The Cat is Out of the Bag Reply

By Keith Preston

For an opposing perspective, see this article by Joseph Nye. For an article that makes comparable arguments, see this piece in Foreign Policy by Gideon Rachman.

When the future history of the former United States of America is written, the pivotal turning point that likely marked the downfall of the USA will be the events of September 11, 2001.

The United States emerged from World War Two as the most powerful nation-state in the world, rivaled only by the second-rate Soviet Union. American hegemony and dominance spread throughout the world as Western Europe became protectorates of the USA, and the colonies of the former European colonial empires in Asia, Africa, and Latin America became U.S. client states. However the postwar era and the late 20th century were also a time of anti-colonial insurgency, leading the U.S. to get bogged down in the anti-colonial war in Indochina and eventually experience defeat. This had the effect of de-legitimizing U.S. militarism to a great degree. More…


Patriot’s Game 1

By William T. Hathway

Once again in election season the drums of patriotism are being beaten. Politicians on the stump and their Madison Avenue flacks are exhorting us to rally around the tattered flag. Their drumming sounds feeble and hollow, though, like cheerleaders trying to rouse the fans while our military team goes down to defeat, bringing the economy with it.

The drummers persist because their patriotic noise drowns out the voices of those asking disturbing questions: Why are we playing this losing game to begin with? Why are we bankrupting the country with endless war? How can we love a nation that slaughters millions of our fellow human beings? These questions endanger the game, and the game must go on.


The Mafia with a Flag Reply

The State is the mafia with a flag.

Why does the mafia exist?

To control territory, monopolize resources, enrich and protect an artificially privileged elite, exploit subjects, and expand its own realm of power and domination.

When a gang’s territory is threatened, it responds with extreme violence.

How is that different from what states do or have ever done?

Max Weber defined the state as an institution claiming an exclusive right to engage in violence (in other words, actions that would be considered criminal if anyone did them).

Criminal organizations have their own internal codes and ceremonies that are used to maintain cohesion and convey a sense of legitimacy and identity to the organization.

This is what States do as well. All states maintain some kind of self-legitimating ideology. An Egyptian pharaoh may claim to be descended from the sun-god. A medieval monarch may invoke the divine right of kings. A theocracy may claim religious legitimacy. A liberal democratic state’s legitimating ideology is a hybrid of Lockean property theory and the Rousseauan notion of the general will. A Communist regime claims to be a workers state. Other states may claim legitimacy by appealing to tradition, the glory of the fatherland, ethnic kinship, or racial or national superiority.

But ultimately, these abstractions are manipulated and bended into a shape that matches the interests of the existing power elite.

"The Worst (Still) Get on Top."</p>
<p><a href=; width=”444″ height=”444″ />

Abandoned by the Left Reply

What I’ve been saying all along. The money quote:

“The current trends in America, Wall Street getting richer, everyone else getting poorer, politicians of both parties feeding brazenly at Wall Street’s trough, the party of the Left in full blown attack gear not on inequality, which it has done nothing to address, but picking at and rubbing raw the scabs of identity politics—this can’t keep going on indefinitely without something really bad happening.”

By Scott McConnell

The American Conservative

One reason for the continued vital role for TAC is that the left makes itself so difficult to identify with. Here is a personal example: white male, late middle age, Christian background, Obama supporter (volunteered in both campaigns) believes that major problems facing this country and the world are global warming, accelerating inequality, the outsourcing and general drying up of middle class jobs. Opposed the Iraq war from the moment the neocons began to push for it (September 12, 2001?); opposes the militarized war-as-first-or-second-resort mindset so dominant within the Beltway; supports Obama’s effort to explore detente with Iran. Supports a reduction in defense expenditures–the savings could be spent on infrastructure, debt reduction, education, health care subsidies. Pretty much a portrait of a 100 percent liberal Democrat, no?


Reflections on the Overthrow of Communism Reply

A lecture by American Communist Michael Parenti lamenting the downfall of Communism. What I found most interesting about this is how much his rhetoric mirrors that of “Love It or Leave It” types in the West: “Communism: Love It or Leave It!” LOL.

I actually agree with many of his criticisms of leftist identity politics, and, of course, his criticisms of Western capitalism and imperialism.

Rough Justice Reply

Good article from 2010 about over criminalization in the US.

The Economist

IN 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the Lacey Act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got eight years apiece. Two are still in jail.

America is different from the rest of the world in lots of ways, many of them good. One of the bad ones is its willingness to lock up its citizens (see our briefing). One American adult in 100 festers behind bars (with the rate rising to one in nine for young black men). Its imprisoned population, at 2.3m, exceeds that of 15 of its states. No other rich country is nearly as punitive as the Land of the Free. The rate of incarceration is a fifth of America’s level in Britain, a ninth in Germany and a twelfth in Japan.


Debate: We’ve Never Had it So Good Reply

By Keir Martland

Libertarian Alliance

My college’s History Society was to have a debate today, which was cancelled. Censorship! No, actually, revision sessions were scheduled at dinner. But, as the likelihood of this debate taking place before the end of the term is now virtually zero, here is what I intended to say – and will say when it goes ahead. 

Motion – ‘We’ve Never Had it So Good’

I must take issue with this motion. I find it patronising and almost 100% wrong.

Oh, indeed, some qualifications are called for. I won’t try to deny that we are all immeasurably better off than our 1914 counterparts in that we can Skype people, we can live our lives without fear of rickets, polio, or David Lloyd George , and we can go days without having to do anything involving a great deal of physical exertion. Maybe this means we are freer in some sense, but it is certainly not up for debate that we are more comfortable on the whole than our great grandparents were when they were our age. What is up for debate is whether we are, in addition to being better off in terms of lifespan and technology, better off in politics, economics, the law, society, and culture.


Robert Stark interviews Anthony Migchels on the Basic Income Reply

Robert Stark interviews Anthony Migchels on the Basic Income












Anthony Migchels is a monetary reform advocate from the Netherlands. His website is Real Currencies

Topics include:

Proposals for a basic income

How a basic income should be implemented and how it should not

Social Credit

Why Anthony supports an Asset Tax

The myth that the top wealthiest pay the most in taxes

How we lose up to 90% of our income to Usury, taxation, rents and high prices through Monopoly and associated artificial scarcity

Robert Stark interviews Paul Gottfried on Dugin & Neoconservatives 1

Robert Stark interviews Paul Gottfried on Dugin & Neoconservatives

















Paul Gottfried recently retired as Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.

Topics include:

Alexander Dugin and Martin Heidegger

The definition of Liberalism

The Eurasian school of thought

National Review’s Hit Piece on Dugin

How Neoconservatives attack their enemies such as Dugin as Fascist or Nazis

How Neoconservatives are a faction of the left

The Neoconservative View toward Russia

The Cold War and whether it was a mistake

The conflict with Russia in the Ukraine

Why Paleoconservatives tend to dislike Israel

Paul Gottfried’s upcoming book Fascism: The Career of a Concept

Shooting the Wounded 3

I used to think the primary obstacle to the victory of pan-secessionist/fourth generation forces in the U.S. would be America’s massive military-industrial complex. However, the more conversations I have with actual military personnel and the more I observe trends in the military, the less I am convinced of that. Prediction: At some point in the future, the U.S. armed forces will come to more closely resemble fire departments and EMT services, with the infantry more closely resembling the cops, and the special forces closely resembling SWAT teams. In other words, the U.S. armed forces will eventually come to resemble the EU military forces in that they will be largely worthless as actual fighting forces.

Meanwhile, the most important “national security” issue for North America during the post-United States era will be maintaining the ability to deter aggression by the BRIC axis.

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

female marine

The US military suffers from a self-inflicted wound, namely its outdated adherence to Second Generation war. The Obama administration, instead of healing it through military reform, has chosen to put a bullet in its head. How? By admitting women to the combat arms.

No single action could be more destructive of combat effectiveness. Any presence of women in a military is harmful. Putting them into the combat arms undermines unit cohesion, the basis of combat effectiveness, in the few units we have that actually fight. Instead of bonding, the men will fight over the women.

A few years ago, I was visiting a Navy ship whose captain I knew. His crew included women officers. I asked him what the fraternization rate was. After making sure no one could overhear his answer, he replied, “100%, of course. I have male sailors engaging in knife fights over the women officers.”


Understanding the Hierarchy of Groups within the Cultural Marxist Schema Reply

Even as the forces of totalitarian humanism continue to become more extreme and outlandish, cracks are emerged. Demographics have doomed the Red Tribe to death. Internal contradictions will bring the demise of the Blue Tribe. The Grey Tribe is up next.

By Tim Dunkin

Traditional Right


If there is one thing that defines the thought of the cultural Marxist “Social Justice Warrior” (SJW) crowd, it is the division of people in our country into groups based on race, gender, religion (provided the religion in question is not a traditional Western faith) and sexual proclivities. The radical Left just loves doing this, for a number of reasons. Dividing people into groups allows for easier identification of who is a cultural “enemy” and who is an “ally.” It facilitates the ability of the SJWs to play group against group in their struggle to obtain political power. It also permits them to punish groups which exist outside or fall out of the cultural Marxists’ favor.


Let’s not kid ourselves: Most Americans are fine with torture, even when you call it “torture” Reply

No surprise here. People are tribal by nature. Most people’s reaction is that “they” (terrorists) did something awful to “us” (Americans). so whatever we do to them is justified.

By Christopher Ingraham

Washington Post

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s five-year investigation into the CIA’s torture of suspected terrorists just came out. There’s plenty in there to shock — for starters, just go to the document and search for “rectal feeding.” The Post has compiled a list of 20 key takeaways from the report, which detail a regime of brutality, incompetence and deceit that have been damaging to the U.S.’s standing abroad.

Good luck trying to convince many Americans of that, though. Polls have shown a public generally supportive of the use of torture to gain information from terrorist suspects, at least in some circumstances, and even when you flat out call it “torture.”

In 2009, the Pew Research Center found that 49 percent of the public said that “the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information” can “often” or “sometimes” be justified. This belief was held by 64 percent of Republicans, 54 percent of Independents and 36 percent of Democrats.

Including the number who say that torture can rarely be justified, 71 percent of Americans accept torture under some circumstances.

Overall 25 percent of respondents said torture could “never” be justified. Fourteen percent of Republicans said the same, compared to 38 percent of Democrats.

While these figures are from 2009, a more recent YouGov poll from 2012 showed similar levels of support for torture among the public overall. A 2014 report by the advocacy group Amnesty International found that U.S. respondents were more supportive of torture than people in other wealthy Western countries.

UPDATE: Pew data from 2011 paints largely the same picture.


Students Demand Censorship of George Will, Won’t Listen to Someone They Don’t Like Reply

Totalitarian humanist student activism means brownshirting those with whom you disagree.

By Robby Soave


Another day, another group of insolent students demanding that their university censor a prominent speaker and deprive the rest of campus of the opportunity to learn from him.

George Will is slated to give Michigan State University’s fall semester commencement address on December 13th and receive an honorary degree from the university. But because one of the thousands of columns he has written in his life was deemed controversial by those on the far-left side of the campus sexual assault issue, some students want him disinvited from campus.

Will strikes me as conservative with some good libertarian instincts; as such, I don’t agree with everything he says. I will note, however, that he has recently made very smart contributions to the cause of criminal justice reform. In a column lamenting the brutality that caused Eric Garner’s death and the miscarriage of justice evident in the grand jury’s decision not to indict, Will wrote, “Overcriminalization has become a national plague.” He explicitly described solitary confinement as “torture.”

(Perhaps he should have just written #BlackLivesMatter and stopped at that—the only parlance deemed acceptable by campus crusaders.)

Of course, whether one agrees with an invited speaker entirely, partly, or not at all is beside the point. In fact, a strong case can be made that it is even more important to hear from notable people whose views differ from one’s own—especially on campuses, where opportunities to hear opinions critical of liberalism are in short supply.

Some students, however, took a different view, according to Bloomberg:


As Student Activism Grows, So Does Campus Resistance to Free Speech Reply

By Elizabeth Nolan Brown


“Free speech all the time. Not just when admin says when, where, what about,” read one side of the neon-yellow sign fielded by Ali Cohen, an education major at Coastal Carolina University, during a recent campus rally. On the sign’s flip side: “#BlackLivesMatter. And I should not be facing charges for writing that… in chalk.”


Cohen is one of a handful of Coastal students facing disciplinary action for sidewalk chalk messages protesting racial injustice and the non-indictment of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in Michael Brown’s shooting. Three of the students—those caught in the act—were handcuffed and detained by CCU police. Cohen was identified by surveillance camera footage from the night before. “The video showed multiple people,” says Cohen. “They identified me from a picture of me in the library.”


The United States of Torture: It’s Who We Are Reply

The great thing about the latest torture revelations is that it confirms one of the main things we anarchists are always saying. The state is no different from the mafia. It exists to control territory, protect an artificially privileged ruling class, exploit subjects, monopolize resources, and expand its own power. When another state or non-state challenger gets in the way, it responds the same way the mafia responds during a dispute over territory and illegal markets.

These revelations help to demystify the state and it self-legitimating ideological superstructure.

Ironically, it’s not really in the interests of the state to use torture when combating fourth generation forces, because the enemy is seen as the underdog. Using torture against an underdog undermines the moral legitimacy of the state, and strengthens the moral legitimacy of the insurgents. Bill Lind explains why here.

By Justin Raimondo


Dianne Feinstein was the canary in the coalmine. If even the senior Senator from California, as stalwart an ally of the CIA and the National Security State as one is likely to find, was upset enough to make such a fuss about the Senate torture report then it had to be pretty awful. The release of the 600-page report summary confirmed our worst suspicions.

After a very Feinstein-ish introduction, filled with self-exculpatory finger-wagging and written in first-person high-drama mode, we learn:

1) It didn’t work. Out of at least 119 detainees held at secret CIA dungeons 39 were tortured: 7 of these produced no intelligence. None produced any intelligence that couldn’t have been gotten by legal means. Alan Dershowitz is going to be very disappointed to learn that, as the report puts it, “At no time did the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ‘ticking time bomb’ information that many believe was the justification for the use of these techniques.”


Gun Rights Outweigh Gun Control In New Pew Survey Reply

This is consistent with Scott Alexander’s analysis of the growth of a “Grey Tribe” as a third force in U.S. politics, beyond the “Red Tribe” and “Blue Tribe,” that regards the state rather than either traditional in-groups or traditional out-groups as the primary enemy.Apparently, the Grey Tribe is growing faster than I would have thought.

By Bill Chappell

National Public Radio

More than half of American women now say owning a gun protects people from becoming victims of crime, according to Pew. Here, a woman carries a rifle at a gun rights rally at the Utah State Capitol last year.

More than half of American women now say owning a gun protects people from becoming victims of crime, according to Pew. Here, a woman carries a rifle at a gun rights rally at the Utah State Capitol last year.

George Frey/Getty Images

For the first time in at least 20 years, significantly more Americans say it’s more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership, according to the Pew Research Center.

The survey found that more than half of Americans (52 percent) sided with gun rights compared with the 46 percent who favored gun control.

The findings represent the continuation of a shift that was only briefly interrupted by the Newtown, Conn., school shootings in 2012.

In April 2007, the Pew survey found only 32 percent of Americans said it was more important to protect the right to own guns, while 60 percent said it was more important to control gun ownership.


The Pan-Anarchist 12-Step Program 2

1. Continue to attack all mainstream institutions across the board, until all of the system’s institutions have a single digit approval rating, just as Congress presently does.

2. Continue all dissident movements everywhere, and grow these to the point that they collectively become a majority, and then a super-majority.

3. Promote the idea of secession until a substantive majority of Americans wishes for their state, region, or locality to secede, thereby effectively breaking up the USA.

4. Continue to build support for military non-intervention, which is at an all-time low, across the political spectrum.

5. Continue to build support for anti-police state protests until these become an Eastern Europe circa 1989 moment.

6. Continue to attack the war on drugs which is the foundation of the modern American police state.

7. Continue to grow the libertarian grey tribe as an anti-state opposition force in U.S. politics.

8. Advocate for the city-state system as a practical means of implementing decentralist ideas.

9. Advocate for the repeal of consensual crimes and the surveillance state, the definitive social issues for the grey tribe.

10. Continue to critique red state fascism.

11. Continue to critique blue state totalitarian humanism.

12. Continue to build the pan-anarchist philosophy as the leading revolutionary ideology of the 21st century, comparable to Marxist in the 20th century, and classical liberalism in the 19th century.

Americans want federal government out of marijuana policy Reply

This is interesting. A 50 percent plus majority of Americans now favor legalizing marijuana. However, two thirds say it should be a states’ rights issue. How can this be? Because the demographic that is least likely to favor legalizing marijuana is the one that is most likely to favor states’ rights due to their constitutional fundamentalism. As I have been telling my fellow anarchists and libertarians for years, this is the key to ending consensual crime laws and overcriminalization. Use local initiative and ballot referendums in order bypass the professional politicians that make up state legislatures. Take your issues directly to the public, and build support for your movement over time. Do so in jurisdictions where your are likely to get a sympathetic hearing. Invoke wider principles like states’ rights, local autonomy, the Bill of Rights, human rights, anti-racism, civil liberties, freedom of choice, whatever is most appropriate for the particular issue, time, and place. This is how we shut off the fuel pump to the police state and prison-industrial complex.

Russia Today

Reuters/Gary Cameron

Reuters/Gary Cameron

The legalization of recreational marijuana is still a controversial issue in the United States, but approximately two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government should not interfere with state laws on the subject.

In fact, 67 percent of voters want Congress to pass a law that carves out a “safe haven” for states that legalize recreational pot use, according to a new poll conducted by Third Way think-tank. Under the law, “legal” states would be protected from federal legislation, which still classifies recreational and medical marijuana as illegal.


Torture Is Also Big Government Reply

Stating the obvious.

By W. James Antle III

The American Conservative

Many conservatives weren’t happy with the release of the Senate CIA torture report. They described its release as reckless endangerment at worst, an attempt to distract from the House’s Jonathan Gruber hearings at best.

But it was fitting to question Gruber and publicize some of the uglier interrogation practices the same day. Both events illustrated the role deceit has played in two of the federal government’s biggest undertakings of the past few years—the remaking of our healthcare system at home and the War on Terror abroad. Both congressional inquiries were attempts, however partisan and imperfect, to arrive at some level of transparency and accountability.

Since when do Republicans believe a congressional investigation is automatically discredited because one party participated while the other stonewalled in defense of a president? Not since Barack Obama has been in office, at least. And John McCain—lest we forget, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee—defended the report’s release by saying “the truth is a hard pill to swallow” but “the American people are entitled to it.”

Fighting terrorism is a tough business, and people who would commit heinous acts certainly cannot be treated with kid gloves. Nevertheless, many of the methods described in the report fit generally accepted definitions of torture. Evidence that “enhanced interrogation” actually enhanced national security is scant.


Ice Water and Sweatboxes: The long and sadistic history behind the CIA’s torture techniques. Reply

The recent revelations are nothing new or out of the ordinary.

By Darius Rejali


“Clean torture” doesn’t leave marks

In the 20th century, there were two main traditions of clean torture—the kind that doesn’t leave marks, as modern torturers prefer. The first is French modern, a combination of water- and electro-torture. The second is Anglo-Saxon modern, a classic list of sleep deprivation, positional and restraint tortures, extremes of temperature, noise, and beatings.


Robert Stark interviews Keith Preston on the City-State System 1

Robert Stark interviews Keith Preston on the City-State System


Keith’s article The Case for the City-State System

The core issues that political dissidents agree upon

How to address the divisive social wedge issues

How Pan Secessionism and the City-State System addresses those issues

Ron Paul’s statement that secessionism could lead to theocratic or fascistic states

The back to the Constitution mentality and Traditional Patriotism and how those ideas are not politically viable

The State’s Rights Movement

How the system is a managerial corporate plutocracy

The theory of liberal democracy

The role that ethnic divides will play

The role that economics and income inequality will play

El Salvador – A War by Proxy: Keith Preston

How problems are best solved by the people closest to them

The growing popularity of secessionism

How the City-State System would be implemented and how the focus now should be meta politics

Robert Stark interviews Richard Spencer Reply

Robert Stark interviews Richard Spencer


Richard Spencer











Richard Spencer is Editor of RADIX JOURNAL, Founder of the Alternative Right, and President of THE NATIONAL POLICY INSTITUTE.


Why he quit the Alternative Right to start Radix Journal

The need to reject association with the right wing and phony left right spectrum

Richard’s thoughts on the Republican Party victory

The need to create a new “Centrist” movement that is pro-environment, anti-wall street, and socially moderate

How both Robert and Richard have much in common culturally with SWPL’s and hold many views associated with the left

The myth that Millennials want mass immigration, but rather associate the anti-immigration movement with the right wing of the Republican Party

Why the immigration restriction movement has failed

Facing the Future


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 894 other followers