Readying for revolution
The mood of much of the population and the state of the economy both indicate that everyone could have a surprise in store for them at practically any time. Belief in the rottenness of the System coupled with the belief in ourselves and in our power to make revolution will guarantee that, even if we are surprised by any suddenness of events, we will not be found unprepared and helpless, to become victims rather than masters.
At present the worst enemies of a revolution happening in America are: the unbroken sway of the System’s thought-control, i.e. the mass media; and the continued existence of this economy, as agonizing as it is protracted (and miraculous). In short, the System survives and functions so people are not allowed to think, to know. Plus they can still be alternately rocked to slumber or subtlety coerced into inaction.
Our agenda at present then, as indicated by the prevailing conditions, would include: focusing all our concentration on the ideological swing from reaction all the way over to total revolution.
In other words, effecting a revolution within our existing Movement first; learning rapidly to live outside of the economy and live off of the System in order to help hasten its demise and to insure our own survival—whether there remains a month or twenty years left to this state of affairs; getting away from metropolitan areas and quickly establishing solid, independent enclaves for ourselves and our families; practicing both the subtle and overt undermining of naive faith in the existing government or System on the part of the people around us, not as “radicals” but as friends and leaders for the future; and having prudent stocks of weapons and sufficient stores of ammunition. Going “overboard” in quantities or in grossly exotic and illegal weaponry is a serious blunder.
Concentrate on safe refuge and let all words and actions go toward undermining the System and toward strengthening the Revolution.
In the future, at any time, the best friends of a revolution in this country will be any worsening or collapse of the economy along with any large-scale disaster, disruption, or upheaval from any source. We want, first, for the System to “crap out” before one and all so that the evil Jinni, the illusion that’s been holding it together for these past decades, will be once and for all dispelled. We want its pimps to be deprived of their entire purpose, their entire excuse for living (as well as their protection)—which depends completely on this economy’s survival.
And we especially want to see the System and its hired hoods under attack by the identical forces they created and unleashed upon our segment of the population as part of their “master plan” of control. We want to see the System’s strength and structure largely destroyed, initially by forces independent of our own. Only at that time will we be able to begin undertaking bold and sweeping actions toward assuming open control for ourselves.
By that time, and it could come much sooner than anyone expects, we will absolutely need to have a strong and well-functioning revolutionary organization already operational and with a full spectrum of direct experience under its belt. It is in this area and nowhere else that the breakthrough must be made: the area of revolutionary organization. Without it, the revolution must go to someone else who does possess the strength of discipline and the will necessary to move and achieve it.
First and last, the responsibility is entirely ours.
Vol. XIV, #12 – December, 1985
_____________
Why we are reproducing articles from Siege can be surmised: here.
2 replies on “Siege, 44”
If Spahn Ranch is reading this, I have a question: Do you believe that Charles Manson had a genuine goal of creating widespread anarchy, with the end in mind of destroying the System?
I agree that James Mason wanted to overthrow the System to put another one in place, but I still think that this book is a good instruction manual even if your goal was to replace the System with Kaczynski’s style primitivism.
Manson is an interesting character. He’s like a diamond produced by the pressure of many significant cultural forces in America, some of them dating all the way back to the Revolutionary War. In interviews such as in Charles Manson Superstar, much like a diamond, he sparkles and fascinates. Here, for example, at about the one minute mark, he mentions computers and AIDS, i.e., a virus, as a different approach to revolution, almost like he’s been reading our minds here on WDH.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqW9hdvFoc4&index=9&list=PL6DAF3C307F290136
But you always have to be aware that, as he says repeatedly, he’s primarily looking out for himself. He’s not an idealist, still less an ideologue; and again, as he tells us himself, neither a leader nor a follower of anyone. He’s a man who was very much a product of his environment, which for most of his life was prison. Prison life is an existence so precarious that thinking about long-term goals was not something he could afford. After being arrested for the murders, it seems plain to me that his immediate goal became, and subsequently remained until he died, to get the fuck out of prison. I mean, wouldn’t you rather be worshiped by dozens of women and treated as a god by them than be tortured by a prisoner’s existence? I think anyone would. While he may have been somewhat sincere about ATWA (an acronym for air, water, trees, animals), trees and water seem a peculiar fondness for someone who liked living in a desert. A concern for Nature wasn’t his primary focus; just something that was at times useful to him. That’s my impression anyway.
Did he want to destroy the System? Sure. It tried to kill him, and basically did everything it could to diminish and disgrace him. It would be only natural for him to want to exact revenge on it. It’s possible the Tate-LaBianca murders were done with the expectation that others would imitate them, provoking a collapse into general anarchy. But there are so many unknowns in such an action it would have been impossible for him or anyone else realistically to calculate the cultural consequences. Besides, rational calculation wasn’t Manson’s forte. His genius lay in other areas, and if he was thinking in political terms, then clearly he made a mistake.