Towards a New American Revolution
America is being overwhelmed with social meltdown, uncontrolled poverty and unemployment. This has been combined with the constant media bombardment of an entertainment complex meant to cause intellectual and emotional retardation, combined with a security culture on overdrive. The USA is being eaten out from the inside by a cancer of its own creation. American Revolutionaries on ‘both sides’ of the so-called political spectrum were right, have been right all along, and are right today. This is a twofold phenomenon, a meltdown occurring on both the cultural and economic front.
These two are connected and inseparable, creating a ‘chicken or egg’ paradox when one tries to untangle them. Today’s revolutionary Political Soldiers need to have a basic grasp of the present situation beyond being a percipient witness to their daily lives. From this, a more coherent analysis of what is now and ‘What is to be Done?’ will be possible. That will lead the best of them to the conclusion that the groundbreaking thesis of Alexander Dugin provides them with the most coherent set of usable tools for the coming American revolution.
The signs on the cultural front tell us that only a revolution which overthrows the entire media and educational system will make possible the later task of redemption and regeneration. The signs on the economic front tell us that uprisings in the near future are all but inevitable. What are the signs on the economic front that we are entering a pre-revolutionary period?
On the Economic Front
Many public intellectuals and commentators who compose that particular class of pundits, those talking heads, have tried to contextualize this as a product of the 2007 ‘Housing Market Bubble’ which burst wide open, leaving millions more homeless . But rapidly rising homelessness – which may include families moving in with their parents and inlaws and the overall decrease in home ownership – is only one of the signs of a decaying hollowed out system.
Others still trace it back to the year 2000 dot-com bubble bursting; an event that was almost entirely wallpapered over the following year when the very same economic meltdown was instead blamed on the (CIA fiction) ‘Al Qaeda’ in that famous ‘Inside Job’ known as 9-11. In response, more money was “printed” at the fed and a new bubble was created and channeled into two subsidized streams – housing loans and new home construction on the one hand, and military expenditure on the other.
Other analysts will look at the deregulatory schemes of Clinton in the 90’s, the sorts of changes which a decade earlier would have made the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal actually legal. Before this though was ‘Reaganomics’, itself attributed to the general decrease of living standards and the increase of both urban and rural poverty as the direct result of Cold War military spending.
In all reality, one can continue to go back, and back, and back. What we find is that wide scale poverty has always existed in America, has always persisted, and each major downturn since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession, has never been recovered from. Each time there was just another increase in the transfer of real wealth from the have-nots to the have-alls. The only real change is that it has gotten worse in each successive decade for America’s broad and toiling masses. Awareness of this reality has also increased due to the center of media attention shifting from the vertical and ‘one way’ method of TV, radio, and print, over to the horizontal and ‘two way’ method made possible through the internet
But history proves that there is only so much that people can take, before they rise up. In objective terms, an observed pattern indicates that uprisings are all but inevitable when food prices exceed the nominal FAO-UN index figure of 210 when combined with a government with decreased legitimacy in the public eye . This threshold figure was first crossed in February of 2008, which directly led to the Arab Spring ‘uprisings’ in 2010. This high index figure was in all ways engineered: after the collapse of the Housing bubble in 2007, the massive and endless bailouts starting with QE-1 were used to generate a stock market bubble.
Besides creating an important ideological fiction of a ‘rebounding stock market’, specifically perishable goods commodities futures markets were targeted for cornering. This resulted in an engineered spike in grain prices. Governments were forced to rebalance their internal economies in order to subsidize and correct for this sudden change. This is also no small part of the ‘sovereign debt’ crises in the EU periphery states, the PIIGS nations – Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain – which continue to experience a sustained condition of social upheaval which has been branded in different ways by various participants, pundits, and analysts (indignados, 99%/Occupy, etc.) 
Governments that could not offset the spike in food costs, and in addition were targeted by CIA funded and Gene Sharp inspired astro-turf organizing movements, and also then were hit with ‘sanctions’ were subsequently ripe for ‘uprisings’. This change in food prices also occurred in the US. Food price inflation in the US continues to spiral upwards and is reaching a critical figure. “The FAO food price index averaged 215.5 points in April 2013, up 2 points (1.0 percent) from its revised March value of 213.2 points and from April last year. At that level, the index is only 9 percent below the peak reached in February 2011. Similar to the price development in March, the April increase was driven almost exclusively by a sharp rise in dairy quotations, as meat prices rose marginally while those of the other food commodities fell.”
The other obvious and huge factor is the combined rising unemployment/underemployment rate in the US with the figure of those earning less than a livable wage but work 35 or more hours. But even a realistic and ‘raw’ unemployment figure alone shows us a staggering 23.5% unemployment rate in the US, underemployment by hours and underpaid employment by wages not included.
So it is clear that there exists in the US an economic basis for popular uprisings. What will be key then are that there exists a coherent leadership structure composed of an organic vanguard that are capable of giving focus and structure to those uprisings. While the development of these factors in the US point in the direction of revolution, uprising, fragmentation, and dissolution all simultaneously, there remain two obstacles. There is the lack of unity between ostensibly revolutionary groups due to a combination of ‘small group power dynamics’ and ideological incompatibility issues on the one hand, and the pervasive illusion of normalcy and stability promoted by the mainstream-media which still too many of the population adhere to, on the other.
There exist some possible solutions to this seeming impasse, but would-be revolutionaries in the US will have to learn something more about post-Soviet political evolution in Eurasia. This is because there have been some significant developments there in the last 22 years which have seen a working coalition of otherwise contradictory social and political tendencies brought under a ‘big roof’ to support either of two Eurasian projects – starting with the ‘Red-Brown Coalition’, which are really one project with two faces (one pragmatic asin Putin’s Eurasian Union and other ‘radical’ as in Dugin’s Eurasianism and the related though distinct ‘USSR 2.0’). There is literally a whole career’s worth of data to study in that arena in order to condense from it the finest points. Fortunately a lot of this refinement has already been done and it is for these and other reasons that the study of the framework of the 4th Position and A. Dugin, and others working alongside him, are so significant.
For American Revolutionaries today, the geostrategic and ideological framework of the 4th Position provides the best combination of tools to make a decisive change, that is to say revolutionary change, to save ourselves from utter destitution and total destruction.
This leads us back to the top of our question. We have looked briefly at some of the economic conditions which make uprisings in America all but inevitable, but what about the cultural? This can be reduced to two components: what an ‘American’ actually is and thus the origins of the demographic and cultural divisions among Americans over here, and their political and ideological differences in thinking based on these over there.
On the Cultural Front
America has its own ‘native’ political discourse, which has as much to do with views on economics and culture in the abstract as they do with the various regional developments over its history in reality. America the illusion, as a single entity with one-size fits all ideas and solutions, is what is promoted in education and culture, again this idea of a land from ‘Sea to Shining Sea’. But America the reality is in fact beginning to tear apart into various historically based fragments based upon the centrifugal force of its spinning, chaotic and unnatural Atlanticist tutelage. America is in reality comprised of various ethnic groups, and the multi-cultural ‘melting pot’ project has neither been what it has claimed to be, nor has its execution been successful. There is only a real flimsy amount of historical power that can hold ‘America’ together.
Dugin’s study of ethnicity and sociology – together ‘ethnosociology’ – in Eurasia has led to a number of paradigm shifting conclusions about Eurasians living in that ‘big space’. This has enabled him to work with other experts including elements of Russian officialdom to generate a framework for a rethinking of both horizontal and vertical cultural and economic integration of the landmass.
But what of America? Just as the American Nazi Party of George Lincoln Rockwell or Francis Parker Yockey and the Silver Shirts could not succeed in superimposing German lessons onto the US, and just as the CPUSA of C.E Ruthenberg or the SWP of James P. Cannon could not succeed in doing the same with the lessons of Bolshevism, it is not simply a matter of taking Dugin’s conclusions about Eurasia and asserting that they are true for America. For the continental identity and future of the American landmass is one that requires its own solid analysis. Nevertheless, Dugins geostrategic and ethnosociological approach are going to be an indispensable working theory for the “American Revolution 2.0”.
For indeed, the very meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have an entirely other meaning than they have across the Atlantic. Really one can argue that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are European ideas to this day, understood to date from the French Revolution, and have little if no meaning in the US in practical terms.
While it creates a lot of confusion – as ostensible US ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ have a number of contradictory positions that really would fit better in the other camp – there is also a good deal of promise here. This could help the political soldier, the American revolutionary, in promoting a new vision for this new century which explodes the already alien (Franco-European) ideas of left and right.
The US political discourse is entirely inverted and distorted, and even in our lifetimes we have seen positions move around the so-called ‘left/right’ spectrum. This really exposes the inadequacy of thinking of these questions in ‘left/right’ terms. Ideas good or bad are promoted by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Official reasons and the ‘actual’ reasons (as understood from an outcomes approach) are mostly at odds.
The combination of real and illusory economic success in the US created a political discourse which focussed on a whole array of cultural and sociological questions without placing the economic basis – a capitalist empire – into question. Among the tasks of 4PT American Revolutionaries today is going to bring these economic questions, a challenge to capitalism, to the fore alongside a spiritual regeneration which champions the rights of Americans to form intentional communities. These taken all together will be heterogeneous in appearance.
Americans living in the social and political construct called the “USA” are a pragmatic and forward looking lot, today numbering 320 million. Industrious and creative, hardworking and determined; living on a vast land-mass Americans are thus naturally isolationist in relation to the world on the other side of either the Atlantic or Pacific. Like other people, they are generally family oriented in the rural parts, cosmopolitan in the cities, and share a natural and healthy distrust for politicians, salesmen, and bankers.
For most of their history, they have been led to believe that there is no dream unrealizable, no scheme that could not be executed. “Where there is a will, there is a way!”, it has always been said. America is a single land, but not entirely a single people. And like all peoples, their strengths and prejudices have been skillfully used to manipulate them against their own spiritual and material interests.
Today, there are essentially Four American groups of moral and historical significance which are entirely tied up with each other. There are Whites, Blacks, ‘Native Americans’/First Peoples, and Latinos. A proviso here to include would be East Asians and Middle-Easterners today – but in understanding the origins of America and the contradictions we must examine and resolve, their role is not too significant for the purpose of this text. There is also the 19th and early 20th century Russian and European (Italian, Irish, etc.) immigrant experiences which share many common features. However, by post WWII new demographic scheme, these groups had primarily been more or less assimilated for practical purposes and ‘achieved’ the status of ‘White’, with some exceptions. This became reflected in categories on the national census.
From the westward expansion, the hardships and struggles of the pioneers, across the dry steppe, highlands, and deserts in covered wagons with scarce supplies, the idea and reality of America a Continent grew. Two groups went westward together this way; the Whites and the Blacks – tied together in a Spartan/Helot relationship, and entered upon the third and fourth; Latinos and First Peoples. The first encountered Latinos were, as the name suggests, simply First Peoples who had been previously colonized or semi-colonized by the Spaniards in the encomienda system and were often Spanish speaking and other-times not. This stands in Contrast with the various ‘Native American’/First Peoples groups who may have had both English and Spanish learned speakers in their tribe, but retained the tribal way of life and normally spoke their native dialects and languages; the most well known in the world being the Cherokee, Crowe, Hopi, Cheyenne, Blackfoot, Iroquois, Navajo, and Apache tribes or federations.
The westward expansion became the realization of the Manifest Destiny ideal, a Democrat project opposed by the Whigs. From this came the idea of America a Land, “From Sea to Shining Sea”. Americans today have, from an early age in their school system, been imbued with this understand from that perspective.
In the US there are several great ‘sins’ which the US was founded upon – chattel slavery of Africans, the genocide of Native Americans, and the ethnic cleansing of various ‘Mexica’ peoples, the indentured servitude of Europeans. Even 1776 was betrayed by 1789. These are all unresolved matters which have had a bad impact on everyone of all races and ‘nations’ in the US, but have had very little impact upon elites. The white working and middle classes with their black, brown and ‘red’ class allies, have the opportunity to resolve them once and for all.
A movement for a new American system would need to found itself in the finest ideals of the ‘American’ way, but one which could resolve its geostrategic problem vis-à-vis Latin America. But there are some possibilities there for that.
It’s not difficult to imagine that the aims of white Americans who sympathize with the geostrategic and ideological (or meta-ideological) issues proposed by the Fourth Position of Dugin would also promote the idea that its own nation break from the Atlanticist/NATO Empire.
A question remains if that would mean transforming the US into a Continental power, a ‘land power’. There are some good possibilities there too but this means resolving its relationship with Latin America. Another solution, not incompatible with the first idea of ‘transformation’ into land-power, is a confederalist process of decentralization into both its distinct historical and emergent regions. Any number of analysts have already described various decentralized or autonomous, even independent, regions becoming new political entities separated from NYC/DC control.
The two ‘Great Sins’ of America even before its Atlanticist project began, were the unresolved or wrongly resolved outcome of the US civil war – which we can file under the dual headings of ‘Slavery’ and ‘Confederalism’ – and the Mexican-American War right before it.
These unresolved ‘Great Sins’ are going to be further pronounced as America continues down its downward spiral of decadence, imperialism, and decay.
In essence, Americans have always been a collection of Europe’s unwanted and Africa’s chatteled, superimposed on another collection of indigenous peoples, either Latinized or not, the latter who were both displaced, robbed of land and natural resources and thus marginalized. Taken altogether, it isn’t inaccurate to call them, all of them ‘Americans’.
Sitting on top of Americans and trying to control them is an Atlanticist ruling class, composed mostly of bankers and the owners or large scale industry: a corporate elite. America with its vast and beautiful land, its natural and human resources, was and is the perfect host, the base of operations for an Atlanticist consortium of mostly Anglo-Dutch-Judaic origin. This had always been the case, the founding of New York City – originally New Amsterdam – will always be a reminder to us of this.
This is an important element to digest. A critical error made both by American Patriots and critics of America, either foreign or domestic, is to conflate the Americans with the Atlanticist bourgeois internationalist elite. This error leads to all sorts of blunderous results in trying to understand what can be done to curtail the haywire and seemingly irrational course of Atlanticist adventurism and domination. American people have tremendous resolve, but their moral, spiritual, and cultural powers have been whittled down to the point where it’s likely they will need foreign assistance from external opponents of the very same Atlanticist elite. Connected to this will be overcoming the Orientalism and Russophobia which the Atlanticists have ceaselessly promoted in every relevant major film, school textbook, and popular television show.
Being able to do this while combatting the charge of foreign conspiracy is going to be a challenge, but controlling the discourse and the memetic war to show that the Atlanticists are ‘the other’, ‘the foreign’ is obviously going to be a key component here.
Sufficient distance between now and the 20th century has been traversed that an analysis of the political trends in the US in that century can be understood in the proper context. The thesis of Dugin on the relationship between these political trends, and their ultimate undoing, best describes this process. The century began with an establishment that supported Liberalism and a variant, Progressivism, and later Americans observed and few even participated in the emergent European and Eurasian movements of first Anarchism and Marxian Socialism/Communism and then also later, Fascism and National Socialism a few decades later.
Being both isolationist, pragmatic, and the ‘original Euro Skeptics’ of sorts, many Americans dismissed the ideas on the basis of their ‘exotic’ origin or overly intellectual basis. Nevertheless the Anarchist/Syndicalist and Socialist/Marxist (hereafter Communism’) movements in the US did catch on to a much larger extent than Fascism or National Socialism (together hereafter ‘NS’). In some ways in an objective sense, the administration of F.D Roosevelt represented elements of a synthesis of these two European trends adapted for America in an organizational sense, but in a manner which stabilized – and not challenged – the rule of the Atlanticist bourgeoisie.
A lot of the Communist ideas were brought over by the waves of 19th century immigrants themselves, and from this we saw the rise of the great IWW ‘Wobblies’, DeLeonism, and later Leninism in the 20’s, Trotskyism in the 30’s and 40’s, and then Maoism in the 60’s and 70’s.
Some critics have even postulated that the exporting of the noble industrial work, like the auto industry and the related rubber and steel, were exported to neo-colonies ruled by brutal third world despots in part because of the formation and radicalization of revolutionary cells (Stalinist/Maoist) among auto workers in ‘Motor City’ Detroit, and other major centers. We can now take a step back, take a deep breath, and use the analytical framework of 4PT ideas to understand this all and lay out a coherent plan for our attack.
Now in the 21st Century, we stand at a crossroads. We saw how the Liberal Atlanticists first indicated a backing of NS against Communism, interrupted by the possible hope of an alliance of NS with Communism on an emergent Eurasian basis, only for the Atlanticists and their Liberalism to ally with Communism against NS. This led to the destruction of NS as a geopolitical reality and as a realpolitik and ideological framework. And while some remaining elements of NS leadership were integrated into the Atlanticist intelligence and industrial establishment, and others collaborated to form Operation Gladio in Europe  against the natural westward push of the Eurasian USSR, in general it is accurate to conclude that after the destruction of NS the Liberal Establishment then went on to focus its energies on the destruction of Communism. This was realized in the first part with the partial or rather apparent cooption of Chinese Communism in the 1970’s, a feat of Henry Kissinger, making possible the destruction of Russian Communism in the early 1990’s with the destruction of the USSR and the rise of the puppet Yeltsin and the Israeli financed Oligarchs.
After the destruction of Communism, the geostrategic landscape fundamentally changed. The ideological discourse probably as much so, with the post Cold War triumphalism of the likes of Francis Fukuyama making a vulgar travesty of Hegel by declaring the Liberal stage of history as ‘The’ end of history. If previously being NS made one “evil”, being a Communist just made one “stupid”. And at the same time this triumphal ‘post economic’ script was being written since the 1950’s.
All the major political issues that defined the latter half of the 20th century: desegregation, the Cold War, abortion and feminism, homosexuality, taxation, interstate commerce law, gun control, and education – these had almost the exact opposite effect as the stated goal. Desegregation created more racial animosity and increased the stratification of class within ‘minority’ communities; the Cold War against the ‘Evil Empire’ was in fact to promote the US as an Evil Empire, abortion made women slaves to their sexuality and also was created as a eugenics program to curtail the growth of ‘unwanted’ populations, 2nd and 3rd wave feminism made women into victims and were significant in the destruction of the family; taxation was targeted at the working and middling classes and relieved the financial burden on state building from the elite; the interstate commerce rulings actually frustrated interstate commerce and put more power in the hands of the federal government; gun control was aimed at disempowering people and making them less safe; education was aimed at creating unthinking drones on a national scale.
These are among the primary contradictions that American revolutionaries today must confront and resolve.
Results and Prospects:
Most great inventions are a combination of re-engineering, rethinking, and reworking the past models alongside a modicum – however brilliant – of innovation. 4PT allows us to see through the backwards and reactionary nature of US domestic and foreign policy, whether neoliberal or neoconservative we see that it is all Atlanticist. Instead we look at geostrategy and geopolitics with the goal of building a stable and prosperous and mostly cooperative one defined through its multi-polarity as opposed to hegemonic Atlanticist globalism.
The US government is not honest with ‘its’ people because it does not officially promote the real reasons for war and empire. Hiding behind ‘human rights’ – and erroneously defining those as ‘individual rights’, 4PT enables us to see the real reasons; i.e sustaining a thalassocracy. If the US did give the real reasons it would be honest in that sense, but would be no less justifiable in real terms.
4PT shows Americans for the first time in a long how to think in global strategic terms to understand the aspirations of other powers outside of the officially proscribed reasons. 4PT inspired groups in the US such as New Resistance, uniquely hold the possibility of doing something that hasn’t happened since the early 19th century – Uniting the radical elements of the Left and Right around a single cause against the Center. 4PT appeals to idealists and realists alike, to the visionaries and the pragmatists.
It allows us to see the possibility and desirability or a multi-polar world. These ideas will allow for an exact programmatic expression to flower. As far as Americans are concerned, it will be understood finally that the American Empire is itself neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’ – Bush or Obama were neither fascists or socialists. It is the Liberal Atlanticist paradigm itself which creates the illusion of ‘left’ and ‘right’; we see and understand finally that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are all but subsets of the present paradigm.
Believing in left and right has in effect allowed Americans to be divided and conquered. It is this belief that must be shattered, not just through the promotion of right ideals and ideas, but through the real world struggles by American men of action.
 Sharon Parrott, “Recession Could Cause Large Increases in Poverty and Push Millions Into Deep Poverty,”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 24, 2008, http://www.cbpp.org/11-24-08pov.htm. This analysis found that if the unemployment rate increases to 9 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.5 million and 2 million additional children will fall into deep poverty, based on the increases in poverty rates in recent recessions. Repeating the analysis for families with children (as distinguished from children themselves) indicates that 900,000 to 1.1 million such families would fall into deep poverty.
“While concerns about high food prices are foremost about the spread of hunger and poverty, high food prices are also strongly correlated with political instability and have historically been a catalyst for mass protest in countries where legitimacy is already faltering. Research performed by the New England Institute for Science and Society has identified “a global food price threshold for unrest;”
Since 2007, food riots have broken out in more than 60 countries and have occurred with heightened frequency during periods of record-breaking food prices such as in 2008, when food riots erupted from Europe to the South Pacific. The FAO food price index crossed the 210 threshold, for the first time, in February 2008.”
 http://piigs.net/ “Sovereign debt is a form of external debt and can be a huge risk when the borrowing country has a weak economy. Although some countries like the United States have larger external debt than the PIIGS, this debt can be regarded low risk as long as the country shows signs of a strong and vibrant economy. The problem with the external debt of PIIGS members is that their economies were considered the EU’s weakest links.”
 Ganser, Daniele – February 5, 2005 | ISBN-10: 0714685003 NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe (Contemporary Security Studies)
“This fascinating new study shows how the CIA and the British secret service, in collaboration with the military alliance NATO and European military secret services, set up a network of clandestine anti-communist armies in Western Europe after World War II.”