The Karma of Terror Reply

By William T. Hathaway

Terrible terrorists are killing our soldiers in their countries and killing us here at home. How can we stop them?

The answer is simple: Stop terrorizing them. We started this war. What we do to others comes back on us.

In addition to centuries of crusades and imperial conquest, the past 100 years show a clear pattern of Western aggression in the region. During World War One the British persuaded the Arabs to fight on their side by promising them independence. Thousands of them died in battle for the Brits because of this promise of freedom. But after the victory Britain refused to leave; it maintained control by installing puppet kings — Faisal in Iraq and Ibn Saud in Saudi Arabia — to rule in its interest.

After World War Two the USA and Britain pressured the United Nations into confiscating Arab land to form the state of Israel, making the Arabs pay for the crimes of the Germans. They wanted Israel as a forward base for dominating the resources of the Middle East.In the early 1950s the USA and Britain overthrew the government of Iran because it tried to nationalize its oil industry, which was under Western control.

We installed the Shah as dictator, and he promptly gave the oil back to us. Then he began a 25 year reign of terror against his own people. His secret police jailed, tortured, or killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians who opposed him. Since they knew he was kept in power only by American military aid, they began hating the USA.


We don't need no education

The Post-Education era: Academic Institutions in the Age of Philistinism Reply

By Aleksey Bashtavenko

Random Meanderings

Academic Composition

Attitudes toward hierarchies shed light on fundamental differences between the left and the right. The latter tends to be skeptical of them and for this reason, leftists often rally around the ideal of equality. On the other hand, the right views hierarchies as desirable because they promote social order. Meritocracy is generally the underlying premise behind the argument regarding the necessity of hierarchy. It is often assumed that the elites deserve to be in power because they are more qualified to govern than the ordinary people. Clearly, this principle can be abused and in many cases, one becomes a member of the elite simply by being born into the ruling class.

The elites aspired to remedy the intellectual weaknesses of their youngsters by subjecting them to a rigorous education. That is why it was quite common for nobles to be tutored by the leading scholars of their day and age. When Diogenes the Cynic was sold into slavery, he was purchased by an affluent estate owner in the capacity of a philosophy tutor for his son. More…

Debating Anarchist Tactics: Left Only, or Beyond Left and Right Reply

What follows is the transcript of a debate that I had on this question with a left-anarchist/libertarian socialist on a social media forum. His comments are in italics and my response are in standard font.

A defence of anarchism as (1) libertarian socialism, and (2) an anti-hierarchical and inclusive philosophy of society.
Any set of ideas which permits hierarchies of power or exclusion of people based on nationhood, race, gender, or sexuality is categorically not anarchist – despite what they may call themselves.

This includes laughable ideologies such as “anarcho”-capitalism and national-anarchism; both promoted by effing lunatic Keith Preston of Attack the System.

The full debate is linked to here if anyone is interested:

Plus this latest installment in response to a commenter on AnarchistNews dot Org. :…/the-legacy-of-anarchist…/

Personally I don’t see why you even feel the need to self-identify as an anarchist. This “pan-secessionist” stuff is clearly a different thing altogether.

Anarchism is the underlying philosophy and ideological backdrop. Pan-secessionism is merely a tactical concept (like a general strike, an electoral campaign, or guerrilla insurgency).

The problem is what it seeks to create with that “tactic” isn’t anarchism (voluntary non-hierarchy), but a bunch of smaller forms of archism, with some actual forms of anarchism among them.


Anarchism and Multiculturalism Reply

The SJW-speak aside, this is actually pretty interesting. A lot of the right questions are getting asked.

By Uri Gordon


In L. Cordeiro-Rodrigues and M. Simendic, eds. 2015. Philosophies of Multiculturalism: Beyond liberalism, London: Routledge

This chapter examines anarchist approaches to ethno-cultural difference , offering three main arguments. The first is that anarchists were early and consistent opponents of racism and imperialism, both in advanced capitalist countries and in the colonial and post-colonial world, reflecting the movement’s transnational connections and internationalist outlook. While anarchists remain at the front lines of anti-racist and anti-colonial politics worldwide, the universalist terms in which their predecessors constructed their cosmopolitanism have come into question, as anarchists increasingly express intersectionalist critiques of domination with distinct post-colonial and poststructuralist resonances. The second argument is that anarchists share the wider radical Left critique of multicultural policies, which obscure systemic racial and class inequality while promoting monolithic and elite-driven representations of minorities. Anarchists may also conceptualise multiculturalism as a specific case of the state’s general manner of upholding forms of domination by ameliorating their worst excesses in response to resistance. Thirdly, I argue that in order to offer a revolutionary alternative to state multiculturalism, anarchists should further develop their engagement with radical decolonial approaches. These place systemic racism at the centre of social critique, and in the context of past and present dispossession of peoples from land through military occupation, economic dominance, slavery, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Theoretically, this approach integrates critiques of racialisation and capitalism without recourse to essentialism or class reductionism. Ethically, it places the onus on white activists to offer active solidarity to struggles against racism and colonialism, while deconstructing their own privileged identities and behaviours.


Robert Stark interviews Robert Lindsay about the Turkish attack on the Russian Plane Reply

Listen Here


Russian Plane


Topics include:

“Russian Warplane Down: NATO’s Act of War,” by Tony Cartalucci
“Russia ‘Violated’ Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border,” By Syrian Free Press
How Turkey has violated Greek Airspace 2,244 times
“Turkey Did Not Act on Its Own. Was Washington Complicit in Downing Russia’s Aircraft?” by Stephen Lendman
“Do We Really Want a ‘Pre-emptive’ World War with Russia? by F. William Engdahl
The History of conflict between Russia and Turkey
“The Dirty War on Syria: The Basics,” by Prof. Tim Anderson
US Endgame in Syria
“Understanding ISIS
One of the Biggest Lies Ever Told: Hezbollah Blew Up the Marine Base in Lebanon in 1983, Killing Over 300 US Marines
How Islamic imperialism is driven primarily by Saudi, Gulf State, and Turkish influence and how Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah serve as a counterbalance
In the Belly of the Beast of the Deep State: A Look at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Why Robert Lindsay think’s Donald Trump has fascist aspects but is still better than the establishment canddiates
Sokal on the Cultural Left
Robert Lindsay’s thoughts on Robert Stark’s recent interview with Matt Forney and why he disagrees with Matt that the Left destroyed cities
Robert Lindsay’s thoughts on Robert Stark recent interview with Charles Lincoln about Cities and why he disagrees with Charles that single family homes are the ideal and that density is inherently bad

No, Stossel. The Pilgrims Were Starved by a Corporation, Not by Communism. Reply

By Kevin Carson

Center for a Stateless Society

Each year at this time somebody in the right-libertarian world, reenacting an obligatory Thanksgiving ritual, drags out the old chestnut about the Pilgrims at Plymouth almost starving from “communism” until private property rights and capitalism saved them. This year John Stossel (“We Should Be Thankful for Private Property,” Reason, Nov. 27) gets the honors.

In the received version the Puritans, motivated by a misguided idealism, initially set out to restore the primitive Christian communism of the Book of Acts, “holding all things in common.” Stossel characterizes the arrangement as sounding “like something out of Karl Marx.” When the obvious incentive problems entailed in this practice led to starvation, the settlers accommodated themselves to reality and divided up the land and worked it individually. Output skyrocketed, starvation was averted, and everybody was happy.

But that’s not the way things actually happened.

Richard Curl’s history of cooperatives in America, For All the People, fills in some missing details that change the meaning of the story entirely. Curl supplements Bradford’s history with material from J. A. Doyle’s English Colonies. According to Doyle, the agreement between the Pilgrim Separatists and the Merchant Adventurers corporation provided that

“[a]ll settlers … were to receive their necessaries out of the common stock. For seven years there was to be no individual property or trade, but the labor of the colony was to be organized according to the different capacities of the settlers. At the end of the seven years the company was to be dissolved and the whole stock divided.

Two reservations were inserted, one entitling the settlers to separate plots of land about their houses, and the other allowing them two days in the week for cultivation of such holdings. The London partners, however, refused to grant these concessions, and the agents of the emigrants withdrew them rather than give up the scheme.”

In the conventional narrative the apostolic zeal of the Pilgrims, who desire to recreate the communism of the early Church, is confronted by hard reality. But according to Curl, relations between the Puritan settlers and the Merchant Adventurers make more sense in light of an entirely different subtext — the English peasantry’s relations with the landed classes in the Old Country: “The colonists, most of them tenant farmers in the open fields of an old manorial hunting park in Nottinghamshire, considered that the investors’ demand essentially reduced them to serfdom. The settlers were asking for no more than was normal under England’s manorial system in effect since the Middle Ages. Peasants worked in the lord’s fields but also had time to work with individual plots for their household needs.” The turning point of the story is a lot less like Stossel’s “capitalist reform” than the Diggers on St. George’s Hill.

The Plymouth story is sometimes compared to that of agriculture in the last days of the Soviet Union, where most of the food consumed came from private family plots — essentially kitchen gardens with some small livestock thrown in. Had the entire Soviet population been forced to subsist on the output of State and collective farms alone, the result would have been mass starvation — exactly like in Plymouth. This parallel is entirely accurate. What the received version of the Plymouth story leaves out, however, is that the role of the “collective farm” in the little drama is played not by the naive Puritan zealots seeking to “hold all things in common” but by a private corporation chartered by the English crown.

And as Curl describes it, the system of private plots adopted after the rebellion against the Merchant Adventurers wasn’t much like modern fee simple ideas of “private property,” either. It sounds more like the furlong strips in the open-fields of Nottinghamshire: The family plots were ad hoc, to be periodically redivided, and not subject to inheritance.

So the proper analog to what almost killed off the Pilgrims is not, as Stossel says, “Karl Marx” or “today’s [presumably left-wing] politicians and opinion-makers.” It’s the lord of an English manor — or a Fortune 500 corporation.

But the story as it actually happened is still a testament to the evils of statism and the benefits of voluntary cooperation. The Merchant Adventurers, like the Fortune 500 companies of today, was a chartered corporation that depended entirely on benefits and legal privileges conferred by the state. The living arrangements it attempted to impose on the Plymouth settlers were the same as the extractive arrangements that prevailed on an English manor, enforced by the legal privileges the state conferred on the landed nobility. And the new system the Pilgrims replaced them with were the age-old open field system that peasant villages had spontaneously created for themselves, in the absence of coercive interference, since neolithic times.

The legacy of anarchist successes? Reply

A commenter at AnarchistNews.Org posting as “SirEinzige” offers these observations concerning yours truly and my previous reply to a commentor on the same thread:

What Preston doesn’t seem to realize is that classical anarchist failures were to an inherent degree rooted in their organizational successes which played a role in things like the new deal. At most his focus should be tertiary with no strange bedfellows and seperate means and ends. In that regard secession could have a place in anarchist tactics but to to the point of becoming part of the machine of organization, positions and solutions.

Also, Stirner is not on the ideology scale and certainly nowhere near ancaps.

There’s a lot of substance in this short statement that is worth addressing. The first point involves an assessment of the relative successes and failures of the anarchist wing of the historic labor movement.

“classical anarchist failures were to an inherent degree rooted in their organizational successes which played a role in things like the new deal.”

This comment is actually reminiscent of something I wrote 15 years ago lamenting the drift of much of anarchism into implicit social democratic reformism.

“The reality of course is that anarchism was one of the most successful mass movements ever. Yes, the state has yet to be abolished. No nation to date has adopted the black flag as its own. Yes, the international bourgeoisie retain their power. Class rule is with us now as much as ever. However, when we look at the state of things in the industrialized world a century ago we see that history has indeed moved in our direction.

Anarchists were at the forefront of the movement for the eight-hour workday. The Haymarket martyrs gave their lives for this cause. At one point it was illegal to organize labor unions. Striking workers were regularly gunned down by government agents and private thugs. It was a federal crime in the United States to distribute information about contraception. Orphaned children were confined to slave-like conditions and used for medical experimentation along with the mentally handicapped, juvenile delinquents, homosexuals and others. Prison conditions often rivaled those of Nazi concentration camps. The death penalty was regularly imposed for burglary and grand larceny. People of African descent were regularly murdered and terrorized by gangs of racists while authorities looked the other way.

Anarchists were among the earliest and most militant opponents of all of these conditions. The eight-hour day, the right to organize unions, read sexually explicit literature, practice contraception and obtain abortions and engage in antiwar protests, prison reform and countless other rights and privileges that we take for granted today did not exist at the time of the classical anarchist movement. Roger Baldwin was inspired to found the American Civil Liberties Union after hearing a speech by the anarchist and pioneer womens’ rights advocate Emma Goldman. Anarchists were among the earliest opponents of the mistreatment of homosexuals as well. In many ways, things have advanced considerably over the past century.”

In other words, while the classical anarchist movement failed miserably to actual carry out revolutions against states and ruling classes, many of the issues and ideals championed by the movement were eventually realized to at least a partial degree.

SirEinzige appears to be arguing that the actual successes of anarchist labor organizing efforts proved to be their undoing at the end of the day, because the labor movement that the anarchists helped to organize subsequently grew to the point where A) it actually achieved comprehensive labor reforms that ironically undermined the general militancy of the labor movement and B) allowed for the cooptation of the labor movement under the New Deal compact. It could be argued a similar narrative unfolded in other industrialized nations as well during the same era.

But this observation folds into the New Left recognition that the industrial proletariat in Western capitalist countries had ceased to be a revolutionary or even oppositional force due to rising living standards, technological innovation, the growth of consumer culture, the integration of the industrial working class into the middle class, the integration of labor and social democratic parties into the state, the institutionalization of labor unions, a range of political, legal, and economic reforms, etc.

In fact, by the 1960s workers in advanced industrialized nations had largely become a conservative force. Hence, the “workerist” orientation that continues to be championed by our classical syndicalist and libertarian communist friends became obsolete.


Corbett Report: Paris Attacks Truth, ISIS is a False Flag Reply

James Corbett makes the case for the “false flag” view of the Paris attacks. That’s not a perspective that I think has been effectively demonstrated, but much of the analysis Corbett provides in these commentaries is accurate concerning the geopolitical questions involved.

Listen here:

My own view is NOT that ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is merely a puppet of the West and its Israeli, Turkish, and Gulf State allies. Rather its an outgrowth of the Iraq War and the destruction of civil society that was a product of that war. ISIS is the Khmer Rouge of the Levant, and has emerged under similar circumstances and for similar reasons, i.e. the laying to waste of a traditional society by Western imperialism in a way that ensured the worst of the worst would be left holding the ball at the end of the game.

The Western imperialist coalition (the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis, plus their EU, Turkish, and Gulf State partners) has as its primary objective the elimination of the Assad regime, and therefore encourages the actions of ISIS against that regime. It’s the same way the U.S. imperialists, in collusion with China, sought to use the Khmer Rouge as a weapon against the Vietnamese (a Soviet ally) during the 1980s after the KR was dislodged by Vietnam in 1979.  The imperialists regard Assad as greater threat than ISIS because independent nations in the Middle East are an obstacle to the expansion of the empire in the region, the advancement of the American-Israeli co-prosperity sphere, and the expansion of hegemony over the cultivation and trade of natural resources to be found there. Therefore, it is not surprising the West would give ISIS a wink and nod in its war against Syria while simultaneously trying to contain ISIS to prevent it from spreading into Iraq (with its pro-American regime), Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the Gulf States.

The Russians, on the other hand, are motivated by a traditional Russian view of foreign policy which regards Central Asia and Eastern Europe as their legitimate sphere of influence and security interests, and do not wish to see the spread of jihadist movements given that these pose a terrorist threat to Russia. Therefore, the Russians are motivated to protect the Assad regime against ISIS.

Consequently, the heart of the conflict between the West and Russia at present is whether Assad should stay or go. The West says yay, but the Russians say nay.

ISIS has a jihadist ideology of its own that it wishes to spread, and the attack is Paris is perfectly compatible with the broader aims of ISIS. See my interview with Tasmin on this question.



As The Corbett Report community continues to track the latest updates on the Paris attack investigation, let us not forget the essential underlying truth: ISIS is a creation of the US, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States, and they are fostered, funded, equipped, armed, trained and protected by the NATO allies and the GCC, France included.


The Paris Terror Attacks: An Open Source Investigation

Episode 298 – Gladio B and the Battle for Eurasia

Episode 295 – Who is Really Behind ISIS?

Episode 279 – Who Is Really Behind the Syrian War?

Paris attacks: France to call for effective suspension of Schengen open borders

Keith Preston: Russia, Turkey confrontation could trigger major world war Reply

Press TV. Listen here:

If Russia decides to engage Turkey in a military confrontation over the downing of its plane by Ankara, it could trigger a major war between world powers, an American political analyst in Virginia says.

“If there is a military confrontation between NATO and between Russia that could indeed trigger a major World War III or something approximating that,” said Keith Preston, chief editor and director of, a website dedicated to encouraging revolt against domestic and foreign US government policies.

On Tuesday, NATO member Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer jet, claiming the aircraft had repeatedly violated its air space.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the jet had been attacked when it was 1 kilometer inside Syria. He warned of “serious consequences” and called it a “stab in the back” administered by “the accomplices of terrorists.”

In an interview with Press TV on Thursday, Preston said, according to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, if Russia decides to retaliate against Turkey, “that would be considered an act of aggression or an act of war against NATO itself,” because “an alleged attack on one particular member nation within NATO is considered an attack on all.”

Article Four of the NATO treaty calls for consultation over military matters when “the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened”

Invoking Article Four, NATO countries met Tuesday after Turkey brought down the Russian jet. However, Article Five was not invoked during that meeting.

After downing the Russian jet, which was the first such action by a NATO member since 1952, US President Barack Obama expressed his support for Ankara, saying, “Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace.”

“What the United States tried to do and what NATO has tried to do since the end of the Cold War is extending NATO right up to Russia’s borders and extend Western military bases in the Central Asia for the purpose of encircling Russia,” Preston noted.

“And this is in fact an illustration of why it was a bad idea to keep the NATO alliance intact after the end of the cold war,” he added.

“The NATO alliance was created specifically for the purpose of countering the influence of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact during the Cold War and once the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, there was no longer any rational reason to keep NATO together,” he noted.

“Russia is involved… in Syria at the request of the Syrian government and it is necessary that the Syrian government be defended because the only alternative to the regime of President Assad is the seizure of power and then complete takeover of the nation by Daesh,” he argued.

Russia has been conducting airstrikes on Daesh positions at the request of the Syrian government since September 30.

Syria has been gripped by deadly violence since March 2011. The United States and its regional allies – especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – have been supporting the militants operating inside Syria since the beginning of the crisis.

William S. Lind on Russia Reply

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

There is an old saying that Russia is never as strong as it appears to be, and Russia is never as weak as it appears to be. According to the lead story in the October 15  New York Times, “Russian Military Uses Syria as Proving Ground, and West Takes Notice,” the pendulum is swinging from focusing on Russia’s weakness to seeing her again as strong and threatening. Much of the latter is threat inflation, an old Pentagon practice during the Cold War. (After lecturing on military reform many years ago at the Air Force’s Squadron Officers’ School, an Air Force intel captain came up to me and asked, “Does military reform mean we can stop inflating the threat?”)

But it does seem the Russians have learned.


As I understand Lind’s views, his position is essentially Hobbesian in that he regrets that states around the world have become increasingly ineffective at fighting non-state fourth generation warfare agents. His wish is for the world’s states (i.e. the international capitalist elite that coalesces into the G20, international financial institutions and managed trade systems) to unite in order to defeat the fourth generation forces, thereby preserving “order,” i.e. the nation-state system itself.  He laments that this is not being done due to the rivalries among the international power elite, i.e. the division between the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis and the rest of the world (see my recent presentation at the National Policy Institute for a discussion of this.)

While I greatly value Lind’s insights in these areas, I take a polar opposite view in the sense of welcoming the rise of fourth generation forces and the breakdown of the nation-state system as a prelude to the development of more intensified anti-imperialist, anti-corporatist and ant-statist struggles. In other words, fourth generation warfare is only the beginning.

Jack Donovan on men: a masculine tribalism for the far right Reply

This is an interesting piece on Jack Donovan from anti-fascist writer Matthew N. Lyons. Read it here. Vince Rinehart of ATS gets an honorable mention as well.

Lyons did a similar piece on me a few years ago (see here) which is actually by far the best work of its kind critiquing my own work  from the Left, though I thought it veered off into a caricature of my own admittedly heterodox and complicated positions at times. I issued a lengthy reply at the time, which was also reprinted in my book. See here, here, and here.

I find the almost phobic hostility that some on the far Left have to radical decentralist politics, particularly if any rightist cultural or ideological currents are represented, to be a rather curious phenomenon. That someone would regard scattered clusters of city-states, counties, or neighborhoods reflecting the values of “Posse Comitatus, the European New Right, laissez-faire economics, and Calvinist theology” (and presumably co-existing with institutions and communities reflecting polar opposite values) to be more threatening that the slaughter carried out by the America empire, not to mention the surveillance state and corporatist economy maintained by the federal system domestically, is rather astounding.

Without necessarily attributing any of these views to Lyons personally, it seems that the anti-decentralist orientation of much of the Left is rooted in a number of factors. One is merely cultural or historical, and the common identification of ideas like “states’ rights” with past apologists for genuine systems of oppression such as slavery and Jim Crow. Another involves special pleading, or the view that particular groups or movements favored by leftists must always get what they want regardless of other considerations or other needs. Still another is opportunism, or the desire of some to utilize the state (or the corporate system) as a means of self-advancement (this is not uncommon among elites and more affluent sectors of traditional outgroups, for example). And yet another is the ideological paradigm of “totalitarian humanism” that is implicit in much of progressive thought. This involves the idea that the autonomy of civil society must be subordinated to the state in order to enforce progressive values in a wider social context, the view that the central government must impose progressive values on regions and localities, or that foreign policy should be used to impose progressive values at the international level (“military humanism” as Chomsky calls the Samantha Power approach to international relations).

The Argument from Atrocity Reply

A commenter at AnarchistNews.Org offered this response to my latest exchange with Anti-Fascist News:

I read it. I read through other things on that site. Yikes. It’s really bizarre that a large portion of Preston’s criticism of “left” anarchists (anarchists) is that they have a kind of selective amnesia for the atrocities of the left (yeah duh). However we then are treated to this gem

” In my associations with the alternative right, I’ve encountered traditional conservatives, free market libertarians, economic nationalists, populists, monarchists, anarchists, fascists, Nazis, Strasserites, distributists, right-wing Marxists, national-Bolsheviks, white nationalists, southern nationalists, black conservatives, white nationalist Jews, anti-Semites, self-proclaimed “radical centrists,” self-proclaimed “alternative leftists,” liberal racial realists,” (this goes on and on)

One certainly has to wonder why intentionally associating oneself with people who actively wish to recreate many of the past centuries atrocities is acceptable given his other arguments. If the left popular front has been disastrous for anarchists, the right popular front seems even worse.

This response certainly raises some valid points, though I think it misunderstands my arguments a bit.
The whole point of the statement from me that the commenter cites is to suggest there is no popular front among the “alternative right” due to a lack of a consistent philosophy or common goals. It’s much like the Left in the sense of being mostly a reactive (in the sense of opposing social trends such as mass immigration or the entrenchment of PC) rather than visionary set of tendencies (at least on the collective level-individuals may have their own visions). Based on my many discussions with participants in the alternative right about what kinds of government, economics, laws, cultural norms, foreign policy, organizational structures, strategic approaches, etc. they prefer I have received widely divergent responses.
But what I have found is that the “argument from atrocity” is just as prevalent on the Right as it is on the Left and vice versa.


The Paris Atrocities: The Most Probable and Bankrupt Response of Our Own Government (2015), by Sean Gabb Reply

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

Because Keir Martland has already commented with great brilliance, and even a certain nobility of tone, I will make no comment directly on the Paris Atrocities or their probable causes. I will instead deal with our own Government’s most likely response to them. This will be a new Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. It will require Internet and telephone companies to store all communication data for a year, and to make this available to the police and security agencies.

The stated reason for this will be that we are in danger, and in particular danger from Moslem terrorists. What happened yesterday in Paris was only the latest episode in a campaign of terror that began with the American Bombings in September 2001, and proceeded through the Madrid Bombings, and the London Bombings, and the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, and the Charlie Hebdo killings. How long before a coordinated terror attack in planned again for London? We are at war, and war calls for a deviation from the normal course of government.

I will not deny that the latest atrocities are shocking, both in their effect and in the careful planning that they show. I will not deny that mass-immigration from the Third World into Europe was always at least a mistake, and that the latest wave of immigration inspired by Angela Merkel is an existential threat to the civilisation of which we are a part. I will not argue against the proposition that further immigration should be prevented, and even that some of the immigration we have so far experienced might usefully be reversed.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will also agree with the general proposition that there are times when what is undesirable becomes essential.


Sean Gabb on the Tory “Intellectual Revival” Reply

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

The Emperor Has No Clothes:
by Sean Gabb

On Fraternity:
Politics beyond Liberty and Equality
Danny Kruger
Civitas, London, 2007, 95pp, £7.50 (pbk)
ISBN 978 1 903386 57 6

At the beginning of the short book, its author insists that “I do not speak for the Conservative Party”. This being said, Dr Kruger is a special adviser to David Cameron and is a former leader writer for The Daily Telegraph. He also showed the manuscript of his book to David Willetts, Oliver Letwin, Daniel Hannan, and to various other people more or less closely connected with the Leader of the Conservative Party. It was, moreover, discussed before publication at one of the lunchtime seminars hosted by Civitas. I have attended several of these, and it is easy to imagine that this one was attended by just about every important academic or intellectual connected with the Conservative Party.

The disclaimer, therefore, is a matter of form. The book is – and is intended to be regarded as – an authoritative statement of Conservative Party thought. I do not see how there can be any reasonable doubt of this. But it is a point that I must ask my readers to bear continually in mind. I once sat next to Dr Kruger at a private dinner party. I do not recall that we disagreed on anything. He wrote a very nice article last year, regretting the death of Chris Tame. Some of the names given his his Acknowledgements are of friends. If I now say that this book is an intellectual fraud in its intention, and shabby in its execution, I hope he and they and you will not take my comments as personal.

So far as I can understand him, Dr Kruger is trying to analyse the current state of affairs in this country. During the second half of the twentieth century, he says, we tried two great experiments. The first was socialist equality. This began to break down in the 1960s, when trade union privilege and heavy spending on welfare led to inflation and a loss of competitiveness.


“Visions so radically different…” Reply

Anti-Fascist News” has generated another round. Here is my “response to response to response to response.”

The exchange between anarchism and Marxism has been complex and ongoing, yet this idea that Marxism has infiltrated anarchism and that is why it has adopted socially left values is not just bizarre, it has zero basis in fact.  Today, Marxist factions, as small and scattered as they are, are continually a socially conservatizing force and several steps behind in these struggles.  This has always been true in older periods of Marxism where struggle is centrally set on a united working class along economic lines, not along lines of other oppressed identification.

I would agree that the focus of the Left has shifted over the past half century from a focus on class-based politics of the kind found in traditional Marxism to a focus on cultural politics. No argument there.

The idea is then proposed by neo-facists (sic) that the Frankfurt School completely reshaped all social struggles on every level so that anti-racism and anti-patriarchal struggles would supplement class struggle.  The main purpose of this conspiracy theory is to create a narrative where by it is actually Jewish philosophers that have started this process and, therefore, must be only done for Jewish domination.


Keith Preston: US principal objective is to oust Assad, not eliminate ISIL 3

“If the government of President Assad falls in Syria, then ISIS will most likely come to dominate the entire nation,” Keith Preston told Press TV on Sunday.
“If the government of President Assad falls in Syria, then ISIS will most likely come to dominate the entire nation,” Keith Preston told Press TV on Sunday.

An American political analyst in Virginia says defeating Daesh (ISIL) is not a US policy priority and the United States has instead focused on overthrowing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“It has to be understood that the principle objective that the United States has in Syria and Iraq is not the defeat of ISIS [or ISIL], that at best is the secondary concern. The principal concern that the United States has is the overthrow of the government of President Assad in Syria,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of

“In fact, President Obama recently made a statement to that effect. President Obama was criticizing Russia, saying President Putin’s strategy has been primarily to defeat ISIS and to do so by protecting the government of President Assad which is the primary bulwark against ISIS,” he told Press TV on Sunday.


Ignoring the Elephant in the Room 6

Anti-Fascist News“replies to my reply (in typical anarchist fashion, as our rivals point out).

I get the feeling that website is probably just one person, as all the posts have the same writing style and tone, and use the byline of “Anti-Fascist Front.” Probably some college kid writing “anti-fascist” screeds in-between bong hits. But here goes.

The bulk of AFN’s latest screed against ATS is merely a diatribe against anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism. It‘s odd is that so much energy would be devoted to an attack on anarcho-capitalism, which is a position I don’t personally hold to, and we’ve had plenty of articles, including feature material, posted on ATS criticizing anarcho-capitalists and orthodox right-libertarians. We do have Rothbardians and other an-caps that have written for us as well. But that’s hardly a principal focus of ATS. There are plenty of right-libertarians and conventional “free market conservatives” who consider us to be Marxists. I even wrote an award-winning essay some years ago taking orthodox right-libertarians to task. Anarcho-capitalists are a mixed bag. Some are just good Lysander Spooner/Benjamin Tucker individualist-anarchists at heart. Some are really just mutualists or agorists. But others are Ayn Rand-loving corporate apologists. As is sometimes said, take what you can use and discard the rest.


American Imperialism vs. the Identity of the World’s Peoples 1

The is the full text of my speech to the National Policy Institute on October 31, 2015.

By Keith Preston

I was very happy when I was asked to speak to this gathering on the topic of the conflict between American imperialism and European identity, and indeed the identity of virtually all of the world’s peoples.

I have been an outspoken critic of American imperialism for several decades now, and as someone who has his political origins on the far Left, for much of that time I was mostly concerned about the relationship between the United States and the underdeveloped world. However, after spending some time in Europe off and on for the past fifteen years, I’ve also come to realize that much of the criticism that can be voiced concerning the relationship between the United States and the underdeveloped world is also quite applicable to the relationship between the United States and Europe.

I will explain why that is in a moment, but first let me say that I consider American imperialism to be the bastard child of European colonialism, and it was child that grew up to be a monster that ended up eating its father. I will explain what I mean by that in a moment as well. But I also think a bit of historical perspective is necessary in order to fully understand this question.


The Magical Bottomless Labor Pool Reply


The Princess of Pessimism, Ann Sterzinger, on labour and…er, labour.

1,950 words

A few months back, publisher Chip Smith asked me to write a new intro for the upcoming second edition of my 2011 novel NVSQVAM. To write the essay I had to rethink my protagonist, Lester Reichartsen, whose youth and dreams came to a screeching halt when his girlfriend slyly quit taking her birth control pills.

Reviewers’ response to Lester’s depressive and unenthusiastic assumption of the role of family man surprised me. Many a columnist—both liberal and conservative, those who loved the book and those who hated it—declared him a disgusting human being.

Pushing aside the fact that the phrase “disgusting human being” may be redundant, I was forced to confront the contrast between reader responses and my own underlying assumption: that Lester is no more horrible than anyone else.


Weapons of Mass Migration Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy Reply

This is what I’ve been saying all along. I’m glad to see this is finally getting some serious scholarly attention.

By Kelly M. Greenhill

Cornell University Press

This book is also available as an ebook from Amazon/Kindle, iBooksGoogle Ebooks, Kobo, and Nook.

Winner, 2011 International Studies Association Best Book Award

At first glance, the U.S. decision to escalate the war in Vietnam in the mid-1960s, China’s position on North Korea’s nuclear program in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and the EU resolution to lift what remained of the arms embargo against Libya in the mid-2000s would appear to share little in common. Yet each of these seemingly unconnected and far-reaching foreign policy decisions resulted at least in part from the exercise of a unique kind of coercion, one predicated on the intentional creation, manipulation, and exploitation of real or threatened mass population movements.

In Weapons of Mass Migration, Kelly M. Greenhill offers the first systematic examination of this widely deployed but largely unrecognized instrument of state influence. She shows both how often this unorthodox brand of coercion has been attempted (more than fifty times in the last half century) and how successful it has been (well over half the time). She also tackles the questions of who employs this policy tool, to what ends, and how and why it ever works. Coercers aim to affect target states’ behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups, Greenhill argues, and by manipulating the costs or risks imposed on target state populations.


Kievan Rus’ interviews Keith Preston 1

Kievan Rus’: 11/17/15-Keith Preston, Attack the System, American Indian Moverment, Black Panther Party, New Left, Rainbow Coalition, Anarcho-Communists, left Anarchists, White Panthers, Young Patriots, Neo-Confederates, Anarcho-Capitalists, Paleo-Libertarians, National Association for the Advancement of White People, Mississipi Peace & Freedom Democratic Party, Young Lords, Nicaragua Contras, Arab Spring, Identity Politics, Group Identity, Political Correctness, Cultural Marxism, Frankfurt school, Pan-Secessionism, Third Worldism, American National Socialist Party, Libertarian Party U.S.A., Jewish Defense League, Nation Of Islam, Christopher Hitchens, Antifa, Maoism, Viet Cong, Khymer Rouge.



Halal & Hypocrisy XIII: Remove Kebab? 1



New from the Inferno: A tyrannical tale of kebabs and killjoys.

The south of France, and one man finds himself deeply disenchanted by the culinary delights on offer in his locale. So much so, in fact, that he took to the press, voicing his determination never to let another kebabish open in his town again.

Lushes and reprobates – I give you Robert Ménard: ex-secretary general of press freedom group Reporters Sans Frontières and currently disgruntled mayor of the supposedly shish-saturated town of Béziers. This blowhard first came to my attention a couple of weeks back, when I read about his distaste for döner at the Daily Sabah. Already something of a national celebrity for his animus towards Allahphiles—making a point of illegally collecting stats on Muslim schoolkids and personally declaring Syrian refugees in his town persona non grata—the somewhat megalomaniacal mayor now wants to obstruct the opening of any further lamb-spit houses in his locale.

Reading about this reminds me of one reason I kickstarted this series-within-a-series known as ‘Halal & Hypocrisy’: to shine a spotlight on those for whom fighting the Islamification of the Western world serves as a Trojan Horse for their own liberticidal bullshit. Whilst I may not be thrilled about the concept (and existence) of borders (at least not on a nation-state level), I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have some sympathy for those who view them as a means of preserving treasured cultural and civil liberties—not to mention life and limb—in their lands (a la the late Pim Fortuyn). That said, I find it tragicomic how fervently those of such a persuasion appeal to the very institutions responsible for their malaise to make everything alright, especially when the latter either double down with a “solution” that further feeds the beast or take it as an opportunity to play bait ‘n’ switch by adding their own encroachments.