Manifesto of Resistance

The neo­con­ser­va­tives pose an ex­is­ten­tial threat. For its very sur­vival, all mankind must re­sist them.

Multiple crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings should be ini­ti­at­ed again­st the neo­con­ser­va­tives by their vic­tims: those of 11^th September and those of the so-called war again­st ter­ror – an open-end­ed war that the neo­con­ser­va­tives are wag­ing through lies and crime. These pro­ceed­ings should lead to a mul­ti­ple in­quest on their lies and their crim­i­nal aim of drag­ging mankind back in­to bar­barism.

The in­quest would be both start­ing-point and pro­cess of re­sis­tance to this threat.

This site is avail­able as a cen­tre for ad­vanc­ing this op­tion of re­sis­tance and a call for re­sisters to unite be­fore the on­set in­to the abyss be­comes ir­re­versible.

I

The se­cret or­ga­ni­za­tion that takes the pseudonym of “neo­con­ser­va­tives” pos­es an ex­is­ten­tial threat to the United States and the rest of the world. For its very sur­vival, all mankind must re­sist this threat.

What is the na­ture of this threat, how is it man­i­fest­ed, and what means does it use? How can it be ef­fec­tive­ly re­sist­ed in order to escape the mesh of sui­ci­dal vi­o­lence that the or­ga­ni­za­tion is incit­ing on all sides?

II

The fun­da­men­tal mo­tive forces of this or­ga­ni­za­tion are not eco­nomic but ide­o­log­i­cal. Its aim is not to dom­i­nate or ex­ploit in the tra­di­tion­al sense, but to gain ab­so­lute and ex­clu­sive pow­er by sub­sti­tut­ing it­self for in­sti­tu­tions and elim­i­nat­ing the Other, espe­cial­ly in the US. Its ini­tial pro­ject is not con­ven­tion­al­ly im­pe­ri­al­ist, but apoc­a­lyp­tic – a pre­de­ter­mined and pe­cu­liar apoc­a­lypse in which it as­sumes the right to play the role of Supreme Judge. Its grim Judgement be­gan on the eve of 11^th September, the per­fect crime that is to be pro­lif­er­at­ed through the world in fu­ture.

This or­ga­ni­za­tion is fight­ing a war of ideas, espe­cial­ly the idea of cre­ative de­struc­tion, by which the Supreme Judge de­mol­ish­es the world and recre­ates it in its own mon­strous im­age.

Such de­mo­li­tion means noth­ing less than the an­ni­hi­la­tion of civ­i­liza­tion’s achieve­ments: laws and le­gal­i­ty, hu­man rea­son and the crit­i­cal spir­it, the rights of man, free­dom, sovereign­ty, hu­man dig­ni­ty, jus­tice, civic and hu­man re­spon­si­bil­i­ty, com­pas­sion, hope, and so on. For the neo­con­ser­va­tives, the­se val­ues, ideas, and in­sti­tu­tions are not sim­ply to be ig­nored: they must be de­stroyed, not just out of cir­cum­stances, but as a mat­ter of prin­ci­ple. The last three years have seen the ap­pli­ca­tion of this de­struc­tive prin­ci­ple in the flout­ing of in­ter­na­tion­al con­ven­tions, treaties, or­ga­ni­za­tions, and all ar­eas of sovereign­ty.

For this or­ga­ni­za­tion, all the achieve­ments of mankind must be re­placed by a new char­ter to be dic­tat­ed by the new Supreme Judges. This char­ter, the New World Order, goes far be­yond dom­i­nat­ing in­ter­na­tion­al re­la­tions. It is to­tal­i­tar­i­an: as we can now see, it is a new order of man, so­ci­ety, faith, thought, and hu­man ac­tiv­i­ty in all its di­ver­si­ty. In short, it is a new order of life. The rise of ex­trem­ism, ag­gres­sive fun­da­men­tal­ism, xeno­pho­bia, in­stinc­tive be­haviour, fear, and hate are the herald­ing signs of this order and its fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple of cre­ative de­struc­tion.

Deprived of civ­i­liza­tion’s achieve­ments, man will be de­fence­less. Loaded with the ide­o­log­i­cal bag­gage of the to­tal­i­tar­i­an new order and fur­nished with an arse­nal of new weapons, man will un­leash self-de­struc­tion, threat­en­ing his own phys­i­cal safe­ty, putting his very sur­vival at risk. The “cre­ative de­struc­tion” of the new order is sui­ci­dal.

III

Undertaking crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings again­st the­se mon­sters and their or­ga­ni­za­tion is an ur­gent obli­ga­tion. Multiple pro­ceed­ings should be un­der­tak­en by the vic­tims of 11^th September and by other re­al and po­ten­tial vic­tims of this crime, which has been pro­lif­er­at­ing since that fate­ful date un­der the cov­er of the so-called “war again­st ter­ror”. This war has on­ly just be­gun and it threat­ens ev­ery ci­t­i­zen in the world. Mankind, there­fore, re­ject­ing the “end of his­to­ry”, has the right and du­ty to un­der­take the tri­al of the cen­tu­ry again­st the crim­i­nal or­ga­ni­za­tion of the cen­tu­ry.

IV

Multiple pro­ceed­ings should lead to a triple in­quest.

The first part of the in­quest should aim to un­cov­er the orig­in and his­to­ry of the neo­con­ser­va­tive or­ga­ni­za­tion, the ex­tent of its net­work, and the se­cret ac­tiv­i­ties it has un­der­tak­en for decades in the US and abroad.

The sec­ond part should fo­cus on the na­ture of the neo­con­ser­va­tive pro­ject and its apoc­a­lyp­tic ends.

The third part should re­veal the dis­as­trous con­se­quences of this pro­ject for the US and the world – con­se­quences re­al­ized in the last three years and con­se­quences still un­re­al­ized, but im­mea­sur­able if ev­er the pro­ject reach­es com­ple­tion.

This in­quest would be both the start­ing-point and the pro­cess of re­sis­tance. It would be the in­quest of the cen­tu­ry to fol­low on the tri­al of the cen­tu­ry.

V

Why should we re­sort to an in­quest as a form of re­sis­tance?

We should do so both for prac­ti­cal rea­sons and for rea­sons of prin­ci­ple.

Practically, on­ly an in­quest on this scale could make head­way again­st the ed­i­fice of lies that has now been built up. Only such an in­quest could bring the facts to light and spread uni­ver­sal aware­ness of the ex­is­ten­tial threat, there­by arous­ing deep con­cern and bring­ing about a world­wide coali­tion to op­pose it.

The neo­con­ser­va­tives’ pow­er springs from two sources: US strength, over which they have gained a hold, and the web of lies that they have care­ful­ly wo­ven to de­ceive the American peo­ple in par­tic­u­lar. But a com­pre­hen­sive in­quest would strike the neo­con­ser­va­tives’ Achilles heel by re­veal­ing their lies, crim­i­nal acts, and ne­far­i­ous aims to their first vic­tims, the American peo­ple. American pub­lic opin­ion, the de­ter­min­ing fac­tor in this ordeal, would then swing over to sup­port the re­sis­tance, where­as it now pre­sents the main ob­sta­cle to it.

VI

The rea­sons of prin­ci­ple are even more im­por­tant, and not least be­cause their prac­ti­cal ap­pli­ca­tion is just as great. The neo­con­ser­va­tive cul­ture of lies, vi­o­lence, ex­trem­ism, and to­tal­i­tar­i­an­ism must be re­sist­ed by an op­posed cul­ture. If not, the re­sis­tance will be caught in the in­fer­nal mesh, ag­gra­vat­ing the evil that it in­tends to de­stroy. Without know­ing or will­ing it, the re­sis­tance will be­come part of the neo­con­ser­va­tive pro­ject. The rise of vi­o­lence and ter­ror­ism in re­ac­tion to the so-called “war again­st ter­ror” is ev­i­dence of this. The neo­con­ser­va­tives plan their ac­tions with an eye to the re­ac­tions that they fore­see or, in­deed, them­selves per­pe­trate through their net­work. In do­ing so, they aim to rad­i­cal­ize states and so­ci­eties, rais­ing them again­st “evil”, align­ing them be­hind “good”, and so ha­bit­u­at­ing them to a state of per­pet­u­al war.

Effective re­sis­tance can­not come through vi­o­lent re­ac­tion; it can­not ad­vance in dark­ness, nor can it stay on the de­fen­sive. A glob­al, com­pre­hen­sive, and prop­er­ly con­duct­ed in­quest seems the best way to rem­e­dy the si­t­u­a­tion.

VII

The sym­bol­ic val­ue of the in­quest as a means of re­sis­tance adds to its prac­ti­cal val­ue. By ap­peal­ing to the achieve­ments of civ­i­liza­tion as fac­tors of se­cu­ri­ty that ul­ti­mate­ly guar­an­tee our sur­vival, the in­quest would demon­strate its moral and prac­ti­cal re­spon­si­bil­i­ty. In this man­ner, it would ap­peal not on­ly to all that made man hu­man, but even more to all that will al­low man to sur­vive in our time.

This choice of se­cu­ri­ty can pro­tect the re­sis­tance from the mesh of vi­o­lence.

Moreover, the in­quest would di­rect­ly chal­lenge the de­stroy­ers of civ­i­liza­tion’s se­cu­ri­ty-guar­an­tees. It would demon­strate the prac­tice of civ­i­liza­tion­al re­sis­tance in con­trast with the prac­tice of the neo­con­ser­va­tives – re­veal­ing the true face of each side to the ad­van­tage of the re­sis­tance.

VIII

The con­trast will be­come ev­i­dent.

Recourse to the in­quest as a form of re­sis­tance places trust in a trans­par­ent, essen­tial­ly demo­crat­ic pro­cess un­der­tak­en by ci­t­i­zens world­wide, as op­posed to the clan­des­tine and ar­bi­trary ma­noeu­vres of a se­cret or­ga­ni­za­tion not val­i­dat­ed by any elec­tion.

It ap­peals to the crit­i­cal spir­it again­st its sworn en­e­mies. These, aware that the crit­i­cal spir­it threat­ens them, are do­ing all they can to kill it in the US, the very coun­try that takes pride in ad­vanc­ing it.

It seeks facts and re­al­i­ty, as op­posed to prej­u­dice, lies, and me­dia ma­nip­u­la­tion.

It ap­peals to the law and jus­tice, as op­posed to those who con­sid­er them­selves above the law and re­gard on­ly might as right.

Finally, it is an ex­pres­sion of re­spon­si­bil­i­ty again­st those who are plan­ning glob­al geno­cide in their mad will to pow­er.

The con­trast will re­veal the widespread prej­u­dices that are dom­i­nat­ing and dan­ger­ous­ly re­shap­ing the glob­al scene. It will re­store the crit­i­cal spir­it by re­form­ing our cri­te­ria and ref­er­ence-points. It will over­turn the false im­age of the ir­re­spon­si­ble, dan­ger­ous re­sis­tance and the su­per­pow­er as sole guar­an­tor of se­cu­ri­ty. In this man­ner, the re­sis­tance will en­gage in free, con­struc­tive ac­tiv­i­ty, avoid­ing and op­pos­ing the de­struc­tive mesh of vi­o­lent re­ac­tion; and it will throw light upon the dark­ness, putting the neo­con­ser­va­tives on the de­fen­sive and forc­ing them to an­swer for their ac­tions. All the con­di­tions for a salu­tary out­come of the strug­gle will then be ful­filled.

IX

The new re­sis­tance has a mis­sion to unite the var­i­ous forms of re­sis­tance that now ex­ist. The pur­pose is twofold: to serve the com­mon cause by com­bin­ing ef­forts again­st a com­mon evil, and to serve the cause of each par­tic­u­lar re­sis­tance by op­pos­ing an evil that ag­gra­vates all other evils. For the bar­bar­ic war be­ing waged by the neo­con­ser­va­tives is not on­ly an evil in it­self, but al­so a cat­a­lyst for other evils. This war is deep­en­ing the world’s prob­lems and in­creas­ing the dif­fi­cul­ties of treat­ing them. Indeed, the neo­con­ser­va­tive pro­ject may even­tu­al­ly lead to an ir­re­versible si­t­u­a­tion at glob­al, re­gion­al, and lo­cal level that will sweep away all coun­ter-ef­forts.

For ex­am­ple, those who ac­tive­ly sup­port sec­u­lar­ism in their own coun­tries, or those who are op­posed to ex­trem­ism, re­li­gious fa­nati­cism, racism, and xeno­pho­bia, will soon dis­cov­er that their ef­forts risk be­ing nul­li­fied by the ubiq­ui­tous in­flu­ence of cul­ture and the op­er­a­tions of the “war again­st ter­ror”, no mat­ter how neu­tral or far re­moved their coun­tries may be from the ac­tive the­atre of war. The same is true for those ac­tive in other caus­es such as im­pov­er­ish­ment, poor-coun­try in­debt­ed­ness, new forms of inequal­i­ty, ris­ing vi­o­lence, and the glob­al­iza­tion of ag­gres­sions again­st the en­vi­ron­ment.

Opposition to this war is there­fore an ab­so­lute pri­or­i­ty for ev­ery ac­tivist in the world, what­ev­er his grievance, cause, or aspi­ra­tions. Only thus can the sep­a­rate ele­ments of re­sis­tance unite and draw strength from their di­ver­si­ty. The in­quest will make ac­tivists aware of the facts and en­cour­age them to ver­i­fy the­se facts through their own par­tic­u­lar in­ves­ti­ga­tions.

The mul­ti­far­i­ous ef­fects of this war upon hu­man so­ci­eties and mankind will on­ly be re­vealed in their mon­strous­ness by a mul­ti­dis­ci­plinary in­quest un­der­tak­en by ac­tivists from all walks of life across the world.

The union of re­sis­tance with­in the frame­work of the mul­ti­ple in­quest is thus a nec­es­sary stage.

X

The in­quest of re­sis­tance should be un­der­tak­en main­ly by in­di­vid­u­als and groups with­in so­ci­ety, though it may al­so mo­bi­lize na­tion­al gov­ern­ments. It would be un­der­tak­en by all in­di­vid­u­als, as­so­ci­a­tions, move­ments, in­sti­tu­tions, and sec­tors af­fect­ed by the ex­is­ten­tial threat or aware of it.

However, the en­ter­prise should have no deal­ings with the NGOs now mul­ti­ply­ing glob­al­ly: most of them are fi­nanced and con­trolled by pro­mot­ers of the very evils they are sup­posed to be fight­ing.

In the United States, the in­quest of re­sis­tance should have noth­ing to do with the shad­owy in­quests un­der­tak­en by Congress and the White House, or with other sup­pos­ed­ly in­de­pen­dent in­stances. It should be a sub­sti­tute for all of them. The peo­ple of the United States have the right to know who is re­al­ly gov­ern­ing them and how, the ma­te­ri­al and moral cost that its new mas­ters are in­flict­ing upon them, and the course to­wards the abyss that their coun­try is bent upon.

Abroad, the in­quest should not be left to the dis­cre­tion of state-gov­ern­ments. It is true that gov­ern­ments, espe­cial­ly those of the ma­jor pow­ers, know much about the sub­ject of the in­quest, but cer­tain con­sid­er­a­tions block both their free­dom and their will to act. Their free­dom to act is lim­it­ed by their re­spect for the re­al­i­ty of pow­er-re­la­tions: they may not rash­ly put them­selves at the head of op­po­si­tion to the su­per­pow­er for fear of in­cur­ring its vengeance. Their will to act de­pends on a gen­er­al­ized aware­ness of the ex­is­ten­tial threat, which will pro­duce the col­lec­tive po­lit­i­cal will be­fore which gov­ern­ments will be un­able to he­si­tate. The in­quest of re­sis­tance, un­der­tak­en main­ly by in­di­vid­u­als and so­cial groups, can bring about such a gen­er­al­ized aware­ness.

XI

The time-fac­tor

The time-fac­tor is cru­cial. Until now, it has been cru­cial to the suc­cess of the neo­con­ser­va­tives, but it will be even more im­por­tant to the fu­ture suc­cess of the re­sis­tance.

In order to ex­ploit the time-fac­tor, the re­sis­tance must un­der­stand the time-frame fixed by the neo­con­ser­va­tive agen­da. This agen­da is pre­cip­i­tate: it cre­ates a series of an­tic­i­pat­ed events through which the neo­con­ser­va­tives can ad­vance, ren­der­ing in­ef­fec­tive all po­ten­tial op­po­si­tion. The un­der­ly­ing prin­ci­ple, as il­lus­trat­ed by the events of the last few years, is to over­take the op­po­si­tion by events. Immediately after 11^th September, the United States and the rest of the world knew lit­tle about the aims and ma­noeu­vres of the neo­con­ser­va­tives, although they were ca­pable of re­strain­ing them. Today, they know more, but they have be­come less ca­pable of tak­ing ac­tion. This ini­tia­tive with re­gard to the time-fac­tor per­mits the neo­con­ser­va­tives to ad­vance their pro­ject, le­git­i­mate their war, and re­mod­el the world ac­cord­ing to their vi­sion. Tomorrow, we shall know much more about the neo­con­ser­va­tive or­ga­ni­za­tion and its crimes, and we shall suf­fer their grow­ing con­se­quences more. However, we shall al­so risk be­ing placed be­fore a fait ac­com­pli, un­able to stop the ad­vance of chaos by at­tend­ing to its caus­es, but forced in­stead to face its con­se­quences. The time-fac­tor would then re­main on their side, and if it con­tin­ues to do so, the neo­con­ser­va­tives could bring the world in­to an ir­re­versible state of af­fairs.

The first du­ty of the re­sis­tance must be to re­verse this equa­tion: to make the world aware in time, so that it can act in time. The in­quest pro­pos­es to do this with­in the con­text of mul­ti­ple le­gal pro­ceed­ings. The in­quest would chal­lenge the of­fi­cial ver­sion of 11^th September and sub­se­quent events. It would mo­bi­lize the vic­tims, whose num­ber is mul­ti­ply­ing ex­po­nen­tial­ly in this state of per­pet­u­al and un­lim­it­ed war. It would uni­fy the re­sis­tance in ur­gent op­po­si­tion to the war. All ef­forts must be con­cen­trat­ed upon the in­quest as a just and ef­fec­tive means of re­sis­tance in the face of an un­just and fa­tal war.

The dy­nam­ic of the in­quest would of­fer the wider pub­lic a wealth of in­for­ma­tion, over­tak­ing the neo­con­ser­va­tive agen­da and pro­duc­ing the po­lit­i­cal will nec­es­sary for the suc­cess of any ini­tia­tive.

The re­sis­tance would there­by make the world aware in time, in order to act ef­fec­tive­ly in time be­fore the si­t­u­a­tion be­comes ir­re­versible. The de­ter­min­ing time-fac­tor would then be on the side of the re­sis­tance.

XII - THE FUTURE (1) -The existential threat

The fu­ture aban­doned to the neo­con­ser­va­tives.

“At most, we have come to the end of the be­gin­ning”, says one of the neo­con­ser­va­tives. “Un­til now, you have wit­nessed skir­mish­es, small bat­tles. The re­al war has not yet be­gun”, as­sures an­oth­er.

The neo­con­ser­va­tives are prepar­ing a fu­ture that is in­finite­ly more somber than the last three years. Why are they telling us that so solemn­ly, when they know that the United States is deeply di­vid­ed on the war they are wag­ing, that most peo­ple in the world op­pose it, that the ed­i­fice of their lies is top­pling, that se­ri­ous doubts about their or­ga­ni­za­tion and its ma­neou­vres are grow­ing and, above all, that the bal­ance-sheet of the war they promise to in­ten­si­fy and per­pet­u­ate is neg­a­tive, even dis­as­trous­ly so?

Primarily, the neo­con­ser­va­tives want to demon­strate their po­lit­i­cal will to a world that lacks it. They are try­ing to af­firm their res­o­lu­tion be­fore an op­po­si­tion that does not pos­sess res­o­lu­tion or not suf­fi­cient­ly so. They want to de­clare that they alone know and can plan the fu­ture. Finally, they want to insin­u­ate a mood of fa­tal­i­ty among other par­ties in order to as­sure their pas­sive res­ig­na­tion.

The neo­con­ser­va­tives are cor­rect to think in this man­ner, given their en­cour­ag­ing ex­pe­ri­ence in the past and the con­crete prepa­ra­tions they have made to en­sure suc­cess in the fu­ture.

In the space of three years, they have un­der­tak­en to change the world and have not yet con­front­ed a co­or­di­nat­ed op­po­si­tion res­o­lute enough to stop them. The world is set on a course that may lead mankind back in­to bar­barism, but the great ma­jor­i­ty of san­er spir­its are not suf­fi­cient­ly alarmed. In order to deal with an ex­cep­tion­al si­t­u­a­tion, they have re­treat­ed in­to tra­di­tion­al thought-pat­terns. As a re­sult, the neo­con­ser­va­tives feel, they are the on­ly ones aware that the pre­sent si­t­u­a­tion is not sim­ply the after­math of 11^th September but the harbinger of their new world order. Assured of this, they re­gard them­selves as alone ca­pable of shap­ing the fu­ture. Only they can as­sume the pre­rog­a­tive of Supreme Judges of the apoc­a­lypse; con­se­quent­ly, they need take no con­sid­er­a­tion of tra­di­tion­al re­sis­tance en­coun­tered by them. This self-con­fi­dence ex­plains, for the most part, the ar­ro­gance of their dis­course on the fu­ture.

Their con­crete prepa­ra­tions for the fu­ture give them even more re­as­sur­ance. They count on the pro­cess of rad­i­cal­iza­tion they have un­leashed in in­ter­na­tion­al and hu­man re­la­tions, and with­in so­ci­eties, in order to spread a cul­ture of sep­a­ra­tion, op­po­si­tion, and con­flict. They are ful­ly con­tent to see the world head­ing to­wards a state of con­flict that may be­come ir­re­versible, even though in­ter­na­tion­al life to­day is in­ter­de­pen­dent and the sur­vival of mankind de­pends more than ev­er on sol­i­dar­i­ty. At a time when hu­man com­mu­nion is obli­ga­to­ry, they are con­tent to see plu­ral­is­tic so­ci­eties threat­ened by the in­com­pat­i­bil­i­ty of their com­po­nent parts. In sum, the neo­con­ser­va­tives are re­as­sured, where­as the whole world is anx­ious.

A world trans­formed by the pro­cess of rad­i­cal­iza­tion would be in­creas­ing­ly less re­sis­tant to war, given the new re­al­i­ties in glob­al and re­gion­al re­la­tions and with­in so­ci­eties. Governments that show them­selves to be he­si­tant or re­frac­to­ry to the re­quire­ments of the war­mon­gers would even­tu­al­ly sub­mit to the de­mands of the new re­al­i­ty. Recalcitrant Europe, for ex­am­ple, would be brought in­to line. France, espe­cial­ly crit­i­cal of the neo­con­ser­va­tive war-log­ic, would be­come in­creas­ing­ly less so as its so­cial and re­li­gious com­po­nents, vic­tims of rad­i­cal­iza­tion, come to seem mu­tu­al­ly in­com­pat­i­ble. The sec­u­lar val­ues of the French Republic would be threat­ened by the rise of new com­mu­nal move­ments mould­ed in hate and fear. French lead­ers, faith­ful to such val­ues, would be by­passed by events and be­come sub­ject to in­ter­nal pres­sures added to al­ready-ex­ist­ing ex­ter­nal con­straints. The ex­am­ple of Europe and France can be ap­plied to all con­ti­nents and coun­tries, tak­ing in­to ac­count the par­tic­u­lar con­di­tions of each.

The fu­ture aban­doned to the neo­con­ser­va­tives is a course in­to the abyss that could be cov­ered in stages of months or weeks. The new cen­tu­ry’s first three years, full of apoc­a­lyp­tic con­se­quences, have al­ready sound­ed the note.

XIII - THE FUTURE (2) - The will to survive

The will to pow­er of a caste ver­sus the pow­er of the pub­lic will.

The fu­ture de­pends on man. This premise is a key idea be­cause it can free the re­sis­tance from the sense of fa­tal­i­ty that the neo­con­ser­va­tives are try­ing to in­still in order to as­sure their ir­re­vo­ca­ble “mis­sion” to de­ter­mine man’s des­tiny.

Determinism is not on­ly false but al­so harm­ful. It is false be­cause it does not ex­ist as a his­tor­i­cal law, and it is harm­ful when it ex­ists as a false faith in the minds of men. However, the false­ness of de­ter­min­ism must not lead us in­to an over­con­fi­dent state of in­er­tia as we wait to see it re­fut­ed. For de­ter­min­ism is on­ly re­fut­ed by the ac­tion of men.

The call to re­sis­tance is a call to ac­tion. However, this ac­tion must be ef­fec­tive and free from abuse. To en­sure free­dom from abuse, ac­tion must avoid the mesh of vi­o­lence, which is the neo­con­ser­va­tives’ favourite tac­tic. Therefore, it must be op­posed not on­ly to de­ter­min­ism but al­so to blind re­ac­tion. And to en­sure ef­fec­tive­ness, ac­tion must be re­al­ized through the ba­sic and de­ter­min­ing fac­tor of pub­lic will. The po­lit­i­cal will to pow­er of the neo­con­ser­va­tives must be op­posed by a col­lec­tive po­lit­i­cal will. The will of a caste or­ga­ni­za­tion must be op­posed by the pub­lic will.

Resistance is not one op­tion among many. It is the on­ly way for­ward, through which mankind must de­cide its des­tiny. The re­sis­tance must re­gard its sav­ing mis­sion in this spir­it and with this aware­ness. Lacking pub­lic will in the face of an ex­is­ten­tial threat means lack­ing the will to live. Given the ev­i­dence of the dan­ger and its rapid pro­gress, it means lack­ing the ba­sic in­stinct of sur­vival.

Overturning the new regime in the United States and the new world order

The neo­con­ser­va­tives are estab­lish­ing a new US regime and a new world order that con­sti­tute an ex­is­ten­tial threat. The sur­vival of mankind re­quires the over­turn­ing of this regime and this order as a mat­ter of ut­most pri­or­i­ty. This is the fun­da­men­tal task of the re­sis­tance.

However, this mis­sion con­tains a para­dox and may seem im­pos­si­ble to re­al­ize.

The para­dox con­sists in the fact that the mis­sion calls for the over­throw of the new regime in the US when it is at­tempt­ing to change other regimes around the world. In fact, the formidable new regime in the US should be over­turned be­fore any other. First, its glob­al reach is so wide as to po­ten­tial­ly vic­tim­ize all the world’s ci­t­i­zens, who there­fore have the right, and in­deed the du­ty, to change it. Next, the over­turn­ing of this regime would re­store ba­sic norms in the US and the world, thus re­spond­ing to anx­i­ety and restor­ing hope – where­as the over­throw by the neo­con­ser­va­tives of regimes in other coun­tries will lead di­rect­ly to worse regimes or to chaos, i.e., to de­struc­tion and self-de­struc­tion. Exemplary here is the case of Iraq, which may be gen­er­al­ized through­out the re­gion, even the en­tire con­ti­nent. The sud­den upheaval in the world must alarm us and incite us to ac­tion. For the­se rea­sons, over­turn­ing the new US regime and its deriva­tive new world order is a pri­or­i­ty.

The mis­sion may al­so seem im­pos­si­ble to re­al­ize, be­cause the re­sis­tance, de­prived of tan­gi­ble means, would be faced with the formidable war-ma­chine and al­most un­lim­it­ed pow­er wield­ed by the su­per­pow­er’s new mas­ters.

However, the col­lec­tive po­lit­i­cal will men­tioned above can change the whole equa­tion. The po­ten­tial pow­er of this will is con­sid­er­able, and the re­sis­tance would be the ex­pres­sion of it. Moreover, the re­sis­tance should be in a po­si­tion of strength, given the fact that the war be­ing waged by the neo­con­ser­va­tives is prin­ci­pal­ly a war of ideas. In such a war, the re­sisters would hold an ad­van­tage. The re­sisters are more nu­mer­ous, faster-grow­ing, and de­vot­ed than the ma­nip­u­la­tors of the neo­con­ser­va­tive net­work. They would need less ef­fort and more mod­est means to af­firm the truth that the in­quest would at­tempt to estab­lish. In con­trast, the neo­con­ser­va­tives would con­stant­ly have to mount in­creas­ing­ly ex­haust­ing and risky pro­jects in order to hide their lies, crimes, and the dead end of their war-log­ic. Nevertheless, what­ev­er ef­forts and sac­ri­fices must be made by the re­sis­tance, freely and ful­ly aware of its re­spon­si­bil­i­ty, they pale be­fore the con­se­quences that man would be forced to ac­cept un­der the to­tal­i­tar­i­an au­thor­i­ty of the new Supreme Judges.

The re­sis­tance there­fore has no choice but to achieve a tour de force by suc­cess­ful­ly over­throw­ing the neo­con­ser­va­tives – that is, by re­mov­ing the new regime in the US and the new world order that it has estab­lished. This suc­cess is nec­es­sary in order to over­come the di­rect threat of the neo­con­ser­va­tives; how­ev­er, it is not suf­fi­cient for achiev­ing safe­ty. The fu­ture de­pends on a wider glob­al strug­gle again­st the cul­ture of the neo­con­ser­va­tives, which is ca­pable of sur­viv­ing their po­lit­i­cal down­fall.