It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Lessons of Terror

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:46 PM
Lesson 1:

The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.

~Sergey Nechayev~

Sometime before December 3, 1882, the year the most feared man in all Czarist Russia died in a Siberian prison of complications from scurvy, The Revolutionary Catechism, was written to immortalize this man in infamy . This man was Sergey Genadievich Nechayev, and he was a liar, a cheater, blackmailer, extortionist, and murderer, but his legend lives on because he rejected the authority of the state, and he carefully crafted a strategy in how to destroy the state.

Lesson 2

The revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities, and customs, and with all its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily.


It was the radical group Norodnaya Volya, self identified as a terrorist group who had contacted Nechayev and told him of their plans to assassinate Czar Alexander II, but were willing instead, to divert their resources towards facilitating Nechayev's escape from prison. Nechayev sent word to forget about him and follow through with their assassination of the Czar. On March 1st, 1881, Norodnaya Volya, (The Peoples Movement), did exactly that, and so begin the steady march towards revolution in Russia and the inevitable "ten days that shook the world".

Nordnaya Volya claimed to be a political movement that advocated regime change from the autocracy of Czars to a more social and democratic styled government. While they advocated a form of plunder in the transfer of land from aristocracy to peasants and workers, they also advocated free speech, and universal suffrage, among other things. Nordnaya Volya had evolved from an earlier group known as Zelma Volya, (Land and Liberty), but it was "The People's Will", (NV), that broke with any idealism found in French Enlightenment and embraced a more guerrilla type warfare, more akin the the American Revolution, with out necessarily embracing the ideals from The Age of Reason, but the guerrilla style military tactics of The American Revolution, where embraced as "terrorist tactics" by Nordnaya Volya.

The distinction between the term guerrilla tactics and terrorist tactics, is in that guerrilla warfare is a strategy of fighting a stronger military indirectly, where terrorism takes this indirectness and avoids the military all together and instead attacks the public directly, in an attempt to instill terror in their hearts and minds.

Lesson 3:

The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one science: the science of destruction. For this reason, but only for this reason, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps medicine. But all day and all night he studies the vital science of human beings, their characteristics and circumstances, and all the phenomena of the present social order. The object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.


How interesting to note that where the revolutionaries from the Age of Reason, and even the French Enlightenment embraced doctrines, while rejecting others, and relied heavily upon the "mundane" sciences to form their opinions, Nechayev declares such reason a luxury for future generations, and in his time and place, the only answer was the dogma of destruction. All efforts made, all knowledge gathered, all technologies used, are done so for one purpose and one purpose only, to destroy "the whole filthy order". Where Norodanya Volya was honest enough to make the distinction between revolution and terrorism, even though they did not attack civilians, they were attacking the state, and by extension, attacking the people, but Nechayev, this lying, cheating, extortionist, murder, would have us believe that revolution is terrorism!

Does it matter that such distinctions become blurred? Is everything relative, and is one man's "terrorist" just another man's "freedom fighter"? Perhaps it would be prudent to arrive at an acceptable definition of what terrorism is. When we look to ordinary dictionaries such as Webster's we get this definition:

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

or Wordnet's definition:

terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Or consider what Wikipedia has to say about the matter:

Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Not only is there really just a general sense of what terrorism is, and not only is there no legal consensus on what defines terrorism on an international level, there is no consensus on terrorism in way shape or form. The word has become a buzz word, a pejorative used to malign ones opponents, regardless of whether the label "terrorist" is an appropriate one or not. Given that in the United States, since 9/11 the word has gone from being a word de jeur, to a tool of doublespeak and propaganda. Consider the most recent UPI, that tells of a public opinion poll where 58% of the 1005 polled believe a terrorist attack on American soil will be carried out by American "homegrown" terrorists in the next year. If we are to assume this poll is honest and reflects the public at large, one has to ask, what is going on in America, that would lead people to believe such a thing?

Lesson 4:

The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way.


Perhaps people believe such a thing because of what has been reported:

Detroit -- Federal charges pending against a Lenawee County militia group highlight a growing concern among federal officials and experts that extremist groups and homegrown terrorists are on the rise across the country. From The Detroit News:

"We understand the threat, what a serious threat it is, and the U.S. government is paying close attention to it," Miller said. "We've had a lot of discussion about it in committee meetings, and in classified (Homeland Security) meetings as well." From The Detroit News:

Combine that with steady reports such as this:

Obama had called the 47-nation summit to focus world attention on the threat of nuclear terrorism, a peril he termed the greatest threat facing all nations and a "cruel irony of history" after mankind had survived the Cold War and decades of fear stoked by a U.S.-Soviet arms race.

A terrorist group in possession of plutonium no bigger than an apple could detonate a device capable of inflicting hundreds of thousands of casualties, he said. Read more:

Polished off with systematic efforts by "prestigious" news magazines such as Ne wsweek, doing their level best to tie in honorable veterans of The United States to terrorism:

Unfortunately, I am out of space and will have to post the quote to the article just mentioned in the next post. I will, however, begin that post with Lesson 5 of the lessons of terror and then continue with the media propaganda campaign on the "war on terror"...

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:48 PM
Lesson 5:

The revolutionary is a dedicated man, merciless toward the State and toward the educated classes; and he can expect no mercy from them. Between him and them there exists, declared or concealed, a relentless and irreconcilable war to the death. He must accustom himself to torture.


Continuing with the media campaign on this "war on terror" I cited earlier an effort by Newsweek magazine to link the honorable efforts of former U.S. military personnel to terrorism. Here is a quote from on article posted on their site on April 9th of this year:

The particular concern raised by military members among extremist groups is that former service members, including disgruntled veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, may be helping to train extremists in firearms and military tactics, according to Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. In the Hutaree case, the federal indictment charges that, as part of their plans to spark an "uprising" against the U.S. government, group members engaged "in military-style training" that included "firearms and explosives training, weapons proficiency drills, patrolling and reconnaissance exercises, close quarter battle drills" as well as "preparing defensive fighting positions" and "ambush kill zones."

Followed up with an article titled A Surge of Hate

But by conjuring up the specter of revolution—or counterrevolution—is Rhodes adding to the threat of real violence? Oath Keepers are "a particularly worrisome example of the 'patriot' revival," according to Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate speech and extremist organizations. "Patriot" groups—described by the SPLC as outfits "that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose 'one-world government' on liberty-loving Americans"—are "roaring back" after years out of the limelight, according to Potok. Notorious in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the patriot groups seemed to fade away under the shadow of 9/11, but hard times and the nation's first African-American president seem to have brought about a revival—from 149 groups in 2008 to 512 (127 of them militias) in 2009, according to the SPLC.

Where they blatantly hoped to tie an organization who has prioritized the oath they took to uphold the laws of the United States, The Oath Keepers, with "homegrown" terrorism, continuing with paragraphs such as this:

"There was a lot of hatred in the 1930s," says Alan Brinkley, the Columbia University historian and expert on populist movements. But the currentsurge of fear and loathing toward Obama is "scary," he says. "There's a big dose of race behind the real crazies, the ones who take their guns to public meetings. I can't see this happening if McCain were president, or [any] white male." (Secret Service spokespeople reported spikes in threats against Obama after his election and inauguration, but they've also said the president generally receives about the same number of threats as did Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. They've declined to comment on whether there's been a spike in threats related to health-care reform.)

and ultimately tying all of this to that ever so reliable mascot of U.S. "homegrown" terrorism; Timothy McVeigh:

Middle-aged guys sitting around their basements fantasizing are one thing; addled war veterans with weapons training are another. Timothy McVeigh was a Gulf War veteran who read white-supremacist literature and the sort of books that predict a takeover by one-world government agents flying black helicopters. He has, or had, some potential heirs apparent in a recently indicted group called the Hutaree, a Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio-based militia. According to the Hutaree Web site, the group ranked its followers with weird sci-fi titles like "Radok" and "Arkon." The Hutaree militiamen speculate that the Antichrist is Javier Solana, a former NATO secretary-general and senior official of the European Union. The evidence? "There is a virtual media blackout on this man," writes John Reynolds, author of a screed on Solana and the Antichrist on the Hutaree Web site. "I see Jacques Chirac and Silvio Burlusconi [sic], Tony Blair, and Prince Charles on the TV all of the time, yet not a word one regarding Solana. Why not?" ("Mr. Solana has now retired and is an elderly private gentleman. This is quite insane," says a spokesman for the European Union's Washington diplomatic mission.)

What seems to be ignored in this rant printed in Newsweek is that McVeigh was convicted and executed for an actual act of terrorism, but the Hutaree have only been charged with "sedition" type acts, and remain only charged. Conspiracy theories regarding McVeigh, not-with-standing, as far as jurisprudence is concerned, McVeigh is was a terrorist, but insane or not, the militia group known as the Hutaree, has not even come close to earning such a distinction.

While the international community may be in disagreement on how to define the term "terrorism", Congress managed to come to an agreement and in The United States Code

(d) Definitions

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

Followed with:

(3)the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

Here we have a much more specific definition of the word terrorism and terrorist group. Since international terrorism is mentioned, and statutorily defined, courtesy dictates I post that definition as well:

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

There does not seem to be any willingness by Congress to define a "terrorist group" as "homegrown", and for good reason; they are Constitutionally restricted from doing so, and yet they are also Constitutionally restrained from legislation that would prevent the Press from defining "terrorism", "terrorist group" and "homegrown" terrorism however they want, nor is there any power or authority by Congress to prevent government officials from casually and quite often using terms such as "homegrown" terrorism and equating it to revolution.

Lesson 6:

Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution. For him, there exists only one pleasure, on consolation, one reward, one satisfaction – the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction. Striving cold-bloodedly and indefatigably toward this end, he must be prepared to destroy himself and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the path of the revolution.

For Nechayev's revolutionary, the revolution is everything, and all personal ideals and desires are secondary to success of the revolution. He argues the revolutionary should let "future generations" figure out the task of re-creation, for the revolutionary, the only task is total destruction. This is a dogma in stark contrast with the revolutionaries that wrote a Declaration of Independence, who sought not to destroy "the whole filthy order", but instead to restore order, by dissolving the chains of tyranny, and coming together to form a more perfect union, considered long before the shot heard round the world thundered a sound. The Founders who characterized The Age of Reason, considered carefully the effects and consequences to revolution, and acted according to their conscience and best ability to predict a successful outcome.

Not yet do we have a media so willing to portray the Founders of the United States as radical extremists who formed 13 cells of a terrorist group, with George Washington as some sort of early American Continental prototype to Osama bin-Laden, but the push to characterize the losing side of a Civil War as "homegrown" terrorists is underway, and people everywhere have become just as comfortable with using the term to castigate an opponent as they have invoking the name of Hitler, or the universal favorite trump card "racism". The war on terrorism is only a subset of a bigger war being waged which is the war on hate, and that war is just a subset to an even bigger war being waged which is the war on humanity.

Lesson 7:

The nature of the true revolutionary excludes all sentimentality, romanticism, infatuation, and exaltation. All private hatred and revenge must also be excluded. Revolutionary passion, practiced at every moment of the day until it becomes a habit, is to be employed with cold calculation. At all times, and in all places, the revolutionary must obey not his personal impulses, but only those which serve the cause of the revolution.


The whole history of terrorism goes way beyond 9/11 and even beyond The United States. Perhaps even beginning before the 1st century, terrorism has a long history. Being out of space again, I will continue with another post.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:49 PM
Lesson 8:

The revolutionary can have no friendship or attachment, except for those who have proved by their actions that they, like him, are dedicated to revolution. The degree of friendship, devotion and obligation toward such a comrade is determined solely by the degree of his usefulness to the cause of total revolutionary destruction.


The early history of terrorism tends to be sparse and isolated throughout history:

The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.

The Assassins were the next group to show recognizable characteristics of terrorism, as we know it today. A breakaway faction of Shia Islam called the Nizari Ismalis adopted the tactic of assassination of enemy leaders because the cult's limited manpower prevented open combat. Their leader, Hassam-I Sabbah, based the cult in the mountains of Northern Iran. Their tactic of sending a lone assassin to successfully kill a key enemy leader at the certain sacrifice of his own life (the killers waited next to their victims to be killed or captured) inspired fearful awe in their enemies.

Even though both the Zealots and the Assassins operated in antiquity, they are relevant today: First as forerunners of modern terrorists in aspects of motivation, organization, targeting, and goals. Secondly, although both were ultimate failures, the fact that they are remembered hundreds of years later, demonstrates the deep psychological impact they caused.

Even though these early campaigns of terror ultimately failed, the scars they left behind are evident today. Terror as a method of change, seems to fail as that agent, and ironically remains constant in its dreaded memories. This same website as quoted above explains why there seemed to be a long period of no terror campaigns between the Zealots and the Assassins as such:

From the time of the Assassins (late 13th century) to the1700s, terror and barbarism were widely used in warfare and conflict , but key ingredients for terrorism were lacking. Until the rise of the modern nation state after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the sort of central authority and cohesive society that terrorism attempts to influence barely existed. Communications were inadequate and controlled, and the causes that might inspire terrorism (religious schism, insurrection, ethnic strife) typically led to open warfare. By the time kingdoms and principalities became nations, they had sufficient means to enforce their authority and suppress activities such as terrorism.

Pointing to The French Revolution and "Reign of Terror" that followed as being the next historical account of terrorism:

From the time of the Assassins (late 13th century) to the1700s, terror and barbarism were widely used in warfare and conflict , but key ingredients for terrorism were lacking. Until the rise of the modern nation state after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the sort of central authority and cohesive society that terrorism attempts to influence barely existed. Communications were inadequate and controlled, and the causes that might inspire terrorism (religious schism, insurrection, ethnic strife) typically led to open warfare. By the time kingdoms and principalities became nations, they had sufficient means to enforce their authority and suppress activities such as terrorism.

The Age of Enlightenment was an Age of Revolutions, and where the Age of Reason is counted as a subset of the Age of Enlightenment, and Age of Reason equated with American thinkers, where the Enlightenment is often distinguished by the French Enlightenment, whatever enlightenment they had, the "reign on terror" was no doubt a particularly scary epoch in history. The contrast between the American and French Revolutions, while both bloody, couldn't be more stark.

Lesson 9:

It is superfluous to speak of solidarity among revolutionaries. The whole strength of revolutionary work lies in this. Comrades who possess the same revolutionary passion and understanding should, as much as possible, deliberate all important matters together and come to unanimous conclusions. When the plan is finally decided upon, then the revolutionary must rely solely on himself. In carrying out acts of destruction, each one should act alone, never running to another for advice and assistance, except when these are necessary for the furtherance of the plan.


During the late 19th century, radical political theories and improvements in weapons technology spurred the formation of small groups of revolutionaries who effectively attacked nation-states. Anarchists espousing belief in the "propaganda of the deed" produced some striking successes, assassinating heads of state from Russia, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States. However, their lack of organization and refusal to cooperate with other social movements in political efforts rendered anarchists ineffective as a political movement. In contrast, Communism's role as an ideological basis for political terrorism was just beginning, and would become much more significant in the 20th century.

If the Norodnaya Volya represents the modern prototypical terrorist group, to be sure Sergey Nechayev would be the Godfather of modern terrorism. His hard line zealotry and militant dogma has nothing at all to do with doctrines of freedom for people, only the destruction of the status quo, and yet, it must be noted that what distinguishes Norodnaya Volya from the modern terrorist group is this:

The terrorist group from this period that serves as a model in many ways for what was to come was the Russian Narodnya Volya (Peoples Will). They differed in some ways from modern terrorists, especially in that they would sometimes call off attacks that might endanger individuals other than their intended target. Other than this quirk, we see many of the traits of terrorism here for the first time; clandestine, cellular organization; impatience and inability for the task of organizing the constituents they claim to represent; and a tendency to increase the level of violence as pressures on the group mount.

If either Norodnya Volya or their modern equivalent terrorist group embraced Nechayev's Catechism for a Revolutionary, these characteristic flaws of "impatience and inability for the task of organizing the constituents they claim to represent would be moot." There is indeed method to Nechayev's madness, and we would all be well advised to understand this method.

Lesson 10:

All revolutionaries should have under them second- or third-degree revolutionaries – i.e., comrades who are not completely initiated. these should be regarded as part of the common revolutionary capital placed at his disposal. This capital should, of course, be spent as economically as possible in order to derive from it the greatest possible profit. The real revolutionary should regard himself as capital consecrated to the triumph of the revolution; however, he may not personally and alone dispose of that capital without the unanimous consent of the fully initiated comrades.


After two World Wars, the planet earth had become more global and with that and other factors, there came the rise of the "international terrorist":

The age of modern terrorism might be said to have begun in 1968 when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al airliner en route from Tel Aviv to Rome. While hijackings of airliners had occurred before, this was the first time that the nationality of the carrier (Israeli) and its symbolic value was a specific operational aim. Also a first was the deliberate use of the passengers as hostages for demands made publicly against the Israeli government. The combination of these unique events, added to the international scope of the operation, gained significant media attention. The founder of PFLP, Dr. George Habash observed that the level of coverage was tremendously greater than battles with Israeli soldiers in their previous area of operations. "At least the world is talking about us now."

Lesson 11:

When a comrade is in danger and the question arises whether he should be saved or not saved, the decision must not be arrived at on the basis of sentiment, but solely in the interests of the revolutionary cause. Therefore, it is necessary to weigh carefully the usefulness of the comrade against the expenditure of revolutionary forces necessary to save him, and the decision must be made accordingly.


Lesson 12:

The new member, having given proof of his loyalty not by words but by deeds, can be received into the society only by the unanimous agreement of all the members.


Running out of space again, I will continue with at least one more post...

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:50 PM
Lesson 13:

The revolutionary enters the world of the State, of the privileged classes, of the so-called civilization, and he lives in this world only for the purpose of bringing about its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place, or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships.


Another aspect of this internationalization is the cooperation between extremist organizations in conducting terrorist operations. Cooperative training between Palestinian groups and European radicals started as early as 1970, and joint operations between the PFLP and the Japanese Red Army (JRA) began in 1974. Since then international terrorist cooperation in training, operations, and support has continued to grow, and continues to this day. Motives range from the ideological, such as the 1980s alliance of the Western European Marxist-oriented groups, to financial, as when the IRA exported its expertise in bomb making as far afield as Colombia

Aiming at implacable revolution, the revolutionary may and frequently must live within society will pretending to be completely different from what he really is, for he must penetrate everywhere, into all the higher and middle-classes, into the houses of commerce, the churches, and the palaces of the aristocracy, and into the worlds of the bureaucracy and literature and the military, and also into the Third Division and the Winter Palace of the Czar.


The largest act of international terrorism occured on September 11, 2001 in a set of co-ordinated attacks on the United States of America where Islamic terrorists hijacked civilian airliners and used them to attack the World Trade Center towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. Other major terrorist attacks have also occured in New Delhi (Indian Parliament attacked); Bali car bomb attack; London subway bombings; Madrid train bombings and the most recent attacks in Mumbai (hotels, train station and a Jewish outreach center). The operational and strategic epicenter of Islamic terrorism is now mostly centred in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Lesson 15:

This filthy social order can be split up into several categories. The first category comprises those who must be condemned to death without delay. Comrades should compile a list of those to be condemned according to the relative gravity of their crimes; and the executions should be carried out according to the prepared order.


Between the periods of 2000 and 2004, more than 1,000 people were killed by Palestinian terrorism, the majority of deaths resulting from suicide bombings.

On January 3rd, of 2000, five separate acts of terrorism were thwarted. These five failed attempts of terrorism were; a plot to bomb a hotel in Amman, an attack on Mount Nebo, an attack at a site on the Jordan River, a plan to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport, and the USS Sullivan, all thwarted on this day. From that day until 9/11 and beyond, follow this timeline

Lesson 16:

When a list of those who are condemned is made, and the order of execution is prepared, no private sense of outrage should be considered, nor is it necessary to pay attention to the hatred provoked by these people among the comrades or the people. Hatred and the sense of outrage may even be useful insofar as they incite the masses to revolt. It is necessary to be guided only by the relative usefulness of these executions for the sake of revolution. Above all, those who are especially inimical to the revolutionary organization must be destroyed; their violent and sudden deaths will produce the utmost panic in the government, depriving it of its will to action by removing the cleverest and most energetic supporters.


Since 9/11, The response by local, state, and federal government in the United States was to create more administrative agencies, the mother of them all being; The Department of Homeland Security, and where there does not appear to be any statute written by Congress that would define precisely what "homegrown terrorism" is, consider what Secretary Napolitano had to say in a speech to the American Defamation League, (ADL), on April 22nd, of 2009:

The first area is the area that really fueled the creation of the department in the first place, and that is the battle against and the prevention of terrorism and terrorist attacks. And that can be terrorism that comes from abroad of terrorism that is homegrown.

But this clear strategy of characterizing political dissidents as "homegrown" terrorists is only the tip of the iceberg, and since 9/11 Americans have transformed. Not they were genuinely free before 9/11 as their own records of incarceration rates and prison population tells a different tale, but since 9/11, Americans have allowed government to intrude so far into their lives, that the grumbling, resentment, and out right anger of such intrusion is sure to follow, becoming an endless cycle of stricter laws limiting more and more freedom, creating more and more political dissidents now labeled as "homegrown terrorists", and its inevitable conclusion seems clear.

As actual terrorism continues across the globe, as this ill advised "war on terror" becomes more and more intractable in that inherently un-winnable way, I offer Lesson 17 and will take the liberty to boldly emphasize these words:

Lesson 17:

The second group comprises those who will be spared for the time being in order that, by a series of monstrous acts, they may drive the people into inevitable revolt.


Here lies the ultimate strategy behind campaigns of terror, for what possible reason would one turn to such strategy if it just wasn't working? There are those who would argue that terrorism never works, but of course, the whole Palestinian movement knows better. Terror campaigns, when they are executed effectively create a sense of panic in the public who resides in the nation or state of which a terrorist has an issue with. Rather than fight a traditional military style war with a better equipped state, a small group of terrorists can create the same effect, destruction of the enemy, by turning that enemies own people against them.

If the strategy is simply to create a demand for security even at the price of liberty, it is a foregone conclusion that once that government begins limiting freedom in the name of security that this becomes the seeding of revolution that will no doubt blossom under the tyranny of strict government control. This government control will be headed by bureaucracies filled with incompetent bullies, and brutes, more than willing to carry out draconian laws that abrogate and derogate the rights of an individual.

Lesson 18:

The third category consists of a great many brutes in high positions, distinguished neither by their cleverness nor their energy, while enjoying riches, influence, power, and high positions by virtue of their rank. These must be exploited in every possible way; they must be implicated and embroiled in our affairs, their dirty secrets must be ferreted out, and they must be transformed into slaves. Their power, influence, and connections, their wealth and their energy, will form an inexhaustible treasure and a precious help in all our undertakings.


Lesson 19:

The fourth category comprises ambitious office-holders and liberals of various shades of opinion. The revolutionary must pretend to collaborate with them, blindly following them, while at the same time, prying out their secrets until they are completely in his power. They must be so compromised that there is no way out for them, and then they can be used to create disorder in the State.


Lesson 20:

The fifth category consists of those doctrinaires, conspirators, and revolutionists who cut a great figure on paper or in their cliques. They must be constantly driven on to make compromising declarations: as a result, the majority of them will be destroyed, while a minority will become genuine revolutionaries.

Lesson 21:

The sixth category is especially important: women. They can be divided into three main groups. First, those frivolous, thoughtless, and vapid women, whom we shall use as we use the third and fourth category of men. Second, women who are ardent, capable, and devoted, but whom do not belong to us because they have not yet achieved a passionless and austere revolutionary understanding; these must be used like the men of the fifth category. Finally, there are the women who are completely on our side – i.e., those who are wholly dedicated and who have accepted our program in its entirety. We should regard these women as the most valuable or our treasures; without their help, we would never succeed.


Consider these lessons, and compare them to some of the modern day terrorist groups such as the PLO, or Al-Quaeda, and then contrast that with American militia's, and third party political movements. There just isn't any comparison, and yet we are bombarded with media reports of how the fear of "homegrown terrorism" is on the rise here in the U.S.

There are 6 more lessons...

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:51 PM
Lesson 22:

The Society has no aim other than the complete liberation and happiness of the masses – i.e., of the people who live by manual labor. Convinced that their emancipation and the achievement of this happiness can only come about as a result of an all-destroying popular revolt, the Society will use all its resources and energy toward increasing and intensifying the evils and miseries of the people until at last their patience is exhausted and they are driven to a general uprising.

Clearly a Marxist, this Nechayev, he advocates systemic oppression as a means by which to gain freedom, by igniting a general uprising.

Lesson 23:

By a revolution, the Society does not mean an orderly revolt according to the classic western model – a revolt which always stops short of attacking the rights of property and the traditional social systems of so-called civilization and morality. Until now, such a revolution has always limited itself to the overthrow of one political form in order to replace it by another, thereby attempting to bring about a so-called revolutionary state. The only form of revolution beneficial to the people is one which destroys the entire State to the roots and exterminated all the state traditions, institutions, and classes in Russia.

Damn the revolutions of reason! To the victor go the spoils, let the people revolt and plunder, plunder, plunder!

Lesson 24:

With this end in view, the Society therefore refuses to impose any new organization from above. Any future organization will doubtless work its way through the movement and life of the people; but this is a matter for future generations to decide. Our task is terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.

Let the future do the hard work, it is the job of revolution to destroy!

Lesson 25:

Therefore, in drawing closer to the people, we must above all make common cause with those elements of the masses which, since the foundation of the state of Muscovy, have never ceased to protest, not only in words but in deeds, against everything directly or indirectly connected with the state: against the nobility, the bureaucracy, the clergy, the traders, and the parasitic kulaks. We must unite with the adventurous tribes of brigands, who are the only genuine revolutionaries in Russia.

And finally...

Lesson 26:

To weld the people into one single unconquerable and all-destructive force – this is our aim, our conspiracy, and our task.

~Sergey Nechayev~

The conspiracy of U.S. political madness began long ago, but in this new millennium, the madness has been brought to a whole new level, and if any care to reasonably predict the outcome of this "war on terror", perhaps reading carefully Nechayev's Catechism for a Revolutionary over and over again. In Nechayev's own words he rejects the form of revolution fought by the Forefathers of the U.S. and instead advocates a new "reign of terror", where destruction can be the only path to freedom. It is madness, there just is no other word for it.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The NWO is the Revolution.

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:30 PM
A very well thought out thesis Jean Paul.

Let us engage in a experiement to determine what is and isn't terrorism.

First though I must ask of you, your definition of terrorism though

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
A very well thought out thesis Jean Paul.

Let us engage in a experiement to determine what is and isn't terrorism.

First though I must ask of you, your definition of terrorism though

Terrorism: The acts of violence committed against the civilian populace as a political tool towards toppling the current regime.

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Excellent definition. I noticed you specifcially stated that it is towards the civilan population. Are you suggesting that an act of terrorism cannot be committed towards military targets and/or personnel?

This will be a lot of back and forth as I am applying techniques I wish to hone and fine tune in terms of logic and debate, while at the same time gain a better understanding of the topic. In this effort I must say that more questions will arise than answers.

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

Acts of violence towards military personnel or installations are acts of war. From the time of Sun Tzu, indeed earlier, all the way up to now, the acts of war have been clearly defined, and certainly the Geneva Convention operated on the fundamental principle that purposeful acts of violence towards civilians, even as threats, were a violation of the rules of war.

The modern day tyranny of the state hopes to redefine terrorism and one of the characteristics of their definition seems to want to be small groups of warriors, or "cells" that can attack either military personnel or civilians, but attacking civilians is not a necessary characteristic in order to define this group as terrorists. However, guerrilla warfare has been a long military tradition of small groups of warriors that use unconventional tactics against their enemies, being military personnel.

This willful redefinition of terrorism is intended to bypass the rules of war, and to excuse the modern state from the rules of convention in order to deal with guerrilla warriors. Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism. Terrorism is specifically designed to place fear in the hearts of the civilian population so that they will react based upon this fear and create the demise of their own state by demanding tyranny to appease this fear. It is an indirect attack on the state, in the most insidious of ways. Guerrilla warfare, on the other hand, is a direct attack on the military enemy, a direct confrontation based upon the principles of war.

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:09 AM
The Russian Revolution indeed provides a prototype of modern day international terrorism. In fact, many of the revolutionaries in Russia were "international terrorists" imported from other countries. Trotsky spent many years in New York, recruiting Jewish refugees for the cause, prior to heading over to Russsia, and Lenin spent years in Britain and Europe doing the same.

An excellent book on the subject is provided by Richard Pipes "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution", which is considered the best book on the subject for a lay reader.

It is interesting to note that once the Russian State had effectively collapsed, and the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917, they garnered the support of other revolutionary groups (the Bolsheviks were a small minority) by promising true democratic reforms, where each collective would be allowed to elect their own representative to the soon to be convened Russian parliment. This sounded reasonable to the other groups, who were not as radical as the Bolsheviks.

But as soon as the new parliment convened (December 1917) and it became apparent to the Bolsheviks that the elected representatives were not going to conform to their more radical agenda, the Bolsheviks disbanded the parliment (the next day) and declared "The Terror"--a term taken directly from the French Revolution.

The Terror was instituted (mainly in Moscow and St Petersburg) by recruiting convicts in the State prisons as members of the secret police.
The ex-convicts were then turned loose on the general population to arrest and execute anyone they wanted to, often for no cause whatsoever, so that the entire population would become terrified of the new regime, and cower in their homes behind closed doors, while the new regime consolidated its power with the military.

Of course, this resulted in the Russian Civil War, which lasted six years, and cost several million lives. In the end the Bolsheviks (the Red Russians) prevailed because they garnered finanacial support from the international community, including some of the big Wall Street Banks. The White Russians, their opponents, ultimately failed, when their armies were at the doorsteps of Moscow, because international financial support was withdrawn at the critical moment. The White Russians believed that the Bolsheviks represented a group of "international terrorists" supported and staffed by many non-Russians--who did not have the best interests of the Russian people in mind. In this they were largely correct.

When the Civil War finally ended, all of Russia eventually came under the thrall of the Terror, which Stalin eventually used to kill some 20 million of his fellow countrymen--i.e., anyone who resisted the draconian Collectivist measures instituted by the Bolshevik regime.

Its a sad tale, but has an important history lesson. Revolutions that seek to completely destroy the existing state apparatus and establishment classes, leave a power vacuum in their wake. In that vacuum unscrupulous groups (even very small groups) can achieve a sudden rise to power, promising wonderful things to an exhausted and demoralized population. But once in power, all of those wonderful things can be rejected in favor of some form of Terror, which has the potential to quickly subjugate the masses, and consolidate the power of a few.

The Moral of the Story: If we find ourselves in the wake of a general economic, governmental, and societal collapse beware of those who come promising salvation in exchange for power. They may very well be wolves in sheep's clothing.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Angiras]

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:21 PM
Indeed friend that your assessment is quite correct. So far we have that terrorism or acts of terror involve directed attacks upon a civilian population. Military targets cannot be ‘terrorized’ as they are legitimate targets for attack by an opposing force.

I feel though we must clarify the reasoning behind such attacks and tactics now that the means is established. What is the end goal? You stated it is to instill fear or possible force a political change of some sort.

Let us look at three examples. The first is a regular citizen with possible psychotic nature. The second is someone akin to McVeigh or the Unabomber. Finally the third will be what most would recognize as terrorism, in a group bent on disrupting a society via attacks upon its population.

Killers, such as Richard Rameriez held a population in fear and attacked the general population. His acts committed held nearly all of Southern California in a state of fear in which people adjusted their lives to suit the fear. Does his acts constitute as acts of terror? Or is the mere fact that his goal was not to invoke a political climate change via his acts exempt him and the likes of him from the term terrorist?

Persons such as the Unabomber or McVeigh employed unconventional means to attack the general population. It instilled fear amongst the population, was possibly politically motivated to institute some sort of change and was not aimed at the armed personnel or military targets. Does this fall upon the definition you have presented to be an act or terror?

Lastly, the groups that liter the world that solely use unconventional means to attack and hold a general population in fear. They use these means try and force a population to capitulate and thus pressure their government to bend to such attacks. Clearly, I believe this one fits the model of which you have presented, but my questions prior remain cloudy to me.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

You make some interesting points, my friend, but first I don't think the reasoning or motives matter as much as intent and act does. In terms of end goal, or endgame, the terrorists acts are no different than any military goal, or endgame, which is to topple the current regime.

The sanity or psychosis of a terrorist is not relevant either. It is no different than questioning the psychosis of any soldier. Sanity becomes a luxury during warfare. The emotional state required to fight war is fairly low, and runs the gamut from anywhere to anger to propitiation, or controlling others. Sun Tzu discusses the necessity of having a military with obedient soldiers, and such obedience does not come from people with emotional levels above anger.

By emotional levels I mean long term emotional levels, as action is surely an emotional level, but most people will attain action at some point but this does not mean their constant emotional level raises to action, and oftentimes action is the product of anger or below. People who manage to stay above anger will have different reasons for action, and certainly an emotional level of serenity is above action, so a serene person who turns to action is actually coming down in emotional levels, most likely in order to protect or ensure their serenity remain in tact.

Terrorists and soldiers are rarely serene. Perhaps warrior poets can accomplish this state of serenity, but the heat of battle too often demands anger or below. When one is in constant battle, as many soldiers find themselves in, serenity is just not an option. When serenity or action based upon conservatism is no longer an option, and one must operate on a level of anger or below, the sanity of such a state should be questioned. War is just quite simply an insane action, and in order to facilitate war, insane levels of emotion are required.

The Unabomber and McVeigh are interesting examples of terrorists, and they certainly fit the bill. But if the endgame is toppling the current regime, how did both of those accomplish this, or at the very least get closer to accomplishing such goals. Kaczynski is an anomaly of sorts, as his terror career spanned 20 years, and throughout that time he only killed three people, injuring 24. His campaign was done through a series of mail bombs, and these bombings were directed at either University personnel or airport or airline targets, hence; Unabomber and amalgamation of University and Airline bomber.

What seems to qualify Kaczynski as a terrorist is his reported manifesto, a 35,000 page essay sent to both The Washington Post and New York Times. In this manifesto Kaczynski calls for a revolution against the industrial technological system. Thus, his endgame was to bring about an end to that system, of which he saw as the current regime. His methods were crude, as was often the case with terrorists of that time, (1978-95), and remained fairly crude throughout his terror campaign. There is an irony in that the modern day terrorist has developed much more sophisticated methods, relying heavily upon the industrial technological system to carry out their campaigns, while simultaneously relying on methods that allow them to stay under the radar.

Timothy McVeigh is also an interesting actor in the theater of terror, and there is much that is suspicious about this actors allegiances and affiliations. What is most suspicious was his willingness to be caught, and then his subsequent unwillingness to discuss his motives beyond revenge for both Ruby Ridge and Waco. Both McVeigh and Kaczynski are anomolies in that they are labeled "homegrown" terrorists, and The U.S. has not seen many of those. Kaczynski could very well have been involved in the CIA MK program, and it appears as if he was, and it is arguable he was a sleeper created by the CIA. McViegh, on the other hand, was a decorated soldier for the U.S. military, before leaving that institution and becoming the "homegrown" terrorist he is famous for today.

The interesting thing about McVeigh is that he seems to be a product of terror campaigns committed by the U.S. government who attacked civilians, and largely unprovoked. Before Clinton was elected to office there was the single term of George Bush Sr. who followed Regan into the White House, and it was Regan who once gave a speech speaking to a common enemy. Where the Clinton administration seemed hell bent on producing a "homegrown" enemy, Bush II's administration, either purposefully, or innocently, found a common enemy in foreign terrorists.

Regardless of whether the common enemy be "homegrown" or foreign, that one was produced and then cemented in the hearts and minds of the American people is not in doubt, and this common enemy has produced a police state that has unleashed civil unrest not seen since the 1960's, and the primary difference between that civil unrest, which was either framed in a "civil rights movement" or disaffected youth protesting the Vietnam conflict, today's civil unrest crosses boundaries and encompasses all age groups, all ethnicity's, and political ideologies. This unrest is a product of an encroaching tyrannical government that itself is the reaction to terrorism, and therein lies the endgame. As the civil unrest grows, the government continues to expand its definition of terrorist, and terrorism, openly declaring war on its own citizens.

The difference between McVeigh and Kaczynski, versus the serial killers such as Ramirez or Son of Sam and others, is fairly obvious in that first of all the government itself was willing to make a distinction between the two crimes by labeling Ramirez, Berkowits, Gacy and others as serial killers and not terrorists, as well as the seeming lack of an endgame these serial killers had. So too could it be argued that gangland slayings of past and present are not the acts of terrorists, even though their actions often include civilians, and again, it is the seeming lack of endgame that most distinguishes the Crips and the Blood's from Al Queda, or the PLO.

Further, simply reducing the idea of striking terror in the hearts of a civilian populace could mean that horror films are just as guilty as Ramirez and Berkowitz, and films such as Jaws II had a logline that read; "Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water..." capitalizing on the obvious terror that the first Jaws film had created. Terrorism is simply a convenient term to ascribe a non conventional form of warfare, where the rules presented by The Geneva Convention are ignored in order for a smaller group of ideologists to employ military strategies that will accomplish their goal.

Von Clausewitz argues in On War that war is just an extension of politics. Terrorism is just an extension of war. When a nation engages in foreign interventions and military conflicts without even bothering to officially declare war, when that nation also unofficially declares war on drugs and terror, such a nation becomes ripe for civil unrest. Aristotle reduced social revolutions down to the have's and have not's, and when a nation takes to imprisoning the have not's and does so at a rate that makes them the highest per capita prison nation in the industrialized world, civil unrest will go from a simmer to a sure boiling point at some point.

Whether it is McVeigh, Kaczynski, Al Quaeda, the PLO, or the federal government of The U.S.A., all have engaged in terror campaigns against a civilian population, with a clear endgame in place. The current attempt at redefining terrorist or terrorism by the federal government of The U.S. is nothing more than sleight of hand intended to disguise their own clear and present terror campaigns on their own populace. The attacks at Ruby Ridge and Waco were terrorist campaigns, and it appears the attack on the Hutaree was one as well. When small bands of military personnel use terrorist tactics to accomplish an endgame, this is terrifying enough, but when the largest military-industrial system in the world begins employing terror campaigns this horrifying and can not at all accomplish any greater good.

V.I. Lenin credited Narodnaya Volya, (the peoples will), as being indirectly responsible for sparking the Russian Revolution of 1917. This was, of course, the endgame for Naradnaya Volya, and Lenin merely gave credit where credit was due. The notion that history repeats itself is derived from an oft' misquoted statement by George Santayana:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Whatever the endgame of the current regime in the U.S. might be, their actions imply they either cannot remember history, or believe that their actions will not bring about the historical reactions that oppression has caused since time immemorial.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

My friend I am satisfied and thankful for your dissertation and assessment of what encompasses terrorism and/or acts of terror.

The cases I presented were to draw out and seek out what exactly is the goal of a terror operation. Not only to instill fear amongst a targeted populace, but also to make a terrifying point, whether it was aimed at changing policy, a regime or attempts to break the will of the overall populace. The endgame is generally what needs to be examined in determination of what constitutes an act of terror.

Rightly so that, while the acts of serial killers such as Rameriez, Gacy, et. al. were indeed terrifying and held a generally small portion of the population in fear, it was their endgame that separates the likes of such people from someone such as McVeigh and Kaczynski. Serial killers tend to be narcissistic in nature and feed their own egos in terms of their acts that produce terrifying effects amongst a populace; while I am sure we could find cases where such killers have a larger goal in bringing about change in some sort of societal standard that they feel is lacking the proper attention.

Pointing out Ruby Ridge and Waco shows how a State that is opposing Terrorism has acted in such the manner in which it is fighting. It is truly scary to personalize such acts that our own Government has engaged upon. Through that force, its endgame was to show that they were the big dogs on the block and that a small population shall adhere to its will, lest it feels the full force of Federal police powers that descended upon those fateful groups.

Its failed attempt to demonize the Huratee group might have to do with their pre-emption that they performed. I believe that through the lessons that the Federal Government learned in how the population will react when Police action will be taken, they instead sought to show they were ‘pulling the trigger’ so to speak on the Huratee group. While this has backfired in that their evidence is highly lacking and there was a courageous judge that stood up to the Feds to prove their case, I fear it was just another growth process and lesson learned with the ever growing Federal Police powers they are perfecting.

new topics

top topics


log in