SECTION (C)

(NEUTRALISING DOOMSDAY)

(How to take weapons of mass destruction out of the equation)

The SECONDARY `Neutralising Doomsday' (vis a nuclear strike by the regime activating our anti Caesarist model of rev pol warfare) response is analysed in Chapter 1. Here we concern ourselves with details of the PRIMARY `Neutralising Doomsday' response to counter nuclear war against the Revolution through counter terror, to prevent a nuclear political chain reaction leading to the extinction of humanity.

It is applicable in the European/ Russian/ USA geo strategic theatres, though this model is still applicable for activists in the 3rd world especially India & Pakistan to cover each others' backs (although being outside the CORE geo strategic theatre, it is not neccessary or strategically viable for activists in the core to respond with the primary model to respond to a nuclear attack on India/ Pakistan by the USA with the PRIMARY neutralising doomsday model, instead they should deploy the SECONDARY anti caesarist neutralising doomsday model)

Geo politically to insure that the enemy is unable to revive cold war type fears, nuclear disarmament can/should be used as an offensive political weapon - to insure that the (now) ministry of interior forces in foreign states have no cold war type threat to hide behind - leaving/keeping them vulnerable to a rev assault from their own people seeing them as the greatest threat.

Just as the destruction of Bonaparte actually revived radical politics post Waterloo, so the collapse of the military totalitarian USSR/core radical bloc (both of which we shall examine later) can/should be jealously gaurded as our opportunity to slay the ruling elites once and for all.

Britains' salvation lies in the hands of the USA, German and Russian people - Everyones' salvation is dependant on everone elses' - let us not pretend otherwise.

But our Doomsday response is implicit in the enemy's.

Nuclear assault will automatically make US more savage in co-ordinated reprisal/our approach. Therefore for the enemy to resort to such will only bring a MUCH more bloody response from us. Eg: CLASS GENOCIDE. As masses become totally desperate to insure that no benefit from a nuclear atrocity by the enemy can be gained by the ruling class (otherwise the most extreme barbarisation - cults of evil worship will result etc - in order to keep this as an exceptional weapon - we will bend over backwards to insure that the enemy's kids will be treated well). Even though in many parts of the world (with British/USA assistance) kids are tortured to break the will of their radical parents - the enemy can carry on doing this without fear of similar reprisals (all we will do is target the criminals) - UNLESS they use such weapons of MASS destruction.

Even then, when the enemy has used nuclear weapons, we should strictly limit our response to killing their kids in reprisal. If any rev soldier commits rape, they should be executed on the spot. In these most appalling of circumstances, of horrific lesser evils to cauterize a greater evil that would wipe humanity of the face of the earth, it becomes all the more important to preserve order & discipline and the codes of conduct neccessary to shore them up - to prevent complete chaos.

Class Genocide is to be applied whenever there is a fear (AFTER a nuclear strike) that this will benefit the hegemonic control of the ruling class (most particularly when an attempt at repression follows wether connected directly or not).

Therefore it becomes up to the ruling elite to abdicate any benefit thereof anticipated (as the only way to placate mass rage). It is most highly advisable for children of the ruling elite to pressure for nuclear disarmament (for everyones' mutual benefit/interest).

If the enemy knows that nuclear war will only make things worse for it (the only reason they are likely to resort to it, is because like the notorious General Curtis LeMay, they think they can salvage a part of their imperium - as for the Holy Bomb worshippers, if the consequances of their crimes are SO brought home to them, they will be consequantly if so warned, much less likely to resort to it and certainly not derive any benefit from it).

There is no need to pass resolutions to this effect, this is something that many will deride, yet dwell on and be resolved to execute in the event of the enemy actually launching a nuclear strike.

So we warn the enemy, that WE have a Doomsday option in response to and effective only in response to theirs.

Some even might think it a smart idea, to make out that we have a doomsday option in response to the enemy's - but have no actual intention of following through. Yet would nevertheless follow through in the event of the enemy launching its doomsday option - because they would know then and only then that we wouldn't really have a choice, that it would be the lesser evil.

The enemy however, is smart enough to know that WE are not so stupid as to threaten it with something without actually meaning it.

They almost certainly did however, hope that this was something they could keep in their locker to threaten us with. That we would be too cowardly to address ourselves to this absolutely real threat. If so, then they shall be bitterly disappointed.

Of course the enemy will try to portay us as bestial for even thinking of such a retaliatory response (There will be significant shock among many) But in doing so the enemy cannot help but highlight the fact that this is precisely as we say, a retaliatory response to a nuclear strike. And what are the enemy so afraid of, if they forfeit such a dread option?

To make absolutely clear, if they engage in a nuclear strike it will not be less, but ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT to implement class genocide as a response (where neccessary) as a demonstration of our dread option to deter & counter act theirs.

As we have seen, the only hope of avoiding the descent into nuclear Caesarism, is the removal of the enemy from power. Nothing will disuade us from this path. We strongly advise everyone, friend, foe and neutrals of various descriptions, to dwell on this fact.

It should be made clear to friend and foe alike, to avoid misunderstanding, that revenge has no part of our military political policy/strategy.

Eg only to the extent required to comprehensively smash the will of the enemy to resist. And demonstrate with stark clarity, that future criminality/coup attempts, will be met with the neccessary level of brutality required to consolidate the revolutionary hegemony.

To this end we must pursue a policy of the maximum exemplary terror, derived from the minimum of neccessary bloodshed, for the shortest possible duration (if you please, a `short, sharp, shock').

It is self evident that terror extended beyond these boundaries, only causes avoidable damage to the interests of the revolution. Its potential to accommadate under its hegemony hostile but useful elements (and alienating/creating panic among potential sympathisers) hampering the execution of its reconstructionist pol/econ program.

Our priority is reconstruction. Reconstruction is totally impossible on the basis of the hegemony of the enemy pol/econ regime; which requires therefore ruthless brutality to remove the enemy from power and consolidate the revolution.

But beyond this point, terror serves no useful purpose, whatever.

Indeed for some of the most hard nosed yet thinking elements among the enemy, it makes perfect sense for them to co-operate in their overthrow/aiding the revolution - especially by `showing us where the bodies are buried' - in pol/econ terms.

The inexorable tendancy of the current pol/econ regime is towards Reverse Social Darwinism.

Eg the current elites are based on globalised production, trade, finance. Future elites (if the revolution failed) would be based on warlordist plundering. Eg the connexions etc that enable current elites and their children, to prosper in the current regime, will be of little/no use to the type of savage warlord that would make it (if anyone could), when the current global pol/econ regime crumbles into warlordism.

WE, as all can see, have a vested interest in insuring that the enemy's children are treated well (even as the worst criminals themselves are led to the scaffold- otherwise nobody would take us seriously) - to stabilise the revolution. The warlordist products of Reverse Social Darwinism will have NO such concerns.

If I could ask one single thing, it be that ALL, friend AND foe (& neutral) read, study this work, its conclusions & implications. I welcome the enemy reading & studying this work; anything that sparks an element of sanity amongst the enemy - to encourage them (overtly &/or covertly) to co-operate in the smashing & dismantling of the enemy's own threat, is to be welcomed.

Only on the basis of OUR military pol/econ hegemony/operational control of the military pol agenda, is it possible to reach out to sane elements of the enemy - to save their children if not the enemy. To appeal to their conscience, on the basis of their hegemony, is to appeal to the conscience of the damned.

What horror of horrors, do we do if the mafia/enemy infiltrates us and plants on us weaponry of mass destruction? Eg nuclear, biological or chemical materials?

Well, we should bear in mind the following factors:

We have no use whatever for such weapons at all.

But we (leastways before seizure of power in Britain, Russia & Germany etc) will not have the resources/facilities to dispose of such ourselves.

The enemy has of course, plenty of such weaponry available to it.

We for our part (as outlined earlier) have our own doomsday option.

Taking all these factors into consideration, without relenting by one iota militarily or in our rev pol/econ aims generally, we should seek the assistance of intermediaries to dispose of such materials in a secure place - Eg the Red Cross & Red Crescent. This be neccessary at least until we have facilities available to us, to dispose of this crap ourselves. And even when we have such facilities, we may still find ourselves trapped in situations where we would need the help of intermediaries to remove such crap from the theatre of operations.

It might well be objected, `But this means hostile even (less unstable) enemy elements taking this stuff of our hands.'

YES it DOES. But remember, they have immeasurably vast quantities of this crap available for their use anyway. Small amounts extra make no difference. We also have our own doomsday option as outlined.

Our aim/policy is to take such weaponry OUT of the equation. Combining the above measures, while fraught with terrible dangers (including the bitter fact that it is almost certainly going to take at least 1 major practical demonstration of our neutralising doomsday strategy - and quite possibly a significant number before the message is absorbed) achieves this. Contributing to a process of violent dialogue - on the basis of our operational control of the military pol/econ agenda (the threat of nuclear strikes countered by our doomsday option).

This war cannot be total in the military sense. The war is only total in the political sense. A war within peoples' even the enemys' minds - re-inforced by our own doomsday option, to counter the enemys'

We must never leave the enemy without a worthwhile surrender option, eg even if they must be executed we look after their kids. But we will never compromise on revolutionary hegemony. This is the principle of our doomsday option.

The usage of such intermediaries (on basis of our military pol/econ agenda - including our doomsday option/threat) has the eventual potential to smooth the process of enemy surrneder, by helping us make clear in military pol/econ practice, OUR intentions.

Taking into consideration the threat of enemy deployment in the field, deliberately or otherwise exploited to try & create confusion and/or delay the capture of their positions; such must be treated as deliberate blackmail, to which we can NEVER submit.

The enemy in a number of wars has deployed nuclear weapons, this must ALWAYS be understood as their wilful intent to use them (Let us not forget that the enemy mass produced them, with the intent to use them if their pol/econ hegemony was threatened - THAT INCLUDES US).

So we must assume depoyment in the field is tantamount to blackmail and NOT give into it. The procedure must be, that the nuclear armed enemy should surrender its positions, to enable the removal of said weaponry to a secure place by the Red Cross/Red Crescent; or be held responsible for any consequances arising from their failure to do so.

After capturing said positions, we then call in the Red Cross/Red Crescent to remove such weaponry to an agreed secure area - even such controlled by less unstable elements of the geo pol/econ enemy.

It should be made clear to all that we hold the enemy responsible for the actions of classical fascists (& the like) it defends, and of its forces in general. Any usage of nuclear weapons etc, strengthens the hegemony of polycaesarist forces, and shall be countered with our own doomsday option, wherever any fraction of the enemy seeks to consolidate its power directly or indirectly, eg following their use.

Dreadful as this strategy is, it is the only hope of avoiding fascist nuclear warlordism.

Without revolution, fascist nuclear warlordism will be inevitable. But with the development of rev movement it still be neccessary to counter the fascist nuclear threat/response.

WE know our duty, but for those that object to our strategy, the moral onus is now firmly on THEM, to say what viable alternative strategy can/should be depoloyed to counter the nuclear fascist threat.

So from the above, we can derive the following rules of revolutionary warfare:

The golden key principle be, that, the ends justify the means - as long as the means do not negate the ends.

Following this logic the revolution has NO use whatever for nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

But as the enemy in its insane efforts to retain part of its power, even as it reduces everything to dust (politically, economically & militarily), would use them, we must have a counter threat to hold over the enemy and where neccessary deploy - in order to demonstrate that use of such weapons will not serve their (the enemy's) interests- and deter others from the use of such weapons. Therefore we reserve the right to kill their children should they resort to the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, or seek to exploit their use by warlord allies or proxies to strengthen their position against the revolution.

This PRIMARY `Neutralising Doomsday' response is PURELY a counter terror move against nuclear terrorism deployed by CORE USA led military plutocrats against the Revolution (to prevent a nuclear political chain reaction leading to the extinction of humanity) in the core European/ Russian/ USA geo strategic theatre (although for example, Indian & Pakistani citizenry should cover each others backs in the same way - If IRAQ uses biological weapons against the west).

The SECONDARY `Neutralising Doomsday' response triggering the anti Caesarist model of rev pol warfare in the geo strategic core via a REVOLUTIONARY SALVATION FRONT (instead of the parrallel organs principle to delegitimise the regime) is applicabale if NATO/ USA use nuclear weapons against any state under any circumstances whatever (EVEN A BIOLOGICAL ATTACK FROM IRAQ as to do fail to so act would be to concede to OVERT nuclear blackmail, leading to a nuclear political chain reaction leading to the extinction of humanity).

If the core military plutocracies deploy nuclear weapons in response to a biological strike (eg by Iraq/ Saddam Hussein) our response must STILL be the same, as that for the core enemy launching a 1st strike attack (Revolutionaries in Europe must use this secondary neutralising doomsday strategy in response to an attack NOT on the rev movement in Europe/ USA/ Russia, but launch PRIMARY neutralising doomsday response if the rev movement in the west is attacked). In Iraq (as we launch our attack in the west) revolutionaries must seek to connect with us (enabling program of rev global reconstructionism to eclipse BOTH revanchist & military plutocratic oblivion), using the lever of our rev campaign to launch a secondary neutralising doomsday response on the regime. Launching a PRIMARY (against Saddam Hussein et al) response if rev campaign in Mid east is so attacked.

Therefore as this threat must remain an exceptional doomsday threat, we must seek to gaurentee the lives, safety, security, freedom & prosperity of the enemy's (non combattant) children - even as we execute the enemy in the main squares of the capitals. The safety & wellbeing of the enemy's children is the lever we use to deter use of nuclear, biological chemical weapons by the enemy - To avoid pushing it into a corner therefore, we must give the enemy a good reason to surrender/avoid the use of such weapons.

So therefore even as the enemy increasingly/in various parts of the world in a variety of ways, targets our children deliberately, tortures them to break the will of revolutionaries, they can carry on doing this, without fear of reciprocation on our part, unless they resort to the use of such weapons.

By such terror, we can effectively take nuclear, biological, chemical weapons out of the equation - though it may well require one or a number of practical demonstrations of our doomsday threat in response to the enemy's.

Therefore as we have no use for such and we have a counterweight to the enemy's nukes etc, and the enemy can gain acces to such at the drop of a hat, if the enemy plants such on us, we should seek intermediaries (Eg Red Cross & Red Crescent) to take them of us & transfer them to a safe place - even some less insane elements of the enemy.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do we give in to nuclear, biological, chemical blackmail - It is for the enemy to surrender or suffer the consequances of our counter genocide measures.

To counter the threat of our doomsday reprisals in retaliation to a nuclear strike by the enemy, the enemy should cede its power/any attempted advantage gained by such a strike.

In this most grim business, the only thing that can preserve civilisation under such terrible conditions, is discipline in the rev armed forces. Therefore there needs must be the severest measures taken against any element within the rev armed forces violating military order. Therefore field execution of any rapists in the armed forces - even of the enemy - who must merely be executed.

As aerial bombardment is indisolubly bound up with the dialectic of wholesale destruction of a country (as the means to) in order to destroy its war making potential; and therefore inevitably leads to nuclear war, we reject totally the use of aerial bombardment as a revolutionary weapon - as the means clearly negate the ends.

As in the commonwealth struggle, Berlin is as much a (an incipient) part of the commonwealth as London. We absolutely cannot win by vanquishing our own potential allies (and strengthening German military plutocracy's control over them). Indeed it is likely that that only when German military plutocracy demonstrates through victory over a rev stockade state to the Germanic peoples that it be their gravest threat to their survival, that the Germanic masses will overthrow the enemy.

We shall examine how/why with the military pol/econ agenda (thence still) under the hegemonic control of military plutocracy (aerial bombardment) total military war (as opposed to total political war) was inevitable in WWII (which itself was the process by which the global pol/econ reconfigured itself under USA hegemony) in Vol III - (& that equally inevitably - now that all room for rev reform /geo pol/econ reconfiguration of military plutocracy has been exhausted - lead back to the present apocalyptic threat to humanity).

On Prince William (son of Charles, Prince of Wales)

While the Queen/ Prince Charles MUST be executed as lynchpins of Crown power which underpins the military plutocratic system, in the case of Prince William (aged 17 as at 29/7/99) another grave factor comes into play.

EVERY effort must be made to spare his life, for to do otherwise could fatally undermine our neutralising doomsday strategy of gaurenteeing the security of the enemy's children, UNLESS THE ENEMY USES NUCLEAR/ BIOLOGICAL/ CHEMICAL WEAPONS (IN WHICH CASE THE ENEMIES' CHILDREN ARE TO BE KILLED TO DISUADE OTHERS FROM THINKING THEY CAN RETAIN ANY OF THEIR POWER BY THEIR, FURTHER, USE - preventing a nuclear- political chain raction), so as to have something to threaten the enemy with, in order to take such weapons of mass destruction out of the equation.

Therefore to CLEARLY preserve the integrity of our neutralising doomsday threat, Prince William should be given until the age of 25 to renounce the throne.

UNTIL then, unless actively engaging in military rebellion against the revolutionary movement/ govt., his life is to be spared.

If placed on the throne, his advisers/ manipulators are to be held responsible for such an act, and scythed down with exceptional brutality. But William Windsor is to be deemed incapable of FREELY choosing this path, until the age of 25.
SECTION (D)

(THE HISTORICAL CHECKS & BALANCES

- at the beginning & end of the revolutionary process)

HOLDING THE CENTRE

It is neccessary to outline general strategy in order to understand what is required & why, in the way of checks & balances in the rev process.

3 Stage Theory of Revolution

R1 - Revolutionary centre

R2 - Federated rev bases (of the open organs)

R3 - Rev cyber army

R4 - Rev irregulars (intelligence based)

E1 - Enemy Centre

(includes bases, whose psuedo legitimacy

is derived from the enemy centre)

E2 - Enemy irregulars

(used for deniable operations,

but largely controllable forces)

E3 - Classical fascism/ warlordism

(possessed of NO legitimacy,

their out of control growth in the context of GENERAL chaos

outlined in the scenarios in chapter 1 Vol I of S.O.F. is

indicative of any enemy centre fragmenting, & THEREFORE

vulnerable to a revolutionary advance)

Stage 1

The rev centre R1 is re-inforced by the Cyber Army R3 (which spreads links/ theory around like petrol, as a mere preperation for sparking the conflagaration) & also underpins the incipient rev bases R2, which though have NO CONTROL of the centre (the centre eg control of the specific act of detonation, remains under my personal control as originator of the theory) UNTIL geo pol conditions ripen enabling (with my detonation of the campaign proper - via my hunger strike) continuous operations/ re-inforcement of the centre by the federal movement (which requires an operational campaign to stabilise it; until then it is merely a PROTO movement).

The enemy engages in direct attacks on us at all levels & also irregular warfare at all levels

The small visible cadre/ centre, provides the focus for the partially hidden (vast) rev (cyber army) periphery, keeping rev forces as secure from attack as is possible (enables us to martial our forces prior to the commencement of continuous operations when geo pol conditions ripen), our equivalent of `forming square' to martial/ preserve our forces in the face of enemy attack until then.

Stage 2

The growth of factor E3, enemy classical fscism out of control of the enemy centre E1 (eg global econ implosion catalysing N. Ireland collapse, mainland classical fascist fallout, Russian mass migration leading to chaos in the enemy's rear), provides us with conditions for launch of continuous operations.

This enables the incipient federal components R2 (of NOW open organs) to come into their own, establishing federal control over the centre R1 (again both re-inforced by the cyber Army)

Enemy irregular & regular attacks continue at all levels, but the enemy is increasingly compelled to defend E3 from combined rev forces offensive, weakening still further the enemy centre. E2 is similarly increasingly out of control, enemy forces are merging into caesarist warlordist formations, which means they are prone to fragmentation (R4 increasingly outflanks E2)...

Stage 3

...UNTIL E1 breaks up completely (into E3), & the Revolution advances in good order, under the authority of a rev centre possessing rev legitimacy, to secure hegemony & mop up the fascist warlordists.

Preparing for War

As already noted in Chapter 1, it will be neccessary to embark on a period of preperation before the theory becomes operational, concentrating on the construction of the Cyber Army before the apocalyptic threats/ scenarios outlined breathe life into our program/movement making it viable as a continuous process.

The preparatory organs should be concerned principally with the dissemination of (including deep) theory (via websites & publications raising finance/ making connections via electronic links to aid development of visible links/ publications etc) etc and preperation of the new movement prior to the commencement of hostilities.

And should split neatly into 3 parrallel organs with seperate operational roles - as outlined earlier in chapter 2 Vol 1 of S.O.F. (the largest of which will be the mass rev pol wing) immediately prior to the commencement of hostilities.

(This visible cadre itself being relatively small in relation to the Cyber Army)

Before becoming operational we should do everything possible to establish dialogue/technical & practical links with rebel (and potential rebel) elements worldwide (it is of prime importance that the theory is more generally recognised & understood before becoming operational) - ESPECIALLY via the Internet (technical personnel are required - just as the fascists have - & we should appeal for them over the Internet).

These links can serve/perform a role analagous to (seperate yet connected) explosive charges in the demolition of a dangerous building - causing (more or less) synchronised explosions (on a transnational/global scale) that bring the whole edifice tumbling down.

Re: the neccessity of establishing provisional military (especially Citizens' Gaurds - the INITIALLY much smaller Internationalist Brigades have the specialist role of detonators of the movement) & communications networks, all these can/must be done before the theory becomes operational. In this preparatory stage the gathering together of personnel is MUCH more important than the acquisition of arms - which can wait until the actual commencement of hostilities.

UNTIL then military preperation consists mainly of cadre study etc (vis Rules of Rev Warfare etc &) vis strategic implications of what can go wrong/ counter measures to deploy etc (we need cadres willing to fight, but above all with their brains; combining caution/discipline with extreme audacity when the time is ripe.) We analyse the first tasks/ propaganda in `Intro to Quantum Materialism'....

To clarify, I-Bs don't formally exist OR as an armed formation until I commence hostilities (see`Prepare for war against the new fascism' in `Intro To Quantum Materialism') & `Rules of Revolutionary Warfare' vis self defense actions). Post launch they RAPIDLY become the centre of gravity of the whole pan Euro Rev movement via mobilisation for the Battle of Berlin against German classical fascism upon my death/ (extremely unlikely) release.

Holding the line against a premature launch

BUT to re-iterate, we will be subject to attack, even BEFORE we are able to launch the campaign proper, BEFORE ripening of geo opportunities.

& we cannot turn it into an operational movement beforegeo opportunities present themselves as LACK of viable opportunities for launch/ consolidation leads to premature insurgency/ terrorism.

Eg needs such a trigger of apocalyptic proportions to breathe life into our program, ITS LAUNCH IN BRITIAIN. So that the revolution standing against the military plutocracy on the one hand & the advancing forces of total chaos on the other, can take its place as the saviour of humanity. THOUGH THE MERE THREAT OF RUSSIA'S DEATH IS SUFFICIENT TO LAUNCH THE CAMPAIGN IN EUROPE/ GERMANY (even if NOT to secure victory).

This looks completely hopeless. Our movement can be attacked but NOT engage in an operational rev pol campaign (until the geo situation ripens). But, if (as looks almost inevitable) I am forced to engage in a DEFENSIVE action, EG NOT PART OF AN OPERATIONAL CAMPAIGN, then this can be used as a signal to put the lid on the OPERATIONAL movement UNTIL time for launch proper.

Removing me from circulation enables the movement to concentrate on the construction of underground Cyber Army, with MY authority (unique historical prerogative as the one that uncovered the theory - which we shall analyse in greater detail laer in this section) applying the breaks preventing a PREMATURE rev pol offensive. So that WHEN the situation ripens, either I go on hunger strike/ and/ or others are freed to launch the rev pol offensive through an anti fascist action/ POW hunger strike campaign.

But critically, the revolution is able to martial its forces prior to launch due to said historic prerogative (as the one that uncovered this theory). this may not prevent ALL adventurers, but preserves a sufficient cadre for when the situation ripens.

(UNTIL THEN, there exists NO RDM as such, merely a proto movement. AS it requires an operational campaign to hold the movement together/ stabilise it (via the practical imperatives of a military political campaign linked to the rev objectives/ program), it is ONLY with the launch of the campaign proper therefore, can (& MUST) the movement amend the RULES OF REVOLUTIONARY WARFARE, for ONLY then is there a movement to speak of (otherwise GRAVE threat of premature launch by this or that faction, destroying the WHOLE proto movement).

In the Cyberwarfare stage, everywhere cadres are compelled to adopt an OPEN profile (eg vis court cases/ conveying info on), they should adopt the slogans of the underground to force the movement BACK underground UNTIL continuous operations can be launched (eg `PREPARE FOR WAR AGAINST THE NEW FASCISM: BUILD/ JOIN THE CYBER ARMY') .

(With the launch by me of continuous operations vis ripening of geo pol conditions) Street campaigning/ activities (including sale of publications/ mobilisation for demos/ meetings) represents the point at which the political has thence become immediately seperated from an I-B military having only just come into being (instantaneously) at the point at which seperation has occurred; & thus in operational terms (though not of course politically) the rev pol wing is thus effectively distanced from the I-B anti fascist military wing (now come into being - at this point I am the military).

NOTE I-Bs ARE FORBIDDEN FROM TAKING PART IN ORDINARY PEACEFUL STREET CAMPAIGNING (ON PAIN OF EXPULSION FROM THE MOVEMENT), EG TO RELEASE PRISONERS ETC, AS SUCH WOULD COMPROMISE THE DIVISION BETWEEN PARRALLEL YET SEPERATE ORGANS. ANYONE BECOMING AN I-B FROM ANOTHER WING OF THE MOVEMENT, EG THE RDF, CANNOT RETURN TO THAT WING FROM THE I-Bs FOR THE SAME REASON.

All such can take up the role/work they are able/willing to take making the fullest use of all available resources. Eg SWP types (including leftwing journalists) might be perfectly useless as/ vis I-Bs/Citizens Gaurds, but as verifiers of the new theory (that it is NOT a terroristic construct) they have a potentially useful even critical/ decisive (vis preliminary period - before the theory becomes operational/self sustaining as a mass campaign) role to play.

Eg if 95% believe that Quantum materialism means slaughter of the first born, but 5% do not, then the enemy will have lost even as it appears initially, but superficially, triumphant.

Supportive elements in pre existing rev & anti fascist organs may wish to set up seperate (autonomous) fractions/circles to take up the tasks of the proto movement (so that most of their organisation remains on the revolutionary periphery as appropriate). This positions the whole of their organisation to make the transition as the theory becomes operational, wihtout imperilling the whole of their organisation before it becomes operational.

Of course only detonation can consolidate the position of the new movement. Otherwise all (in any case PRE detonation, rather unstable) support would be lost. The task of the pre campaign is solely to spread the ideas/links around like petrol, as a mere preperation for sparking the conflagaration.

Checks & Balances at the

begining/ end of the rev process

(The scope & limit of my personal power

in the revolutionary process)

I (as originator of the new rev theory) am obliged to claim (indeed autocratic) power over the point of detonation of the movement. My own mere existence requires it (to control point of detonation of continuous operations as outlined in `Intro to QM'/S.O.F...., when thence becomes a federal activist centred movement post launch), for if I do not, then any premature venture is MY fault anyway, & the idea is crushed anyway via my definitive error as originator of the rev theory. This is also a serious deadweight factor... prevents/ obstructs independant currents from taking this theory up..., if say, I was assassinated/ got struck by lightening, then others could take up the theory; & if rash in its execution, this would NOT lead to DEFINITIVE defeat... others could still launch at the opportune time....

As the one that uncovered the theory, I possess the unique historic prerogative, the absolute authority (operating within the rev framework & rules of rev warfare), to declare myself an I-B & detonate the campaign myself - without any recognition/ acknowledgement by the political wings.

The historic justification for this is that without the (rallying point for the) mass rev pol campaign, there is no stabilised pol wing as such, merely a proto rev pol wing - which needs an operational campaign to stabilise it.

Also the need for formal recognition by the political wing subverts the principle of parrallel yet seperate organs - but there be no way of preventing a slide into terrorism without an established rev political campaign (eg control via political critique by the mass rev pol organs) AND Berlin as the focus for I-B action AFTER my launch (my efforts are a mere staging post to the Battle of Berlin) - to establish the pan commonwealth campaign.

I possess thence dominion over the idea - until the operational campaign is launched - though NOT of course over any other person.

Eg post my launch the RDF will be completely spared the hassle of formal recognition or not of I-Bs (keeping the organs seperate yet parrallel) WHEN the door to recruitment to the I-Bs is opened completely via the Battle of Berlin - the centre of gravity holding the rev pol pan commonwealth framework & I-B military discipline together.

Domestic forces, Citizens Gaurds, are under the direct control of the RDF. Berlin is the lodestar for the I-Bs, the only autonomous military force.

In conclusion, this clearly defined stage of pre detonation absolute power over the point of detonation, by myself, is the only way to keep the seperate organs fully autonomous; UNTIL the centre of gravity of the RDF be established by my detonation of the operational campaign & the I-Bs centre of gravity, the battle of berlin, established via (same) detonation.

So in this bridling of the I-B military under the hegemony of the political via my personal control - until my detonation of the campaign, and the mobilisation for the battle of Berlin afterwards; we can see again, that dsicipline & audacity are totally dependant upon each other.

POST detonation, the period of absolute operational control is ended, & comes under the military politcal hegemony of the rank & file activist - in the RDF & mobilisation for the Battle of Berlin.

Splitting the idea from the personality

The problem we must confront is how to split the idea from the personality (me) that uncovered it. As we have seen, this can effectively be achieved through martyrdom. The essence of which is to in a single action both take and (in fact in order to) simaltaneously relinquish/devolve to the mass of activists absolute power. The masses thence permanently keep their leaders in check via the moral dictatorship of martyrs (the threat of a new revolution if they overstep the clearly defined boundaries of rev constitutional authority).

But we are forced to confront the Q, if only as a theoretical exercise, to illustrate the checks & balances of the revolution; what happens if something goes wrong with the plan & by some extremely unlikely sequance of events, with a rapid series of successes (beginning with the enemys' hand being forced into releasing me vis my hunger strike/mass demos etc etc - though the overwhelming liklihood is that the mass movement will only take of with my martyrdom), I survive all the civil wars to the point that the revolution has attained global hegemony?

If that were the case, as the originator of this theory, wether I cared for it or not (not), as the idea would not have been seperated from the personality that uncovered it (me), I could well be seen as the personification of the idea. Hence, the moral dictatorship of martyrs, the historical mechanism by which all political leaders are kept in check by the masses & ALL personality cults are finally destroyed,would NOT properly speaking exist UNTIL the idea is freed from the (existence of the) personality that uncovered it.

For in such an unlikely, practically inconcievable (not least because I have absolutely no talent whatever of any description, except for revolutionary theory) scenario, fearful of a movement being led against them, or rather bearing my sanction (should they be seen as opportunists), other key/leading figures (remember, in such a case the moral dictatorship as a historical check would not actually exist thence yet) might push it on me - if only to avoid the aforementioned threat.

And if the idea is not immortalised, seperated from the personality by the death of the one that uncovered it, then the hegemony of matter over (mass) consciousness (via the personification of the idea - eg peoples blind faith in the leader figure) actually remains - eg no moral dictatorship of the martyrs by which the masses keep leaders in check.

Ironically this lack of a moral check (moral dictatorship of the martyrs) would lead to a continuing inertial faith in leaders, the consequances of which would be:

Too much (unchecked) power in one persons (or a coterie of leaders) hands, which:

Paradoxically means they would actually lack the authority to railroad through the neccessary commonwealth framework/ sacrifices for global reconstruction (which can only lead back to opportunistic pol/econ).

As we will examine later, in the context of room for automatic development on basis of hegemony of matter over consciousness, this is not a problem. But when, as now, the hegemony of consciousness over matter is imperative, to enable pol/econ development, this would represent a fatal break on development, requiring a new revolt or at least impeachment to consolidate popular rev dem power.

In such a scenario the only way to resolve this dialectical paradox is for me to take absolute responsibility for anything/everything of a capital nature that goes wrong in the movement & insist that I & only I be held accountable for all such after the revolution has vanquished the global military plutocratic threat & becomes hegemonic (whence the threat of such a leader figure THENCE becomes the greater threat).

The way this will certainly manifest itself is through an attempt (by myself, should I survive the civil wars & find myself in the power position) to railroad through the sacrifices for global reconstruction, resisted in turn by tax strikes & riots, precipitating my signing (in public) a capital order for the use of loyal troops to open fire/ use lethal force on such forces (specifying that as supreme authority I and only I, be held responsible for such, so as to transfer to myself from/ absolve commanders & troops of all responsibility for actions coming within the remit of the capital order).....

This would precipitate my impeachment, lead to my execution, & consolidation of the Revolution through a fait accompli. Eg there would be a political army knowing the need for such sacrifices, that would brook no more disorder from rioters, that would enforce the reconstructionist solution. The fact that the forces of disorder would not be able to agree on a common pol/econ program (that could be consoldiated) would mean they would lack unity of insurgent purpose, would be ever more readily dispersed; especially as the hunger for order would be overwhelming.

WHY this gruesome process? Of literal decapitation of the originator of the new rev theory?

For the Revolution to win state power requires a dynamic minority & the mere acquiesence of the majority. But to BUILD the Revolution, needs the ACTIVE co-operation (however initially unenthusiastic) of the majority. This in turn means that they must see, through an exhaustive fusion of political education with bitter experiance, that WARTIME econ sacrifices for global reconstruction are the only way forward/ to avoid the abyss.

.........all incipient elite threats are neutralised via my elimination - consolidating rev law against all elements that could threaten it.

For this be a paradox that lies at the very heart of the revolution, that can only be resolved thus, with the spectre of absolute power equating to absolute responsibility to cancel out the incipient (even though wholly undesired) caesarist threat.

UNTIL then of course there remains a war to be fought, my place must be on the frontline.

For this be a paradox that lies at the very heart of the revolution, that can only be resolved thus, with the spectre of absolute power equating to absolute responsibility to cancel out the incipient (even though wholly undesired) caesarist threat.

While this might, perhaps require something little short of human sacrifice (in that material responsibility attaches itself to me regardless of moral intention or even neccessarily active involvement) to subordinate matter to the hegemony of consciousness (by eliminating the personification of the idea), the end entirely justifies the means, as long as the means do not negate the ends.

Furthermore, this (if it comes to it) will:

Create revulsion, a bulwark against all unneccessary bloodshed (as will the dictatorship of the martyrs anyway, by way of the authority/power to consolidate a rev reconstructionist framework) - as opposed to neccessary bloodshed.

Consolidate rev law over all & any that would put themselves above it, both any incipient opportunists in the revolution and amongst the enemy.

- So stabilising the rev centre of gravity/rev commonwealth.

Post victory, it would be impossible for me to bugger of to the obscurity that I currently enjoy as I write this. For most people are incredibly lazy, they would expend no limit of effort to avoid thinking, IF the option remains available to them - to surrender to a leader. So therefore even the last most exceptionally untalented (as friends & foes will agree, this is NOT mere modesty on my part) option must be denied them.

To those that will ask, `Why should we campaign to free you if you are to be brought to trial if we actually succeed (and you survive to the final victory)' - The answer be that you are NOT fighting for me, but for the establishment of a state of law. The founding principle of which be, that the military plutocratic regime does not have the right to indict anyone for fighting fascism.

As to the Q, `What then is in it for you?'

To fail to act on what I have learnt, means to subordinate the idea to my life, to betray/ destroy the knowledge that I have learnt. If I wish to save my soul, I am obliged to follow the logic of what I have learnt into immortality (we shall examine the Q of the immortality of the idea in Vol II).

The positive (part of the) answer is power. REAL power. Not over man, not over land or finance, but through an idea - to be free from the imperium of military plutocracy - which if it & with it the whole world, is not to be consigned to oblivion, must be possessed by millions like me, eg the rank & file activist & indeed the citizenry in general.

Therefore, to avoid losing this power, indeed to bring it to fruition, I must follow its logic unto immortality (we shall examine the Q of the Immortality of the Idea, the God Dialectic in Vol II).

But if the nuclear plutocrats `win' & I fail, even if I have done everything I could to prevent the great catastrophe, I wouldn't want to exist in any dimension beyond death; looking back forever at complete failure, a world in ashes. The notion of `every soul for itself', that individual salvation is possible without human engineered global salvation (instead waiting for divine intervention to save the world from itself), is as diabolic as it is bourgeois.

The reason for my past failure to deal with this Q

My earlier attempts to attack (as is my instinct) this Q (of the splitting of the idea from the personality), foundered when I originally considered that advocating such a process (seperation of the idea from the personality) would be intensely demorilising to the mass movement (suchlike are normally associated with reactionary swings) & in effect lead to its being stillborne.

Simply because it did not occur to me to emphasise the struggle framework for establishment of law - so pre-occuppied was I with (what I knew instinctively at my core to be an absolute neccessity eg) grasping the nettle, of my Black(Red)Adder-like removal from the process by my own revolution, that I actually overlooked this.

From the above we can further deduce the following Rules of Revolutionary War:

I (as originator of the new rev theory) am obliged to claim (indeed autocratic) power over the point of detonation of the movement. My own mere existence requires it (to control point of detonation of continuous operations as outlined in `Intro to QM'/S.O.F...., when thence becomes a federal activist centred movement post launch), for if I do not, then any premature venture is MY fault anyway, & the idea is crushed anyway via my definitive error as originator of the rev theory. This is also a serious deadweight factor... prevents/ obstructs independant currents from taking this theory up..., if say, I got struck by lightening, then others could take up the theory; & if rash in its execution, this would NOT lead to DEFINITIVE defeat... others could still launch at the opportune time....

As the originator of this theory I possess dominion over the idea/ point of my (declaring myself an I-B &) detonation of the campaign proper (though NOT over any other individual). This is to enable the movement to martial its forces (via the underground Cyber Army) before the campaign proper can be launched (with ripening of apocalyptic threats); preserve a cadre should others seek to launch the campaign BEFORE the situation ripens AND prevent the incipient Rev Dem movement having to formally recognise any I-Bs (which would compromise their autonomy) - so keeping the organs seperate yet parrallel.

UNTIL THEN, there exists NO RDM as such, merely a proto movement. AS it requires an operational campaign to hold the movement together/ stabilise it (via the practical imperatives of a military political campaign linked to the rev objectives/ program), it is ONLY with the launch of the campaign proper therefore, can (& MUST) the movement amend the RULES OF REVOLUTIONARY WARFARE, for ONLY then is there a movement to speak of (otherwise GRAVE threat of premature launch by this or that faction, destroying the WHOLE proto movement).

After my actual detonation of the campaign - via anti fascist miltary action (to be followed by hunger strike death struggle), the period of personal dominion of the idea is ended & the movement be kept stable by The Battle of Berlin/ pan commonwealth framework (& mobilisation for) - which prevents the I-B military coming under IRA control (via dependancy on IRA arms provision), in the context of a MAINLAND centred campaign, overriding the spectre of such fatal degeneration (which would annihilate our political base, by prostrating the rev political before the military - & its' being dragged into a sectarian conflict) with an ALL EUROPEAN campaign/ civil war against fascism - against which terrible common foe, BOTH Nationalist republican & Loyalist paramilitaries can be pulled under OUR centre of gravity.

After my detonation, it should be made clear, the movement comes under the hegemony of the rank & file activist - which means OPENNESS of the 3 main divisions of the movement - eg NO trying to outplay the enemy at its own secrecy game or top heavy bureaucratic secrecy based structures.

Until my detonation, the proto movement should concentrate on :

• The dissemination of the new rev theory via/ & construction of cyber army. And:

• Pre detonation, the setting up of the incipient movements' technical infrastructure and education of cadres.

• In the Cyberwarfare stage, everywhere cadres are compelled to adopt an OPEN profile (eg vis court cases/ conveying info on), they should adopt the slogans of the underground to force the movement BACK underground UNTIL continuous operations can be launched (eg `PREPARE FOR WAR AGAINST THE NEW FASCISM: BUILD/ JOIN THE CYBER ARMY') .

As the one that uncovered this theory, I possess 3 inextricably linked historic prerogatives, which NO power whatever can relinquish from me. NOT even a unanimous joint act of legislation passed/ ratified by the gloabl commonwealth parliament & WPCs in concert with the constitutional court - indeed, even if I wished it otherwise myself, once I have exercised the first prerogative, I will thence have dejure assented irreversibly to the deployment of the latter two.

• To start/ detonate the campaign (already noted).

• In turn as the one that uncovered they theory should I survive the civil wars, the 2nd prerogative kicks in, which flows AUTOMATICALLY from the 1st & commands that I be held responsible for all/ anything that goes wrong with the revolution of a capital nature - as WHOLLY regardless of moral intention, all such material guilt attaches itself to me. This be imperative to split the idea from the personality that uncovered it (- as BEFORE this has been achieved by my martyrdom (or should I survive, my execution), the moral dictatorship of the martyrs would NOT actually exist - as the spectre of (my being seen as) the personification of the idea would STILL exist.

And as other leaders would fear a movment if not lead by me, bearing my sanction,

this could lead to an inertial tendancy to push the power onto me.

And without the moral dictatorship of the martyrs NO one would have the authority to railroad through the neccessary.

(And as) Ironically this lack of a moral check (moral dictatorship of the martyrs) would lead to a continuing inertial faith in leaders, the consequances of which would be:

(a)Too much (unchecked) power in one persons (or a coterie of leaders) hands, which:

(b)Paradoxically means they would actually lack the authority to railroad through the neccessary commonwealth framework/ sacrifices for global reconstruction - which can only lead back to opportunistic pol/econ.

In such a scenario the only way to resolve this dialectical paradox is for me to take absolute responsibility for anything/everything of a capital nature (meaning my execution by the revolution) that goes wrong in the movement & insist that I & only I be held accountable for all such after the revolution has vanquished the global military plutocratic threat & becomes hegemonic (whence the threat of such a leader figure THENCE becomes the greater threat).

UNTIL then of course there remains a war to be fought, my place must be on the frontline. Afterwards if looking for anyone to blame for anything , I must be held responsible so that all incipient elite threats are neutralised via my elimination - consolidating rev law against all elements that could threaten it.

For this be a paradox that lies at the very heart of the revolution, that can only be resolved thus, with the spectre of absolute power equating to absolute responsibility to cancel out the incipient (even though wholly undesired) caesarist threat.

This in turn establishes the moral dictatorship of the martyrs, the historical device by which all leaders be permanently held in check - cauterising the threat of Caesarism AND enabling the railroading of rev commonwealth global reconstructionist program. as with the eclipse of all inertial leader worship, power ceases to be arbitrary, and thence (and ONLY thence) has the effective authority to railroad through the pan commonwealth program.

(c) Following on from the moral dictatorship, the 3rd & final prerogative kicks in, the complete destruction of ALL personality cults. Eg after my death NO statues of me to be erected anywhere - as such are used to butress through idolatry, the unaccountable power of ruling cliques. Therefore anyone erecting a statue of me, to be shot out of hand as a caesarist, as we would a classical fascist.

My other historic role

Aside from the aforementioned historic functions, I have with the enemy media, one other joint historic role to perform. Which is to prove (with all the enemy lightening bolts hurled against me) that if even I can be an effective revolutionary, so can virtually anyone. A sort of revolutionary Norman Wisdom, whose totally unexpected success at landing rev political blows on the military plutocrats, serves to prove that the enemy can be beaten.

I am Norman Wisdom as King Arthur. Eg I will prove to the world that if even I can wield Xcalibur, then so can virtually anyone.

I drew the sword of knowledge, of the new rev theory, so it falls to me to wield it. I can only assume that this is a dialectic logic built into the historical process. That the laser- like single minded dedication required to uncover said theory, insures that said individual be spectacularly crap at everything else; so as to prevent the rank & file activist/ citizen from being over awed by, & therefore devastated by the loss of a super collosus figure like Malcolm X (the greatest revolutionary, the greatest man that ever lived). Instead, giants shall rise where once, only I stood.

(THE STEEL CORE - PART 3)

(Preserving the focus of the movement AT ALL COSTS)

War & Peace,

& The Drugs Trap

(And how to minimise its impact)

The primary concern is the strategic impact of this Q on the movement. Though shall outline background issues to begin with.

The legal Q

By definition, whatever position is taken in relation to the drugs Q is wrong/ contradictory subject to ridicule (vis similar Q access to alcohol/ cigarettes). But would it be better if the likes of BAT/ Philip Morris were able to sell/ profit from this stuff? Or worse, in conjunction with GLAXO- Welcome, develop an ultra cocaine (assuming restrictions on what drugs can be sold commercially/ on general release, are to be discarded)?

Of course, the military plutocratic regime's position is wholly opportunistic; uses the political economy of drugs to keep the Latin Americans/ USA Blacks in their place. But a principled pro decriminalisation position is demonstrably unviable.

So eliminating such options, we are stuck with the Q `what are WE going to do about it?'

Of course the best solution (putting to one side the geo pol/econ reconstruction of the drug based pol/econs) is for addicts to get their chemical walking stick from GPs (so that they don't steal/ deal to finance their habit) while hammering the pushers at every level, especially the top (money launderers/ CIA allies of narco fascists)

But, of course, the state wont play ball on this & for good reasons. Because WE are left dealing with the strategic fallout.

In a civil war situation (which is what regime strategists are really concerned with, preserving levers of control under conditions not merely of stability, but critically amidst an aggressive challenge to its power) to clamp down on pushers pushes not merely the pushers into the arms of the regime/ counter revolution (which we can live with) but also the addicts. Nasty. Very nasty.

What then? A wholesale purge of addicts? Do this & you create a wider paranoia/ hysteria that goes beyond even addicts, but more or less everyone in the community. A 5th column doing great damage to irregular revolutionary political activists/ formations that watch the backs of the (regular) visible divisions of the movement.

The idea of `social contracts' between community/ addicts, in which an agreed code of conduct is observed & enforced (to prevent the darwinian phenonemon of the most ruthless dealers surviving purges/ minimise conflict) sounds (& even within strict limits IS) the least hideously God awful option available. But. Toleration of the lesser evil dealers doesn't just leave the regime with its irregular agents in the midst of the community (eg connected via the higher end of the supply chain), such a culture of toleration, of such preference, unofficial licensing which may well work well enough in peacetime, would IN WARTIME, pollute the incipient revolutionary state taking command of areas - `Reason becomes unreason'.

Indeed we'd be by default/ defacto controlling the supply chain as part of this `realistic' option (& drift into taking a cut, `to finance the war effort'). No thanks. If the revolution is so polluted, anti drugs elements will turn against us we absolutely cannot afford this.

You can see why the enemy gaurd this lever so jealously.

While in the context of war, a blitz spirit can more or less maintain unity against the core enemy (partially contain the fallout of the neccessarily hardline anti pusher policy); this is certainly NOT the case in peacetime; in which social contracts are the better option.

The key difference is, in peacetime, you are forced to bargain/ negotiate with forces of equal or greater power. You are NOT therefore, corrupted by operational resposibility for all that goes on. For THIS reason, people accept the lesser evil.

But in wartime, we have responsibility, what goes on goes on with our consent or against it. The conclusions I think are brutally obvious. People will ask what we are doing when we have the power (Eg nobody expects us the wrong side of an operational rev pol camapign, to gun down the police, to enforce our power, to enable us to keep drugs out).

So in conclusion, our position should be:

`What you do as peacetime community activists, is NOT the same as what you can/ will be required to do as revolutionary political (irregular) activists in wartime.'

That a distinction between community & macro political should be observed/ made clear (that as before the war/ rev pol campaign, it is impossible to unite the community against a common threat, in such a way that they would tolerate martial policing as a neccessary war measure. War measures, need wartime justification, need gigantic war objectives).

For political activists to take part in brokering such social contracts in a community capacity is acceptable, but NOT in a political capacity.

This distinction between (wartime) irregular politcal activism & peacetime community activism is the way to bypass the historic tripwire of `reason becoming unreason' & the rev pol movement being destroyed by drugs criminality.

15th November 1999

In response to the idea mooted by some, `Why not a social contract with state forces instead of addicts & the less loathsome dealers'?

The idea of social contracts be considered in a situation where police are not dealing with drugs gangs AND where without a rev pol campaign, WE cannot routinely clamp (gun them) down either (no blitz spirit holding the community together against a common enemy, so that they will tolerate such measures).

In any case the idea of revolutionaries dealing with the state in this context is a nonstarter. WHY should the enemy help you clear up drug dealers on your estates so as to help you overthrow them the better? Much better (for the enemy) to let the problem fester & then go in with the objective of taking out the revolutionaries as the main target (with of course the very best in covering PR & news blackouts to insure zero fallout for the enemy - in this context the enemy can happily live with riots on some obscure estate, for unless you possess a generalised OPERATIONAL rev pol framework to enable you to politically take the war to the enemy, the TSG will bury you).

You must ASSUME revolutionary activists will (if they are an eighth of the way effective) be the principle target.

FAR better that NON politicos deal with the state in this regard, taking care to avoid/ minimise giving police a strategic lever over rev activists.

The principles underlying `social contracts' with enemy state forces are similar to those vis drug addicts/ lesser evil dealers. You are dealing with totally untrustworthy enemy elements & the primary objective is to avoid or at least minimise (the community etc) being drawn into direct combat (especially with the regime) UNTIL we are able to embark on CONTINUOUS OPERATIONS. THIS is why we must concentrate on building the underground CYBER ARMY. This is where ALL attack/ offensive preperations must be, the rest is just holding the line/ containment.

Let us not decieve ourselves, the enemy holds the levers of the operational agenda & will continue to do so until the forces of chaos (it has stored up) burst forth (in any of the scenarios outlined), subverting the enemy's rear, enabling us to move forward. UNTIL then it is a matter of assuming/ holding a position in the Cyber Army & in people's minds in preperation for our opportunity (vis scenarios outlined).

Vis social contracts, the idea is with the minimum of conflict to (enforce social contracts) make the (working) environment of cadres/ citizens as bearable as can be made until hostilities can commence.

Drugs, extreme hazardous materials
& the Knowledge Society

(12th October 1999)

Post revolution, there will be a state of flux in which the old system will have collapsed, & the Revolution has emerged as the only force capable of consolidating (a pol/ econ centre of gravity) order.

The consolidation of the new system eventually comes down to the Q, HOW do you police the knowledge society?

Obviously we cannot rely on the nat sec state model of control of info by a military plutocratic elite.

But in a society held together by common threats to its survival/ & common objectives (as outlined earlier), policing by ACTIVE consent is both viable/ effective & the ONLY option.

The continuation of the breaking of the drugs pol/econ is expressed in the licensing of drugs; vis commercial sale (even in a state with the common ownership of information/ abolition of copyright), to prevent development of a narco political economy.

This obviously must remain, as the core of anti drugs policy (eg we cannot have an ultra cocaine developed by drugs corps/ colleges, & commercially available/ unrestricted, re-introducing a narco political economy). We therefore (equally obviously) have to have knowledge gatekeepers, with a duel role of policing civil society's agreed codes (maintain effective control of the sale/ provision of drugs/ other hazardous, eg biochemical/ radioactive including nuclear explosive, materials - licensing use of such materials to qualified & authorised personnel within civil society's agreed codes of ethics, safety & objectives) & assisting knowledge provision.

Civil society/ pressure groups determine procedures/ codes of conduct governing the role of such gatekeepers (a permanent ongoing dialogue between the 2).

Knowledge gatekeepers (corresspondingly) prevent the general commercial sale of such materials (preventing a drugs pol/econ developing), BUT NOT ACCESS TO INFO, as this would hinder civil society in determining its codes/ policies & aid the development of a military plutocratic nat sec state.

The problems with this are obvious; eg there is NO restriction of the knowledge on the means of creating weapons of mass destruction, these are already easily accessible via the internet anyway.

It is a fact that knowledge brings with it the capacity to destroy as well as to create/ build, but restricting knowledge through a military plutocratic nuclear armed nat sec state, desperately trying to retain control of the pol/econ agenda as its geo pol/econ system crumbles, through engineering wars as justification for it to cling to power, is certain suicide/ clearly no option.

The only workable option is for humanity, held together by common threats to its existence & common objectives, to police itself by consent, as outlined above.

To those that will ask, WHY if you are not even bothering to TRY to halt access to knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, do you even bother with restricting hazardous materials?

The answer is to foster a culture/ ethos of CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT. Which is the MOST important restraint preventing (not only major league universities/ research departments engaging in reprehensible activities, eg creating a race of human/ animal hybrids, but) unsupervised/ uncontrolled amateur enthusiasts arsing about with Bacillus Pestes (Black Death) or creating human/ animal hybrids in their garden shed. This ethos of controlled development (by & for civil society), is the ONLY way to prevent humanity's own knowledge destroying it.

Basically this ethos buys critical time & space for human society (& individuals infleuenced by same) to think things through/ give them due weight, as a matter of course.

The essence of military plutocratic criminality is manifest in nat sec state control over civil society which leads (vis attempt to retain this control) to their deployment of such materials for criminal ends - as seen in their nukes/ bio weapons systems...

For as the power to create comes with the power to destroy, everything reduces itself to the Q of control of process which in turn is reduceable to the Q of control of information hence (to re-iterate) info must be completely free, but materials restricted to buy time for people to think before they act (minimising catastrpohic consequances); for ultimately only by fostering such a culture held together by common threats/ objectives confronting all humanity (aided by common ownership of info) will humanity's power to create not destroy it in toto....

Strategy of Tension?

The implications of the

London bombings for the revolutionary movement

By Adam G. Ghaznavi

Strategic Lessons of the `White Wolves' Affair (1st May 1999)

If the Brixton/ Brick Lane & Soho bombings (originally attributed to a group calling itself theWhite Wolves - but since put down to a `lone nut') are the result of an abortive Strategy of Tension (a plot abandoned when the steaming pile threatened to reach criticality - & not the actions of a single individual), then one of its intended functions is/ was to induce fear/ paralysis in cadres, by making us (me) afraid to act for fear of the conclusion others will draw on the `White Wolves' affair. Eg that the creation of a classical fascist threat (through a backlash against the bombing feeding a right wing classical fascist counter backlash) provides us with targets for our Internationalist Brigade shock troops, to launch our campaign. And that this points to a diabolic conspiracy between far left & far right.

The very worst thing we can do is say nothing about this. We must attack this threat DIRECTLY, by explaining precisely how such can be made to look incriminating against the revolution, AND THE (ESPECIALLY USA) REGIMES' RECORD ON STRATEGY OF TENSION ACTIVITIES WORLDWIDE INCLUDIING EUROPE, eg GLADIO (conducted in alliance with European secret police forces, using SS veterans).

We will also put this in its contempory context, vis the threat of the indirect oil war in the Balkans gathering its own momentum & the threat of anti war radicalism providing the incipient revolutionary movement with invaluable political cover fire.

In any case,we will highlight the military plutocratic regime's fundamentally criminal character in operational rev political attacks/

delegitimising the regime linked with the rev pol program in a single operational campaign to free antifascist PoWs. Attack is the only effective means of defense.

(Whilst coincidence cannot totally be ruled out, we shall also outline good reasons why the regime might well resort to such tactics NOW)

Anyway, concerning the lessons for the movement of the `White Wolves' affair, we will begin by outlining some relevant strategic points we are already aware of, such as:

Aside from German core classical fascism, which represents the core threat of war (the centre of gravity of the European war/ oblivion party - which must be pre- emptively smashed by the Battle of Berlin - other anti fascist actions in Britain/ the non germanic periphery are merely beachheads enabling the martialing of forces & convergence on the core threat), the military plutocratic regime is the primary target of our movement, the rest is of secondary significance.

The chief purpose of anti classical fascist action, is to legitimate the bearing of arms & their use by the revolution - so that attempts to repress such OPEN military formations lead to (a POW struggle linked to the campaign to delegitimise the regime & push a rev reconstructionist program) a DUEL between conflicting legitimacies - that of the military plutocracy & that of the revolution.

The lack of classical fascist `big game' in Britian does NOT negate the above 2 principles

ONCE a rev campaign is started cellular terrorism rather than classical fascist mobilisation will be deployed to target the movement. As this is the most strategically economical method.

Classical mobilisation is only neccessary in the context of an existing radical state/ USSR neccessitating NOT just elimination of the left, but competing with it vis an alternative vision(or with total econ collapse/ war as a final means to cling retain control of the pol/econ agenda even as everything tips over into oblivion) - Without this, a strategicaly economical approach (concentrating on the physical elimination of the left, or its managed intimidation, in order to get it to work within boundaries/ constraints more acceptable to the regime) makes more sense - eg without the creation of a mass classical fascist target, enabling the radical left to lever itself up on the corpses of.

Terrorism in our rear, designed to create mass panic, is another classic (military plutocratic) CIA type model a la GLADIO. With the civil population's confidence in its own ability to command its own destiny so shattered, those that have the geo pol/econ points of support of geo military plutocratic/ surveillance hegemony, are able to (pose as rescuers from chaos) reconsolidate control/ mop up any refractory ultra rightists (see GLADIO in post WWII Europe, the Bologna bombing in Italy, Operation Condor in Latin America - or just call in at the `School of the Americas' in Fort Benning USA - from which over 60% of Latin American senior army officers graduated; lovingly reffered to as `Coup School' by millions of grateful Latin Americans - & ask to see some of their multiple choice papers).

If revolutionaries/ radicals are unable to reconsolidate such control by taking the attack to & securing a large enough area (eg continental Europe), correspondingly enabling the USA revolution to hammer the core enemy its rear (kick ass), we get crushed. EVERYTHING depends on the Battle of Berlin - such is the pattern of the hitherto undeclared global civil war.

The above can be considered CONSTANT strategic principles.

MOTIVE (For the regime, eg if NOT a `lone nut')

This action would be consistent with a classic strategy of tension, but in an innovative pre-emptive form (rather than against a pre-existing leftist target), vis the Balkan war, & enemy fear of mass hostility to war gathering its own momentum/ bloodshed providing vital/ decisively important political cover fire for the revolutionary movement. To get the masses scuttling to the state for cover/ re-inforcing its legitimacy.

To create fear/ paralysis amongst cadres about being set up, as the abscence of obvious classical fascist `big game' appears to suggest motive - eg to `create' such, & target them - either the `White Wolves' themselves (somewhat implausible given that the type of military political formation involved - which appropriate counter to we shall examine in chapter 2 in S.O. F. when we examine how to counter Extra Normal State Forces) or more elaborately (& convincingly) via their intention to create a backlash among minorities leading to a counter backlash - which presumably be targeted by yours truly.

A TOTAL killer. Dialectically, any element capable of such bombing, is (vis ultimate logic) capable of using nukes. Given our `Neutralising Doomsday' strategy (outlined in detail in Chapter 2 Vol I of `Substance Over Form'), if the enemy establishes the 1st lie, they can easily/ automatically establish the ultimate lie.

Eg the claim of a `pact of death' helped along by the vilest historical libel (which has significant popularity) that the extreme left & extreme right (pursued to the ultimate) arrive at the same conclusion.

To compare the notion of `honor' of death (really covering up one's embarressment) of classical fascists, or the covering up one's embarressment at past murders by following through with `democratic' nuclear war; with the revolutionary (Quantum Materialist) idea of `Redemption Through Sacrifice' (blood/ military & economic- for global reconstruction) to AVOID nuclear oblivion - is more about justifying appeasement of nuclear plutocracy than anything else.

As ALL nuclear war leads inexorably to oblivion, ALL nuclear war (even if waged by nominal `communists') is fascist; as therefore (albeit in cryptic form), is appeasement of any such pol/econ tendancy prefering nukes, a military plutocratic regime choking on its own barbed wire, to redemption through sacrifice (military & economic) for global reconstruction - or else the terms fascist & anti fascist are absolutely of no value whatever.

(Following on from previous) To create the most intense hostility among key elements/ areas from which the revolutionary movement can least afford such hostillity from. Eg if Blacks/ Asians/ gays etc view us (me) as the enemy, this drives an absolutely fatal psychological wedge between the rev movement and ALL otherwise winnable radical layers.

In our refusing to commit historical suicide by advocating `support for the (legitimacy of the state) police', FORCE us into a position where we have to directly charge the regime with committing the act themselves (this would take so long to prove, that by the time such proved, it would no longer be a fatally hot issue/ be too late). This is NOT like the Balkan war or other fundamental & therefore traceable pol/econ crimes. And therefore the benefit of the doubt will go to the regime. Any attempt to place ANY, would mean placing ALL our chips on this issue, & would almost certainly backfire as the principle of `plausible deniability', of operations conducted several degrees removed by the intelligence agencies, so as to make a decisive charge more difficult, makes it like snatching at fog (this would devalue our political currency to a potentially fatal degree - as such, I will use ALL my weight to oppose such an approach, by the movement, in favor of concentrating on the military plutocratic regime's general record in this regard as outlined earlier & the imperatives of geo revolutionary strategy generally.

Create a target I-Bs cannot go after (requiring intelligence led Self Defense Action units, seperate from the OPEN organs of the rev movement proper, that connot be brought yet under our moral control UNTIL the rev pol campaign is operational). Creating consequant race war potential, if SDAs do not come under moral orbit of the rev movement - which elaborately, can be made to rebound on the rev movement vis suggestion of motive, to create `big game' targets for I-Bs.

With the police capturing some/ all of the `White Wolves' comes the credulity Q, How would you run the country without MI5? How would you stop such actions without bugging every phone with all the concern for freedom & justice of J. Edgar Hoover? (no cadres, it is NOT enough to say we wouldn't have set them up in the first place).

Our response to the credulity Q

Our resonse to this is, that whatever you do, if you even decide to mop up some such, even of the regimes own criminals & people help you, fine. But with your regime's criminal record, (the British is an operational adjunct of the USA regime - note the listening bases at Menworth Hill & Cornwall, therefore they share directly in the blood guilt of the regime) GLADIO, COINTELPRO, Coupschool etc etc etc, don't expect us for one minute to cede our right to revolution on the strength of this.

At another level, it is almost immaterial wether or not the state was involved in the London bombings. For even if it was, it still needed willing elements capable of carrying out such an atrocity. Autonomous elements (to preserve the notion of plausible deniability) that were not cooked up in a laboratory but grew out of Britain's soil, elements for whom war is an end in itself.

The myriad overt & covert cults of supremacy (in society) are based on the fact that war is organic to this military plutocratic system. One must trample over everyone else to get to the top of the dung heap. Everywhere there is war. Divisions between nations, between elites & subordinates, society proclaims the triumph of the winners... over whom?

All know at their core, deep down what a con it all is. Most settle for whatever, however much or little, they can get for themselves. Some seek to resist through peaceful means, others through revolution - wether or not they know really what they are fighting for, they know what they are fighting against.

But others that know not how, to contain or at what to articulate their elemental rage (that is undoubtedly in part borne of a contempt at the sheer ineffectualness of the classical left - `why waste good rage supporting such impotence?')... seek out the nearest target & an ideology that justifies/ glorifies their violence. `Did you spill my pint' raised to the height of a political philosophy.

War confers power & status by smashing that of adversaries real or percieved. Something only the elites disguising their terror with a fiction of legitimacy are supposed to know. But we all know, all of us. For the knowledge permeates down through society, from the very top to the bottom, & from the bottom up, in a realisation that from the cradle to the grave, weakness does not go unpunished.

The solution to petit warlordism is essentially the same as for the principal. Stop giving the bastards responsible for the chaos we are in more power to deal with the effects of their crimes & address the problem at source. Hammer the military plutocracy, the institutional warlordism that calls itself law, and confront the world with the fact that only redemption through sacrifice, military & economic, for global reconstruction (on pain of choking on our own barbed wire/ oblivion), can insure a common security between & amongst peoples.

A rev pol offensive against the very existence of the nat sec state (eg MI5/ CIA/ GLADIO/ COINTELPRO/ Coupschool etc etc), in Britain, USA & Europe shall be our response, a war against the war economy.

Why would the regime want London Bombed by fascists NOW? WHY not before?

Why not before in Britain, as with Italy/ Bologna?

Because there were OTHER more natural/ convincing levers to work with to create instability (& pretext for the justification of/ strengthening the nat sec state), Eg N. Ireland (note also the Colin Wallace affair).

The IRA performed the same purpose only much better (for the nat sec state, the regime proper- as opposed to their parliamentary errand boys). Being a natural phenonemon. Like bombing the Serbs, resulting in the Serbs massively increasing their ethnic cleansing of the Kosovans (who were previously prevented from obtaining heavy weaponry thanks to NATO memebers shutting down their bank accounts) in turn justifying (superficially) NATO bombing (so keeping BOTH Serbs & Kosovans crushed so as to send the aforementioned message to Greece NOT to chance its arm over Turkish Northern Cyprus in revenge for the arrest of Abdullah Ocalan, as the dismemberment of Kurdistan between the tyrannies of the Mid East & Turkey is essential to their maintenance as tyrannies & USA being able to maintain its geo pol/econ hegemony over them by playing them of against each other).

Though wheras the N. Ireland situation was relatively stable, until the global pol/econ crashes, the Balkan war threatens to gather its own momentum (vis Russian popular intervention) leading to global oblivion.

Now it might not look much. It might not be much. But Britain is the centre of gravity for the whole world (at the very least over the Balkans crisis). Therefore it MUST be kept secure for the military plutocratic forces at all costs. A rev breakthrough/ offensive in Britain can tip the balance of the whole world. Europe & the USA. Hence the bombing here, even if not elsewhere, as this would give the game away.

The USA connexion

Combat 18 was set up in Britain with the assistance of the USA leader & FBI asset, Harold Covington.

Nothing especially suspicious in that per se (you expect such geo links between fascists & radicals - & the leader of such could not opt out of doing so because his commitment to the FBI rules it out of order), though even MI5 friendly `Searchlight' thinks it was set up as an MI5 honey trap.

But then (if requiring a fascist terrorist tool/ outfit) the enemy proper (the regime) are hardly likely (at least in sophisticated Britain, whose pseudo democratic sensibilities must be assuaged) to bung the local stormtroops the wherewithal to set up in business with their organisational fingerprints all over the evidence.The principles of plausible deniability must be observed.

So there would be nothing surprising either in the `White Wolves' as an offshoot, carrying out such attacks (C18 too heavily infiltrated by MI5, therefore if they did it it would have Stephen Lander's paw prints all over it, plausible deniability requires that it be one or more degrees removed from the principle).

The more interesting Q is long term strategy.

Wether the regime (in USA/ Britain) anticipated a resurgent modified geo leftism or geo fragmentation (like the Balkan conflict, capable of sparking episodic radical leftism & even providing cover fire for the deployment of the new rev theory which they may or may not have fully anticipated), the Jesse Jackson presidential campaign was a wake up call to the fundamental brittleness of the regime as early as 1987.

And that it be anticipated that such a terrorist tool would be required to carry out actions against specifically defined targets, to accomplish certain strategic objectives, avoiding messy mass mobilisation of classical fascsit formations. Eg take out the left, and/ or, at a critical point, push Blacks down the dead end of Farrakhan style nationalism.

And that what we saw was a (perhaps innovative?) deployment, in the context of the indirect oil war in the Balkans & new rev theory.

Postcript 14/04/01

Q. If I was such a threat vis (enemy policy vis) indirect oil war, why had I done nothing to push my ideas to a wider public?

1) I could have pushed my work to anti war forces & found a large (cash/ connexions rich) audience for at least part of my ideas/ theories, particularly with regards the indirect oil war. But if I had done this without a mountain of body bags enabling (courtesy of Russian warlordist intervention) the launch of continuous operations (including the geo pol/econ reconstructionist program as a stabilising factor against warlordism), my ideas (& political persona) would have operationally been reduced to being the political hostage of pro- rightwing serb forces & therefore discredited as such. So:

2) I had no choice but to simply wait for mountains of bodybags (in event of a Russian warlordist intervention) & a wider audience to develop, to whom I could pitch my ideas & retain control of them by launching continuous operations.