Propaganda by Deed
“Anarchists, like Socialists, usually believe in the doctrine of the class war, and if they use bombs, it is as Governments use bombs, for purposes of war: but for every bomb manufactured by an Anarchist, many millions are manufactured by Governments, and for every man killed by Anarchist violence, many millions are killed by the violence of States. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds the whole question of violence, which plays so large a part in the popular imagination, since it is neither essential nor peculiar to those who adopt the Anarchist position.” (Bertrand Russell, Bakunin and Anarchism, 1918 )
Since 911, the mental midget occupying the White House, the Zionist lobby and the mainstream media have been trying to convince us that suicide bombing is an Islamic phenomenon and that “Islamist terrorism” is different to any other kind of propaganda by deed. Bollocks! The first recorded suicide bombing was carried out in 1881 by Narodnaya Volya (Jewish anarchists) who assassinated Tsar Alexander II, although the first failed suicide bomber was Guy Fawkes in 1605. Anarchists used the tactic back in the late 19th century, thanks to Nobel’s invention of dynamite, and they set Europe ablaze in a way that Churchill’s terrorists (SOE) never did. Only then it wasn’t called suicide bombing, it was called self-immolation, so “Islamist terrorism” is far from unique.
In 1865 John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln to the words “Sic semper tyrannis” and in 1901 Leon Frank Czolgosz said “I killed the President [McKinley] because he was the enemy of the good people”. Resistance to tyranny is nothing new. When a people are politically, economically and socially oppressed; when they’re denied the right to self-determination; and when they are denied the right to protest, there are two choices – capitulation or revolution.
Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, the leader of the 1877 Benevento rebellion in the Neapolitan mountains, described the anarchist spirit as:
“…that deeply human sentiment, which aims at the good of all, freedom and justice for all, solidarity and love among the people; which is not an exclusive characteristic only of self-declared anarchists, but inspires all people who have a generous heart and an open mind…”
How do you resist a despotic regime ruled through terror, if not by violence? There is no such thing as a free speech – the State hold a monopoly on propaganda – the only means to communicate is through violence – propaganda by deed.
Propaganda by deed is communication through action not words. Suicide-bombing, assassination, kidnap, expropriation, rioting and all violence against the state are legitimate means of communication when resisting occupation or tyranny. In the 1880s, the World was ruled by monarchs and despots. If it wasn’t for suicide-bombings and assassinations, the World would be a much different place today, and not a better one. The assassinations of US President Abraham Lincoln (1865), Tsar Alexander II (1881), US president Garfield (1881), French president Carnot (1894), Spanish prime minister Canovas (1897), Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1898), King Umberto I of Italy (1900), US President McKinley (1901), King Alexander of Serbia (1903), Russian interior minister von Plehve (1904), Grand Duke Sergei of Russia (1905), King Carlos of Portugal and Prince Luiz (1908), Prince Ito of Japan (1909), Russian prime minister Stolypin (1911) and King George of Greece (1913) weren’t acts of terrorism, they were acts of liberation.
Most so-called “Islamist terrorists” are national resistance movements fighting western imperialism. They’re no more terrorists than the anarchist regicides at the turn of the 20th century or the anti-fascist resistance during WWII.
steph
amie
rob
Another great post. My only fear these days – it does not matter who you are, what you blow up or what you say. You will be “believed to be linked to al-qaeda”
So before using force, you need a really really good PR man, Don King, someone like that
So we should just use the force, right?
I understand, I feel, at least a fraction of the sentiment that one must go through in order to carry out such inspired deeds as a suicide bombing, or any sort of self sacrifice for likely to be the noble dreams of peace and justice for all. However, violence is only one of the cosmic energies that empower us to make changes in our environment. I’m not demeaning the efforts or trying to smear the aggrieved hearts of martyrs, but one of the common mistakes I feel people make in their quest for purposeful and righteous life is to not analyze fully the purity of their actions. They look to the mythical intentions of the heart rather than to the actions of their mind and body. What we do in life is a triumphantly intricate band of stimulations. Our actions and intentions are all energy alike and are transforming the universe around us. Or, our life is a summary of all the “moments” or energies created in our celestial life times. Thus, any action of violence, though of an extreme variety of emotions and intentions, is likely to contain some of the fundamental energies we are “fighting” to decrease in this world, and thefeore simply, we should really look deep to the meaning of our actions and be very careful and thorough when deciding on violence and destruction and see if this is truly who we wish to decide as part of our own identity.
@ George Carty
“It seems like many leftists today – probably due to Frantz Fanon’s influence – suffer from the delusion that imperialism is a uniquely Western evil.”
The western model of imperialism, i.e. the center-periphery relationship IS unique to the west and this model has caused much woe from the 1500s. Many of the empires that rose in the East differed in significant aspects from the western model. The fundamental difference being that conquered areas were treated as provinces of the empire and not peripheries to be looted (Western imperialism). As such the provinces received investment and (eventually) enjoyed a reasonably ‘high’ standard of living (compared to the central domain).
I cannot think of any Eastern empire from the Qin to the Abbasids to the Moghuls who have practiced Western style imperialism. However, please feel to correct me if I’ve overlooked any such power in the East.
“After all, wasn’t Britain able to conquer India because it’s mostly-Hindu population wasn’t willing to fight to save the Muslim Mughal empire?”
Although Aurangzeb did alienate the majority of his non muslim subjects, that alone did not cause the downfall of the empire. It was mostly technological lag coupled with certain key betrayals (where the traitors weren’t Hindus, but Muslims).
@ Simon
Iran is Islamist, that works well enough. So sorry but I think that’s a load of old pony, mate.
Rob – so you have sympathy for Islamic militants because they are “fighting western imperialism” but what if they win? They won’t stop blowing themselves up. Islamists are incapable of governing a State.
@ Rob: ‘Or maybe “Better red than génocidaire” or “better anti-imperialist than génocidaire”?’
“Better red than génocidaire” doesn’t really make sense to me. Communism didn’t attract anything like the degree of commitment as Islam. The Soviets were defeated in the Cold War without any direct shooting war between the superpowers, never mind genocide.
In most parts of the world, Communist regimes were illegitimate tyrannies ruling by terror. Note how American Cold War propaganda portrayed Communism as an international criminal conspiracy! Most Islamist movements on the other hand are genuinely popular with their own people, and unlike the Nazis their appeal is not dependent on successful external conquests to bring in the swag (and would thus not be destroyed by military defeat).
The only places were Communism was genuinely popular were countries like Cuba and Vietnam, where the Communists could play the patriotism card by portraying themselves as resistance fighters against American imperialism.
@ Steph
…Northern Bank Job.
@ Heather – Most blaggers are working class, so blagging banks might not be redistribution of wealth but its repatriation of wealth.
@ Heather
Bank robbery has often been used as a way to fund revolutionary causes.
@ Rob: “No, he just had the hump with Delilah. He just couldn’t take any mooooore.”
*rolls eyes* Pathetic!
@ Rob (15)…
Thanks, I’m not sure I agree but that has made me think.
I didn’t understand what you meant by “Is armed robbery targeting civillians? I’d call it expropriation”
@lwtc – thanks for reminding me.
Happy Eid to all the Muslim readers of this blog
@ George –
Or maybe “Better red than génocidaire” or “better anti-imperialist than génocidaire”?
Islamo-fascist awareness? Is that old lush Christopher Hitchens trying to flog a new book or something?
@ DR M – “I thought Samson was the first ever suicide bomber”
No, he just had the hump with Delilah. He just couldn’t take any mooooore.
@ George – You said I was Fanonesque before on babak’s blog, I’m anti imperialist not anti western but right now, not every western is an imperialist, but every imperialist is a westerner.
Bernard Russell said “Better red than dead”. Today, would he say “better dhimmi than génocidaire”?
@ Heather – “isn’t the difference that Islamist kill civillians?”
Imperialism kills civillians (see Che Guevara comments) that is what the US, Britain and Israel are doing in the Middle East. What would Russell say:
As it goes, anarchist revolutionaries have targeted civillians, Emile Henry, the in 1892 Gare St-Lazare café bomber famously said “there are no innocent bourgeois”. Is armed robbery targeting civillians? I’d call it expropriation.
I think there is a massive difference between Hamas and al-Qaeda, Hamas are resisting Jewish State terrorism, and are acting proportionately in self-defence. Al-Qaeda is an American created imperialist outfit. Errico Malatesta said “The insurrectionary deed, destined to affirm socialist principles by acts, is the most efficacious means of propaganda” – it’s not the tactics, it’s the cause and circumstance.
@ Steph/George…
Thanks, I get it now “they set Europe ablaze in a way that Churchill’s terrorists (SOE) never did.”
@ Heather
Churchill called for SOE ‘to set Europe ablaze’ through assassinations and sabotage.
@ George
She is a he. Rob wrote that post not me. The SOE worked more against the interests of indigenous “resistance movements” than for them.
I think she means the various resistance movements in Nazi-occupied Europe, which were funded and/or trained by the SOE (Special Operations Executive).
@ sayasaja
Yeah I agree.
@ Dr.M
Hi, yeah I did, I’ll email you about that.
Very interesting post.
“In the 1880s, the World was ruled by monarchs and despots. If it wasn’t for suicide-bombings and assassinations, the World would be a much different place today, and not a better one.”
That is a very controversial statement but I can see what you mean but isn’t the difference that Islamist kill civillians?
What do you mean by Churchill’s terrorists (SOE)?
Suicide attacker yes, but not a bomber! I’m talking about people who blow themselves up.
Yes Steph, you got a blog post in waiting on this? 15 megapixels Stef has blogged about it a bit.
http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/
I thought Samson was the first ever suicide bomber…Did you hear about “Islamo-fascist awareness week” ?
Yes a very good post. Dont know how I missed it. Thank God there are people of humanity and intellect on whom the propaganda and lies dont stick.
I’d like to reprint it on my blog (fully accredited of course). Is it OK?
Ramadan Mubarak too al peoples of peace and tolerance.
Islamsist should have a good PR and Media “gang” to confront “Bush evil” propaganda.
@ George
He is not saying that imperialism is an uniquely Western evil, he is saying that suicide bombing and propaganda by deed aren’t an uniquely Islamic one and that they can sometimes be justified.
Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad have shown no imperialist designs – America and Israel describe them as Islamist terrorists.
If they succeeded in that goal, wouldn’t they be apt to become imperialistic themselves later on?
It seems like many leftists today – probably due to Frantz Fanon’s influence – suffer from the delusion that imperialism is a uniquely Western evil.
After all, wasn’t Britain able to conquer India because it’s mostly-Hindu population wasn’t willing to fight to save the Muslim Mughal empire? And wasn’t China easy prey for Western exploitation because it’s ruling Qing dynasty was descended from Manchu invaders (not Han Chinese) and was therefore unable to use nationalism to motivate the Chinese people to fight the Westerners?
Great post – thanks