistic note.
“If the children now running our foreign policy and the mindless ‘droids who head our armed services are ever replaced by serious adults, you will see two changes…. Absent those two very large changes [read the article to see what those are], the ship of state is going over the falls. My advice: Swim to shore while you still can.”
Actually, on second thought, may he’s not such a pessimist – after all, he’s still optimistic enough to believe that there’s a “shore” to swim to!
(For my past 4GW posts, see here.)
Bruno De Cordier
For sober minds, it had been clear for a long time now that resistance against, and alternatives to, neo-liberalism would not come from the secular Lefts. As Oswald Spengler rightly said at the time – and as the former Socialist sphere in the 1990s as well as the devolution of European social-democrats illustrate – every “outbreak” of Socialism creates new paths for capitalism. Neither can much be expected from established democratic structures and actors, because these have been largely reduced to entertainment and periodic political rituals that do not affect the real powers that be. Instead, the resistance and alternatives come and will continue to come from the internal and global peripheries and from emerging powers. They will be grafted in existing or re-composed solidarity groups, existing or born-again forms of traditionalism, and religion. Depending on the society and the geographic sphere, the latter particularly includes Islam, Christianity, and perhaps neo-paganism. – -The “Gender Industry” — Controlling the Periphery
I originally came across this article at Euro-Synergies and followed the link to Fair Observer, which contains a handful of additional articles, along with a brief bio. De Cordier seems to be a perceptive observer and critic of capitalist globalization – and one who recognizes the complicity of the left and the “humanitarian” NGO establishment therein. Add him to your reading list.
Personally, I find CP an interesting outfit – I’m sympathetic to its identitarianism, its rejection of race-hatred, its tactical creativity and its critique of capitalism, but I reject its simplistic, Duginesque anti-Americanism and I’m not ready to sign up for il Duce‘s fan-club.
In any case, a recent interview with Casa Pound leader and founder Gianluca Iannone at Identitaria.es is worth reading.
For example, responding to the interviewer’s questions regarding CasaPound’s embrace of the identitarian slogan “0% Racism, 100% Identity,” Iannone said:
Casa Pound does not accept [the theory of] the Clash of Civilizations, as propounded by Huntington and Fallaci; we do not accept the models of the Anglo-Saxon right. We believe in the spirit of Mediterranean fascism. For us, the defense of our identity does not involve the negation of the identity of others. Our enemy is not any other race or culture; the true enemy is an economic and social system which has as its goal homogenization and exploitation on a global scale.