The Dehumanization of America

On its website's front page, ABC News is running two stories that clearly demonstrate how far America continues to fall from the one-sainted era of moderate attitudes towards the sexual nature of human beings. The first is the next in a trend of fascination articles over the heavyset Chaz Bono, Sonny and Cher's daughter-who-must-be-called-a-man. Bono is appearing on the network show Dancing With the Stars making television history as the first woman pretending to be a man to grace the studio dance floor for the show. Only a few scrolls down is another story (the third this month) discussing children who convince their parents that they require transfiguration operations to block their biologically developing body as one sex.

Transgender Children
Chaz's Dance

(This photo is from www.thedearleader.com)

One might ask, how is such a narrow issue of concern to followers of politics? The answer involves two separate considerations; personal privacy and the paramount factor of a functioning human society.

At the outset, the pushing of transsexualism as a positive thing pulls us in the direction of anti-privacy and unfairness in human relationships. To be certain, two of the opposite or same gender becoming intimate and copulating suggests a general environment of clarity between partners. No matter heterosexual or gay, two people know who they are and the nature of the person whom they are in a relationship with. Of course transsexuals can never truly achieve this level of level-headed understanding in a relationship because their lifestyle contradicts it in the first place by pretending to be something which, biologically speaking, they are not. So giving time to these confused beings is advocating for a sexless, dehumanized society, much like the one in North Korea today.

It is not to say that Marxism opposes reproduction; at its core however, the ideology is one of the state's importance and man's secondary status in society. Thus we see regimes preventing the sexual image of women through cargo worker uniforms and the flowing burqas in Islamic nations. In the same way, transsexualism creates a sexless society in which there are no defined rules on the family or on human relations, thus necessitating the dawn of the state to prevent the spreading of mass chaos.  

At this point it becomes impossible for society to function without a tyrannical government, as people can no longer lead themselves or follow a pattern for society. Without models to follow or place stock in, a nation loses its identity because sections of the population begin to break off and form sexual subcultures, breaking the once grandiose status of the country forevermore.

America would do well not to follow this path of clear and present social anarchism, for the consequences of such a stance are none that do a society well.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Catch-all Fascism?

Since the origin of fascist movements in Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy it has become a custom fro historians to simply label the ideology of governance as right-wing totalitarianism opposite the force of communism, commonly viewed as the Left's own version of top-down control. Though many are happy to simply agree to this, there is reason to suggest that this general consensus needs to be more totally fleshed out.

(Image credit goes to www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

This is because labeling fascism as necessarily right-wing also demands the notion that the fascist dictatorships which endured so long without much opposition internally were not supported by at least a majority of the country's population. Both Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco could well be viewed as conservatives, yet their governments were largely powerless outside of the nation's confines, requiring focus almost exclusively on domestic policies due to a limited support base. The fact that strict ideologues have such a difficult time keeping control better gives them the association with authoritarianism, a style that desperately needs strong policing to prosper for more than a few years.

When history is taken into account, fascism would best be described as a populist, centrist, or generalist movement that has never truly been opposed by a simple majority of citizens underneath its government of operation. Mussolini is often attacked for his supposed anti-leftist policies, but in reality he held the support of numerous labor unions and implemented the establishment of public corporations to consolidate political power. Hitler was not very different, with the Nazis openly promoting socialism and expanding government services to accommodate even the poorest of citizenry.

Perhaps the best explanation for why fascism is at its core a populist movement is that most people under its girdle asked for its all-encompassing implementation. Mussolini's rise may seem anti-democratic in the eyes of today's scholars, but it was not so far removed from the Roman Empire's system of totalitarian monarchs dating back to the glory ages of previous decades. The National Fascists also offered order in a country torn by cultural divisions and a hate for a democratic voting system -- an emotion that translates into the lackluster turnouts of the present day. Even Hitler was hardly a loathed figure when he came to power, as he promised and delivered on restoring the country's economy for all Germans -- radical socialists and laborers included.

As far as the supposed international opposition to fascism, evidence would suggest to the contrary. Mussolini's policies of equality were immensely popular among Italian Jews during the early days of his rule, and across the English Channel even the heroic Winston Churchill looked to the Duce as a potential ally in the post World War anti-communist movement.

So is fascism of one strict ideology, or a melting pot of different beliefs? The conclusion is up for grabs.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

The Revolution: Only for Arabia?

As change-starved rebels begin the final stages of a coordinated NATO assault on the remnants of Libyan leader Gaddafi's 42-year reign and similar events are occurring in the coastal Syria, everything seems so grandiose and far off to the general media outlets of the United States. For them, the paramount events in Libya give them a great news story that fits a bill of perfected Western fascination; a ragtag team of rebellious citizens overthrow the tyranny of a faraway regime and institute an era of freedom and prosperity across the land. Difficult as it was to accomplish, they now have an opportunity to change the country -- nothing better to warm the American heart, right?

Still the question remains: is the revolution something only for backwater nations who desire to throw off dictators for life, or a universal action to be taken by all nations in defense of common liberty? Our founding document may be respected across the land, but repeatedly leaders in Washington have defied its rules, violated its tenets, a committed acts that earlier generations of Americans would certainly not stand for. And we sit on our hands, calling for a restorational election that has little hope of occurring as long as candidates and officials can spit on the only reason America is not an authoritarian power or the socialist's paradise.

When the current president makes a point of ignoring the necessity for a declaration of war, breaking the principles of the War Powers Act, and even disregarding a UN resolution by helping the Libyan rebels through the CIA, we as Americans must question how far the Constitution can be bent or dodged until liberty and individualism evaporates altogether. No matter how important it may seem to a power-hungry administration, dropping adherence to the swearing document of all federal officials in the name of security or national interests cannot continue to be center to presidential policy, for it risks undoing the nation altogether.

Americans struck a blow against unconstitutional behavior with the elections last year, and yet there is little evidence to suggest that even a plurality of the representatives have any interest is truly undermining the anti-founder mentality that permeates throughout Washington to this day. Both the president and the two leaders in the Senate took an extremely hands off approach to the budget debate several weeks ago, leaving many to wonder whether fundamental shifts in fiscal policy are of any interest to even the most ardent in opposition to "runaway spending," and "job-killing taxes." In short, those who speak the loudest have become hypocrites when it comes to practicing their rage, creating a masterful dilemma for citizens against oppressive, anti-Constitutional government.

(Photo credit goes to createyourownrealitynow.com)

Do we wait until perhaps a Constitution-abiding candidate is miraculously elected to office, or must we use the other more sinister option. Should we mount a revolution? Of course the entire suggestion seems radical to our supposedly modernized intellectual brains, but is it? The Constitution's second order of business was not to provide public access to weapons solely for the occasional hunting season, but for the common defense...and in case of a tyrannical government violating rights in the document. We may not have reached bedevilment from the capitol as extreme as that seen under Germany's once-powerful National Socialist Party or Kim Jong-il, but tossing aside blighting of the Constitution as irrelevant due to circumstance only gives those who would do away with liberty a stronger foothold in America. 

In no way does this mean we as the Alliance are calling for an armed revolution -- in fact, any actions taken should and likely would remain bloodless, but failing to elect a true believer in the Constitution in November 2012 may well necessitate a movement to install a person who does, while enforcing penalties against those who violated the founding document in the past. Were it pulled off correctly, such a change might pave the way for an economic revolution through policies which secure and preserve American liberty in the long-term.

No one desires conflict,  but no cause of man is more just than the eternal defense of freedom and individualism throughout the world. Tyrants will only triumph when those who claim to love patriotism and a liberal system refuse to answer the call in defense of the nation. 

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy