Some reflection is needed on what the proper relationship should be between the pan-anarchist movement and the movement(s) commonly labeled as “conspiracy theorists,” “truthers,” and the like. Technically, the “anti-conspiracy” milieu is not a movement as much as it is a collection of ideas pertaining to a wide variety of themes regarding alleged nefarious plots by shadowy, secretive elites. These theories are highly varied and diverse in nature and include concerns related to such topics as the assassination of John F. Kennedy, UFO sightings, the alleged influence of Satanic cults in elite circles, alternative medicine, fluoride, the alleged death of Paul McCartney, Elvis sightings, the alleged murder of Princess Diana, FDR’s alleged foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, chemtrails, an endless array of supposed “false flags,” AIDS, climate change, peak oil, Zionist bankers, subliminal advertising, the alleged moon landing hoax, Area 51, and, of course, the alleged 9-11 cover up. There are many, many other such theories. More…
Chapter 1 of the book
RADICAL PEACE: People Refusing War
By William T. Hathaway
“That must be them.” Petra took one hand off the steering wheel and pointed to a group of soldiers about two hundred meters away, standing along our road next to a high chainlink fence topped with barbed wire.
Traffic was light, but Petra said, “I don’t want any other cars around.” She pulled off the road and stopped. “Get everything ready.”
I crawled into the back of the car and opened the rear hatch to give access to the interior and to raise the license plate out of sight. We wore caps and sunglasses to be less recognizable. More…
Trigger Warning, her new project with Rachel Haywire
Why she is a “radical moderate” and why it’s foolish to subscribe to any ideology in it’s entirety
Why people feel a need to be part of a political team that will support them and how it’s difficult to be politically homeless
How writing fiction enables you to not have to tow the party line
How peoples attention spans have become shorter
Why Libertarianism is good in theory but does not take into account human nature
Feel good myths that are put out into pop culture(ex. the popular crowd in high school becoming losers as adults)
How things are often just an outgrowth of culture rather than a conspiracy
Her Translation into English of the French Novel Dans le ciel(In the Sky)
Misconceptions about French culture
How being a foreigner sometimes gives you a pass on one’s social ineptitude
Self Publishing Via Amazon
The skill set of promotion versus being a good writer
Her upcoming dystopia Science Fiction Novel “Lyfe”
Greece-What You Are Not Being Told by the Media by Chris Kanthan
Trump and the Myth of Immigrant Crime by Steve Chapman
Police Report Says Natasha McKenna Was Killed While Handcuffed and Shackled Countercurrents News
Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran” by Stephen Lendman
The New Robber Barons BillMoyers.Com
When the FBI Knocks on Your Door, You Should Handle It Just Like This Free Thought Project
Marco Rubio Wants War from Yemen to the Ukraine by A. J. Delgado
The Extremism of David Cameron by Dan Glazebrook
How Police Became a Standing Army by Countercurrent
Clarence Thomas’ Confused Notion of Freedom by Sheldon Richman
Veteran Turned Away from Georgia VA Clinics by Chad Longell
Bernie Sanders: Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016 by Bruce A, Dixon
Australia Moves Toward a Referendum on Aboriginal Recognition Agence France-Presse
Follow Keith Preston and Attack the System on Facebook
Attack the System’s Facebook page, edited by Vince Rinehart
The Evolution of Consent
Upon learning about anarchism for the first time, many questions pop into the head of the initiate; questions about law, money, and general civility. That is, questions about the welfare of society spring up. Who will build the roads? The hospitals? Who will deal with criminals? Will there be law to define criminal activity in the first place?
In this essay, I hope to dispel the myth that government, a state, is necessary to induce cooperation and mutual aid. I will demonstrate the evolutionary origins of cooperation and examples of cooperative organizing throughout history, before turning the discussion toward the non-necessity of government intervention in our lives.
Conflict Over Welfare
Welfare carries differing meanings for various people, but upon hearing the word, it generally brings to mind its application in today’s society, as a government program, rather than carrying its intrinsic meaning, which exists much deeper than attempts to apply it politically: the general well-being of a person or society. The overall meaning of welfare has been distorted. It has been corrupted by the state. In most people’s eyes, welfare is a question about taxes, representing ways money can be spent wisely, or wasted, depending on the holder of the perspective and their opinion about the program in question.
Welfare, the well-being of individual and community— something which should be celebrated by all according to the laws of happiness—has created divide in our society. Some on the right want social welfare to be abandoned completely, and desire a society of “everyone for themselves.” On the left, the sentiment is largely reversed, and many would abandon the sovereign individual’s liberty to look after their own welfare, desiring instead a society of “everyone for each other.” This kind of division is unnatural, as social interests are the creations of individuals.
The divide springs forth from arguments of where tax money should be spent, not from the individuals naturally being in conflict. There is no reason people who like to share can’t coexist beside people who don’t. It happens all of the time. We all have friends who like to share, and others who don’t, those who invite themselves to our pantries because they expect the same from us, and those who are rather uptight about their things, and expect similar in return. This is often a result of the nature of possessions and use-value to the owner. Some people, for instance, read books purely for fun, and are happy to pass them along when they are through. More…
His Benefits Were Cut, So He Robbed a Bank South Wales Evening Post
Marijuana for Veterans with PTSD is Finally Going to Be Legal Countercurrents News
The Forgotten Story of Iran Air Flight 655 by Max Fisher
Jefferson’s Mistake by Stephen R, Tippins Jr.
Why Bernie Sanders is Galvanizing the Left by Sophia Tesfaye
Mr. Natural Rights by Ronald Hamowy
President Obama Commute 80 Non-Violent Drug Sentences by Bethania Palma Markus
Is Texas Plan to Bring Home Its Gold Bars a Step Towards Secession? by Dave Urbanski
Recanting the Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage by Justin Raimondo
Not Our Independence Day by William Hogeland
How Libertarian is Rand Paul on Drug Policy? by Jacob Sullum
The Anti-Jefferson by William M. McClay
Female Genital Mutilation Banned in Nigeria by Kimberley Richards
The New Type of War That Finally Has the Pentagon’s Attention by Thomas Gibbons-Neff
ISIS Makes the British Lion a Declawed and Shabby Cat by Michael Scheuer
The 2016 US presidential candidates, including Hilary Clinton, are competing against one another by using strong language against China and Russia in order to receive campaign funding from wealthy neoconservative groups, a political analyst from Virginia says.
“The way that American politics works is that the candidate with the most money almost always wins, at least at the national level,” said Keith Preston, chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com, a website dedicated to encouraging revolt against domestic and foreign US government policies.
“The candidate that has the most money wins about 90 percent of the time,” Preston told Press TV on Sunday.
“What Ms. Clinton is trying to do is stake out a position for herself as far as picking a hard-line stance against Russia and against China for the sake of gaining the financial backing of all of the neoconservative billionaire plutocrats,” he said.
“We’ve got a lot of Republicans, about 15 or 20 candidates that are all trying to outdo each other in terms of how hawkish they can be on foreign policy and how tough they say they’re going to be on Iran or on Russia or whomever and Ms. Clinton is trying to get on that game as well,” he added.
Preston made the comments after Democratic presidential candidate Clinton criticized both China and Russia for threatening its neighbors and undermining American interests.
Speaking at a campaign event in New Hampshire on Saturday, Clinton accused China of trying to “hack into everything that doesn’t move in America.”
Preston said “as far as what she’s saying about China and her accusations against China of hacking into Americans computers and conducting espionage in the United States, that is an absurdity when you look at the fact that the United States national security apparatus maintains the most expensive electronic surveillance system anywhere in the world.”
Clinton also addressed the crisis in Ukraine and accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of harboring territorial ambitions.
“Russians have not acted aggressively against the United States or any legitimate American interest, in fact, ….the opposite is happening,” Preston said.
He reiterated that “the United States is currently trying to encircle Russia,” adding this is clear by looking at the “military bases the United States has placed throughout Central Asia and Eastern Europe.”
By David Priestland
Ed Miliband’s late-night pilgrimage to Russell Brand’s loft apartment, days before the last election, was seen by supporters as a canny bid for the youth vote, and by critics as a cringe-worthy attempt to harness the Shoreditch Messiah’s charisma. Yet neither view captures its real significance as a sign of the profound weakness of mainstream social democracy and its desperate efforts to co-opt the energies of the most dynamic element of today’s left: anarchism. In their eagerness to ridicule Brand’s “ramblings”, commentators have ignored his strong identification with the left-anarchist tradition. For among the works he has recommended to his followers is a collection of writings by another charismatic figure who sometimes lived in London, the father of anarchist communism: Prince Peter Kropotkin.
For a number of years now, I have attacked sectors of the anarchist milieu for either explicitly or implicitly failing to distinguish between anarchism (a stateless anti-authoritarian society) and what I call “totalitarian humanism” (an all pervasive state that ostensibly rules in the name of enforcing “progressive” values, perhaps reinforced by vigilante mob action). I believe these three questions would go along way to distinguish sincere anarchists from totalitarian humanists attempting to usurp the banner of anarchism. Ask any anarchist the following questions, and observe what they say:
1. In your version of anarchism, would small business owners (or cooperative or communes) be allowed to refuse a to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
2. In your system, would conservative institutions such as, for example, Bob Jones University with all of its sexism, homophobia, fundamentalism, implicit racism, etc. be allowed to exist?
3. In your system, would the South African community of Orania, a de facto white separatist Afrikaner commune, be allowed to exist?
If they say “yes” to these three questions, then you have a genuine anarchist or at least a libertarian. If they say “No” to any of these, then you have, at best, a progressive statist or, more probably, a full-on totalitarian humanist.
This simple three-question litmus test would seem to be an effective way of weeding out left-fascist imposters from the anarchist milieu.
U.S. Public Opinion is Gradually Turning Against the Death Penalty by Christina Sturbenz
200 Years of U.S. Military Interventions by Jennifer Baker
The Legacy of U.S. Bombing In Laos Forty Years Later by Brett S. Morris
Greece Needs Our Solidarity in Its Struggle Against Austerity by Richard D. Wolff
Riots Hit the Netherlands After Caribbean Man Dies in Police Custody by Anthony Deutsch
A documentary from PressTV featuring commentary from yours truly.
The EU ambassador to Iraq accuses European countries of purchasing oil from ISIL terrorists.
European countries are unwittingly funding the ISIL terror campaign by buying oil from ISIL-controlled oil fields, including those in Iraq.
Reports also talk of Turkey buying and transporting oil from both ISIL and the Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front.
According to the reports, Western intelligence agencies could track ISIL oil shipments as they moved across Iraq and Turkey.
By Peter Kreko
In an earlier post this year, Marley Morris and myself were writing about the importance of conspiracy theories in populist discourses and ideologies based on the French, Hungarian and Slovakian cases. This post will focus instead on the extremist threat of conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories are present in practically every violent intergroup conflict. And these theories are not just following violent events – they are driving them. The Russian official ideology and Kremlin-close media has been spreading conspiracy theories for years to justify the regime’s anti-western stance and give justification for the nationalist, expansionist goals of the Kremlin. The Middle East has always been and is a fertile ground for conspiracy theories – even the most ludicrous ones such as that Israel is distributing libido-increasing chewing gum in the Strip. At the heart of the ideology of the Islamic State we come across a theory that a part of the Muslim clergy is secretly conspiring with the West, plotting for the Crusaders to invade the Muslim World – and IS’s ‘defensive jihad’ is the only tool to prevent this epidemic of Westernization.
Conspiracy theories are extremely helpful for leaders provoking violent conflicts. They simplify the world, victimise the ingroup, diabolise the enemy, and give justification for violence against the outgroups, calling for “apocalyptic aggression”: “if we don’t defend ourselves today, they will destroy us tomorrow”.
London School of Economics
Whenever threatening, high profile events take place, conspiracy theories offering alternative explanations to the official narrative tend to emerge. One does not need to look far on social media to find sweeping statements about recent events, such as ‘Israel’s national intelligence agency Mossad committed the Charlie Hebdo attacks’, ‘Islamic State beheadings were staged by Hollywood producers’, or ‘the economic crisis in the EU was deliberately caused by the International Monetary Fund’.
Far-fetched as these conspiracy theories might be, it would be a mistake to portray conspiracy theorists as simply mentally ill: indeed some conspiracy theories – including theories that the CIA was behind the John F. Kennedy assassination, or that 9-11 was an inside job – are endorsed by a surprisingly large number of citizens. Moreover, conspiracy beliefs can have harmful consequences: people who believe that climate change is a hoax will be less motivated to reduce their carbon footprints; while people who believe that the pharmaceutical industry tries to harm instead of help the public through vaccines are less likely to get their child vaccinated. There is therefore good reason for the social sciences to conduct serious research on the psychology behind belief in conspiracy theories.
The link between political ideologies and conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories often assume that politicians, or governmental institutions, are playing a role in a scheme or plot designed to harm or deceive the public. It therefore stands to reason that political ideology matters for the conspiracy theories that people consider to be plausible. As might be expected, the political left tends to be suspicious of the political right, and the political right tends to be suspicious of the political left. But the best predictor of belief in a given conspiracy theory is belief in another conspiracy theory: put simply, people often exhibit a ‘conspiratorial mindset’ that seems to transcend traditional left-right distinctions.
As any Philosopher of Science will tell you formal theories serve as explanations to observed phenomena, an association between the explanandum – the object of phenomena to be explained; and the explanans – the framework, concept or theory to be used as an the reference point for explanation. Pioneers in philosophy of Science such as Hempel coined this logic inference to the best explanation.
Employing a Meta theory that explains a form of social reality and existence has long been the goal of Philosophers who propagate abstract thinking and rules of logic to define and set the boundaries of ontology and epistemology. In Political Philosophy one often has the espousing of an Ideology: A set of ideas that best serve to explain political and social phenomena and thus attempting a correlation between the theory used in explanation with that of the “goings on” observed. For long periods in history Philosophers and Social Scientists have debated whether Liberalism, Marxism, Anarchism, Structuralism or Methodological Individualism best serve as theoretical explanations of social reality.
In this same instance we find Ideologists today who advocate Conspiracy Theory. Like so many others in the realm of theoretical and philosophical explanation they too employ ideal frameworks that account for observed phenomena. Regardless of the aspects that encompass specific conspiracy theories, whether they are single point conspiracy theories like 911 or Meta conspiracy theories of the New World Order, they all occupy the spectrum of political ideology. This is because they advocate an explanation for observed phenomena. As where Marxism does it through the lens of capitalism and its dialectic with the human essence, Liberalism through inalienable individual property rights, conspiracy theorists do it through the lens of an esoteric operating cabal – for instance a horde of business and political agents responsible for 911 and its cover up.
Bernie Sanders: Populist or Opportunist? by Stephen Lendman
Julian Assange Seeks Asylum in France Russia Today
How a Brutal Strain of American Aristocrats Have Come to Run America by Sara Robinson
Is It Finally Time to Let the South Secede? by Joshua Holland
Jim Webb Announces Candidacy for 2016 by Michael Walsh
Sentencing Reform: A Triple Dose of Freedom Families Against Mandatory Minimums
Fort Sumter Nixes All Confederate Flags by Barbara Boland
Is Sex Trafficking A Real Crisis? by Nick Hankoff
“The Solution I Propose is Massive Civil Disobedience” by Conor Friedersdorf
Noam Chomsky: Austerity is Just Class War by Amy Goodman
Drugs Laws and the Mass Incarceration of Women by Asha Bandele
It’s time for anarchists to drop all this “privilege theory” nonsense. Our struggle is against the global power elite, not any race,religion, gender, nationality, etc, etc, etc.
By Keith Preston
Libertarians of whatever stripe tend to focus primarily on political theory, law, economics, ethics, and philosophy. When it comes to cultural issues, they tend to just fall back on the de facto leftist position or the de facto conservative position, depending on their personal predilections. I don’t think that’s an adequate approach. Instead, I think we need a theoretical framework that recognizes the inevitability and legitimacy of a wide assortment of cultures that really do diverge from each other in terms of core values. Thinkers like Alain De Benoist and Alexander Dugin have addressed this issue at length, and libertarians could learn a lot from them.
I think libertarians (of whatever kind) can do better than to rely on theories developed by Communists like “white skin privilege,” and which found their way into the Western Left via Maoist groups like the Weather Underground.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that it shifts the focus away from the Power Elite as the target of enmity, and merely becomes a matter of promoting demographic conflict, e.g. blacks against whites, men against women, gays against straights, atheists against religious believers, natives against immigrants, trees against bulldozers, meat eaters against vegetarians, poor Appalachian whites against Jewish bankers, etc.
The theory behind all that is to ostensibly build “solidarity of the oppressed” in order to avoid allowing the ruling class to play different groups off against one another in a “divide and conquer” type of thing. But it doesn’t work that way in practice. In fact, it has precisely the opposite effect where the ruling class will pose as the friend of supposed oppressed minorities whom they use as middle men between the elite and the demographic and cultural majority they wish to subjugate in order to deflect attention from themselves (see the Belgian colonialists tactics in Rwanda where they favored the minority Tutsis over the majority Hutus as an example of how this works-and didn’t that turn out well?). Also, the cultural left has to a large degree become the cultural majority in the US, and now it is cultural traditionalists who are becoming the minority outgroup.
Many Applies for Marriage License to Have Two Wives by Jon Street
For Anarchist, Details of Life as an FBI Target by Colin Moynihan and Scott Shane
This Professor Was Fired for Saying “Fuck No” in Class by Michelle Goldburg
An Interview with Noam Chomsky on the Spanish Revolution by Jorell A. Melendez Badillo
By Keir Martland
Foreword by Sean Gabb
“[these essays] break out of the dead end that British libertarianism – and much American – has found itself in since about 1980.” – Dr. Sean Gabb (Libertarian Alliance)
“Keir Martland provides a perspective that synthesizes Rothbardian libertarianism with cultural traditionalism to offer insights that are as penetrating as they are rare.” – Keith Preston (Attack the System)
Libertarianism is in a dead end. All too often, libertarians focus on cuts in the top rate of income tax, deregulation of the banking sector, and welfare reform. These policies are all well and good, but if a real libertarian government comes to power in the United Kingdom, they would not be on the top of the agenda. We have lost touch with reality. We have lost our way.
Libertarians need to re-examine many of their stances and ask whether they are the right thing for 21st century Britain. Much of the time, this is not the case. For example, the policy of open borders is not only unpopular, but is also theoretically flawed as well as at the root of many of Britain’s current social problems.
Inequality, the State, and the Left by Chris Dillow
Can You Be a Waitress and a Feminist? by Brittany Bronson
Private Prisons to Sue States Unless They Get More Inmates Free Labor Countercurrents News
The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage by Justin Raimondo
Federal Judge: “My Drug War Sentences Were Unfair and Disproportionate” by Conor Friedersdorf
Why Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business by Edward Morrisey
Civil Rights Icon’s Tough Message to Black Community on Confederate Flag by Jason Howerton
Ruling Against Three Strikes Sentencing Law Opens Door to Reform by Nicole D. Porter
Affordable Housing Crisis Grows Across the Country as Apartment Rents Skyrocket by Steven Rosenfeld
Orwell, Huxley, and the Scourge of the Surveillance State by Henry A. Giroux