Eyewitness claims ‘people were CLAPPING AND LAUGHING’ at the scene where two cops were killed Reply

I don’t agree with the random murders of anyone, not cops or anyone else, but if this is true it really is an example of fourth generation warfare within the domestic U.S. A Muslim terrorist takes out a couple of the king’s knights and wins the admiration of occupied peoples in whose eyes the existing authorities are illegitimate.

Daily Mail

Associated Press

  • Mayor Bill de Blasio and police commissioner William Bratton gave a joint news conference following the murder of two police officers Saturday
  • Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, 28, shot his girlfriend in Baltimore then traveled to Brooklyn to kill police officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos
  • Bratton said the two officers were ‘quote simply assassinated’
  • Mayor de Blasio stated that this murder was an attack on all of New York as he said this is ‘not a time for politics’ 
  • Hundreds of officers lined the street at the Woodhull medical Center and silently saluted as the bodies of the two police officers were driven away Saturday evening  

Mayor Bill de Blasio said this is ‘not the time for politics’ following the murder of two police officers in Brooklyn on Saturday.

This as New York City’s police commissioner said the gunman who ambushed and killed two police officers had made online posts that were ‘very anti-police.’

Police Commissioner William Bratton choked up at a news conference at the Woodhull medical Center on Saturday afternoon as he talked about the fatal shootings of two officers in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood.

Meanwhile, an eyewitness who spoke to The Daily Beast said that ‘a lot of people were clapping and laughing’ following the murder of the two police officers.

‘Some were saying, “They deserved it,” and another was shouting at the cops, “Serves them right because you mistreat people!”’said the man, identified as Carlos.


Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: The Politics of Sex, Rights, and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns Reply

The religious right and the PC left united against sex worker rights.

By Elizabeth Berstein

During a blustery New York City winter in the final weeks of 2008,two very different cinematic events focused on the politics of gender,sexuality, and human rights stood out for their symmetry. The first event, a benefit screening of Call and Response (2008), a just-released “rockumentary” about human trafficking made by the Christian rock-musician-cum-filmmaker Justin Dillon, showed at a hip downtown cinema to a packed and enthusiastic mixed-gender audience of young, predominantly white and Korean evangelical Christians. The second event, a public screening of the film
Very Young Girls (2008), a sober documentary about feminist activist Rachel Lloyd and her Harlem-based nonprofit organization for teenaged girls in street prostitution, was populated primarily by secular, middle-aged professional women with a long-standing commitment to the abolition of the sex trade. Despite the obvious demographic contrasts between the participants and the different constellations of secular and religious values that they harbor, more striking still was the
common political foundation that the two groups have come to share. Over the past decade, mounting public and political attention has been directed toward the “traffic in women” as a dangerous manifestation of global gender inequalities. Media accounts have similarly rehearsed stories of the abduction, transport, and forced sexual labor of women and girls
whose poverty and desperation render them amenable to easy victimization in first- and third-world cities (see, e.g., Kristof 2004; Landesman2004; Lopez 2006). Meanwhile, a remarkably diverse group of social activists and policy makers—a coalition composed of abolitionist feminists,evangelical Christians, and both conservative and liberal government of-
ficials—have put forth an array of new legislation at the local, national,and transnational levels.

Why Have Americans Stopped Resisting Economic Privilege? Reply

By Steve Fraser


Moyers has a very good interview with the author of this book here.

The following excerpt is from the introduction to Steve Fraser’s new book, The Age of Acquiescence.

Marx once described high finance as “the Vatican of capitalism,” its diktat to be obeyed without question. Several decades have come and gone during which we’ve learned not to mention Marx in polite company. Our vocabulary went through a kind of linguistic cleansing, exiling suspect and nasty phrases like “class warfare” or “the reserve army of labor” or even something as apparently innocuous as “working class.”

In times past, however, such language and the ideas they conjured up struck our forebears as useful, even sometimes as accurate depictions of reality. They used them regularly along with words and phrases like “plutocracy,” “robber baron,” and “ruling class” to identify the sources of economic exploitation and inequality that oppressed them, as well as to describe the political disenfranchisement they suffered and the subversion of democracy they experienced. Never before, however, has the Vatican of capitalism captured quite so perfectly the specific nature of the oligarchy that recently ran the country for a long generation and ended up running it into the ground. Even political consultant and pundit James Carville (no Marxist he), confessed as much during the Clinton years, when he said the bond market “intimidates everybody.”

Southern Labor Archives at Georgia State University

Occupy Wall Street, even bereft of strategy, program, and specific demands as many lamented when it was a newborn, nonetheless opened up space again for our political imagination by confronting this elemental, determining feature of our society’s predicament. It rediscovered something that, beneath thickets of political verbiage about tax this and cut that, about end‑of‑the ­world deficits and ­missionary-​minded “job creators,” had been hiding in plain sight: namely, what our ancestors once called “the street of torments.” It achieved a giant leap backward, so to speak, summoning up a history of opposition that had mysteriously withered away.


Eric Garner, American Occupation, and the Decline of Empire Reply

By Danny Haiphong


The nascent movement against racist police brutality in the US received a boost of energy from the non-indictment of Eric Garner’s murderers in blue. Thousands filled the streets from New York City to Berkeley, California to protest racist injustice and declare #BlackLivesMatter.

In typical fashion, the militarized police and mass incarceration state responded by arresting, beating, and using dangerous weapons like the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) on protesters. The LRAD is a powerful “sound cannon” capable of deafening and causing long term health complications for intended targets. This device has been used by numerous US-backed reactionary governments. During the 2009 Obama-backed coup in Honduras, LRADs were used against supporters of the legitimate party of President Zelaya. The LRAD is also used frequently by Zionist Israel to break the resistance of the Palestinian people.


Why Did They Torture? Reply

By Justin Raimondo


The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on how the US government tortured detainees at Guantanamo and at secret “black sites” all over the world has focused on how they did it: rectal feeding, hanging detainees by their arms, “stress positions,” beatings, etc. The prurience of this focus is fairly obvious, and typical of decadent societies in general – which is not to say that the details of “how” are irrelevant. They underscore the moral bankruptcy of the regime that permitted these practices. Yet this preoccupation with the sordid details tends to overlook the “why” of it – the key to understanding what the neocons in control of the national security apparatus during the Bush years were really after.

They say they were after al-Qaeda’s alleged plans to carry out further strikes on the US homeland and American facilities abroad, but there is evidence in the report that their purpose was much more specific. Major Charles Burney, a psychiatrist who served at the Guantanamo Bay facility, told the committee that “a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.” That Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon posed a seemingly insoluble problem for the interrogators: however, the failure to produce results did not impress higher-ups in Washington. The torturers were told to get rougher: As Burney testified: “There was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”


Russia and China’s Potential Economic Weapons Against the West Reply

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

Just as Germany had its V weapons, the V-1 and V-2, so Washington now has its S weapon. If another country does something we don’t like, Washington hits it with economic sanctions.

As Iran’s economy shows, sanctions can do a country quite a bit of damage. The burden falls mainly on the middle class; just as in Washington, the elites know how to protect themselves. From Washington’s perspective, sanctions are an ideal weapon, in that they seem to cost us little or nothing.

In fact, they may end up costing us a great deal. All around the world, a state’s legitimacy now depends in no small part on ensuring a growing economy. A state that cannot do that may fail. Because Washington has no understanding of Fourth Generation war, it thinks the result will be merely a new government, one that will bend to Washington’s (and Globalism’s) will. In reality, in a 4GW world, the consequence may be another failed state and the effective conquest of another region by non-state elements.

More, whenever a state thinks it has discovered a new weapon to which there is no reply, its opponents surprise it by coming up with one or several. Other countries are growing tired of Washington dictating to them and threatening sanctions if they do not obey. At least two are not little countries Washington can easily step on. I refer to China and, especially, Russia.


The Road to Turkdom Reply

By John Robb

Global Guerrillas

It should be clear to everyone that the economic and political system that replaced feudal agriculture is starting to fall apart.

It’s also pretty clear we need a new system, one that can operate at a global scale and fully embrace the potential of new technologies without turning us all into slaves (or killing us).

What does that system look like?  Obviously, it’s very hard to see what is going to replace industrial capitalism and the nation-state while we are still inside of the system.

Despite that, it’s possible to get a sense of where it is going by looking at where technology is taking us.  I recently did some scifi writing on a short book I’m writing and this is some thinking that came out of it.


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=http://blog.independent.org/2014/09/24/the-worst-still-get-on-top/&#8221; 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.


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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 898 other followers