We at AttacktheSystem.Com are working on the possibility of an online event for October 24 in honor of Free Nations Day, an annual event some of our colleagues began a couple of years ago as a counter to United Nations Day. Anyone who is involved with secessionist, independence, autonomist, decentralist, or regionalist movements, or who merely sympathizes with such, should contact either myself or Vince Rinehart about the possibility of participating.
This was originally posted on the “Points to Consider” discussion thread, but the comments are important enough that I’m making them into a feature post. Take notes, readers.
By Julius Ebola
One of the basic aspects of real cadre is a major personal commitment to a movement. Unfortunately, fringe movements in the United States seem to have only two polarities of commitment: either a vague subcultural milieu or a mind control cult.
You see this in both new religions and the new left, and even in things like UFOlogy. Something about our national character seems to make any position between these two points an unstable balance that almost always devolves into one or the other.
This is reflected in protest ghetto left by the two dominant organizational models: the Greenpeace model, and the fanatical pretend revolutionary “party”. Both of these models are children of the sixties, with Greenpeace and the Revolutionary Communist Party as poster children of the opposite polarities.
I suspect that for an American panarchist movement the internal conflict that would parallel the one between dissidence and totalitarianism in the Communist party will be between recreational political consumerism or multi-level marketing on one hand, and mass suicide mind control cults on the other.
As it should be. Resistance to the police state is by far the most important domestic issue in the United States, much more so than competing economic philosophies, or the “Who’s Most Oppressed?” pissing contest.
Free Thought Project
After a 9 hour deliberation, a jury has found Adrian Perryman, not guilty on all four counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer.
The incident that led to the charges against Perryman happened during the pre-dawn hours of October 26, 2010 in San Antonio, TX.
SAPD’s tactical response unit was executing a no-knock search warrant. The occupants in the house at the time were Perryman, his girlfriend Rebecca Flores, and Flores’s 3 year old grand daughter Savannah.
When Flores saw two shadowy men on the security cameras, she woke up Perryman, and tossed him his gun.
According to MySA News, Flores recalled the events of that night to the jury. “I put my body over Savannah’s,” she said, recalling for jurors what she did in the moments after handing Perryman the gun and before he opened fire. “He said ‘I’ve got a gun and I’m going to shoot — stay out!’”
Flores said it wasn’t until after he fired four shots that she heard anyone yelling “Police!”
“I remember telling him the police were here; I thought they were there to protect us. I said ‘Oh, thank God,’” she said.
“When I knew they were policemen, I lay down, face down,” he said, adding he dropped the gun and began apologizing. “I kept saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I didn’t know it was y’all. I’ve been broken into before.’”
This is a landmark case in the instance of no-knock raids. All too often we see innocent people beaten and killed during the execution of this questionable practice.
Hopefully this leads to a drop in the frequency of no-knock search warrants.
The details of the latest victim in the relentless and immoral war on drugs were released this week by the Tampa Bay Times.
A 29-year old man was gunned down in his own home by officers serving a no-knock search warrant. They found .2 grams of marijuana.
How many more grenades will have to be thrown into cribs before police realize that the war on drugs was lost as soon as it started?
Defend all enemies of the state!
If this man is convicted, then there should be Ferguson-style uprisings until he is released.
By Scott Shackford
Attempting to serve a search warrant by entering a house through a window got Killeen, Texas, Police Detective Charles Dinwiddie shot in the face and killed last May. It was yet another SWAT raid organized for a purpose other than the reason they were invented. The police had a search warrant looking for narcotics at the home of Marvin Louis Guy, 49. They decided to serve this warrant at 5:30 in the morning and without knocking on his door. He opened fire on them, killing Dinwiddie and injuring three others.
Though they found a glass pipe, a grinder, and a pistol, they did not find any drugs. Former Reason Editor Radley Balko took note of the deadly raid in May at The Washington Post. A police informant apparently told them there were bags of cocaine inside the house, which sounds a lot like another familiar drug raid in Virginia that got an officer killed.
The Virginia case ended with Ryan Frederick in prison for 10 years despite his insistence he thought he was defending himself against in home intruders. He may end up lucky compared to Guy. Prosecutors in Texas are going to seek the death penalty against him. KWTX offers a dreadfully written summary that says next to nothing about the circumstances of the raid but gives Dinwiddie’s whole life story. Guy faces three additional charges of attempted capital murder for shooting the other officers. The story mentions the no-knock raid but fails to explain why it happened or the failure to find any drugs.
A search for Guy in the jail inmate locator for Bell County, Texas, shows that he is being charged only for the shootings. There are no drug-related charges listed. He is being held on a bond totaling $4.5 million.
This should ruffle some feathers.
I should qualify that I am not necessarily taking Hoppe’s side in this argument, which is a growing argument in libertarian and anarchist milieus, concerning whether anti-statism is more compatible with a leftist or rightist worldview. As those who are familiar with the entire body of my work would know, I am generally to the left of Hoppe on both economic and cultural issues, but to the right of “left-libertarians, bleeding heart libertarians, and humanitarian-cosmopolitan libertarians.” I think the economic status quo deserves far more criticism than what right-libertarians are usually prepared to give, but I have little patience for the politically correct progressive moralism of the left-libertarians, which tends to bend easily into nanny statism.
Beyond that, I am far more concerned with what I believe should be the principle concern of anarchists and libertarians, and indeed all political radicals of any kind, and that is the unprecedented centralization of political and economic power on a world scale, and with unprecedented weapons and surveillance technology.
Like Hoppe, Kirkpatrick Sale, Alain De Benoist, Troy Southgate, the late Murray Bookchin and other radicals advocating decentralization, I wish to see political and economic power devolved to the lowest level reasonably possible, such as provinces, cantons, city-states, villages, towns and neighborhoods. However, I am infinitely flexible when it comes to the specific makeup or content of such communities. Among libertarian communities, there would no doubt be those with a rightist orientation, and those with a left-libertarian, bleeding heart, humanitarian, or cosmopolitan orientation as well, and realistically speaking, there would probably also be quite a few non-libertarian communities.
“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.” [my emphasis, HHH]
Murray Rothbard, “Big-Government Libertarians,” in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 101
Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.
Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.
Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.
Some damn good points.
Last May, one of the most influential conservative and religious intellectual leader in America gave a somber speech in Washington, declaring it to be “Good Friday in America for Christians.” In this exclusive two part video interview, Princeton’s Robert P. George admitted, “that was a hard speech to give.”
“Christians, and those rejecting the me-generation liberal dogma of ‘if it feels good do it,’ are no longer tolerable by the intellectual and cultural elite,” says George, 59, director of the James Madison program at Princeton University. Citing the political witch hunt that forced Brendan Eich’s departure as CEO of Mozilla for a small contribution to a conservative political cause, George said politically correct mobs “threaten us with consequences if we refuse to call what is good evil, and what is evil, good. They command us to confirm our thinking to their orthodoxy, or else say nothing at all.”
Yet instead of accepting this liberal cultural dominance, George offers a call to arms with practical advice for the embattled faithful. Encouraging conservatives to model themselves off the early civil rights leaders who clung to noble bedrock free speech principles liberals claim to embrace today, George says “our first and most effective move is to hold these elites to their principles.”
Robert George’s intellectual influence dominates our American political and faith discussions. Beyond his rigorous academic work and writings at Princeton University, he was recently named the chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. He founded the American Principles Project, drafted the Manhattan Declaration and is leading the non-partisan on-line petition to defeat ISIS.
Offering advice to parents with children in college right now, George discusses the weakening intellectual rigor and moral decay dominating most American campuses. In this interview, he asks parents to be vigilant and says, “no credential is worth having your child indoctrinated into some secular liberal ideology and away from the faith of his family.”
George discusses the risk of irreparably eroding the pillars that have enabled America to be, overwhelmingly, “a force for good in the world.” In this battle of ideas, he includes: limited government, self-government, market economy, respect for private property, equality before the law and others.
Countering the modern bent towards government redistribution to manage societal inequities, George says social mobility is what we need to protect. “What matters is that we have in place conditions in this country that enable people by dint of hard work, creativity, intelligence, the willingness to take risks to rise and make a better life for themselves, and for their children and for their grandchildren. That has always been the glory of America on the economic side, our social mobility.”
George credits Eugene Genovese, a former Marxist and distinguished historian who left his Marxist ideology in light of its practical human consequences, and became a Catholic. Yet, this is rare and takes being open-minded, the Princeton professor says. For what gives him hope is his brave and bold students who are willing to speak up.
The Supreme Court represents the values of the ruling class at any particular time. This has been true throughout American history. For instance, the Dred Scott decision represented the conservative wing of the ruling class during the ante bellum era. The Locher decision represented the values of the ruling class during the Gilded Age. Buck v. Bell represented the values of the ruling class during the Progressive era. Brown vs. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions from the 50s, 60s, and 70s represented the values of the ruling class of the New Deal and postwar eras. The “divided” nature of the present day Supreme Court represents a conflict that is going on within the context of the present day power elite: i.e. the traditional right-wing of the W.A.S.P. plutocracy, particularly the Sunbelt sectors, represented by the Republicans, and the rising upper middle class of the newly rich, the public sector and the professional class, represented by the Democrats.
By Geoffrey R. Stone
In a recent public appearance, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about the extreme polarization and partisanship that have gripped the other branches of the federal government. He was particularly concerned that, because of the increasingly partisan nature of the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process, Americans might get the false impression that the Supreme Court itself might fall victim to such politicization. He assured his audience that that is not the case, that the Court is not “a political entity,” and that the Court is not “divided into Republicans and Democrats.” In short, he explained, that is not “how [the Court] works.”
In fact, though, a good deal of the growing lack of confidence in the Supreme Court these days is due precisely to the concern that the justices are increasingly voting in ways that reflect the political values and preferences of the presidents who appointed them. Americans, in other words, increasingly believe that the justices are voting as “Republicans and Democrats.” If this is so, it is not because the justices are “repaying” the favor of their appointment, but because presidents have gotten better at selecting nominees whose judicial approaches are likely to lead them to vote in ways that more or less conform to the appointing president’s own political values and preferences. But is any of this true?
Ah! Much better.
Dalibor Roháč wrote an interesting Reason piece where he argues that despite all its flaws, the European Union (E.U.) is the best real scenario that European libertarians can have and, therefore, should accept it. Roháč enumerates many of the E.U.’s weaknesses—and they are all on spot—but then argues that this European Union is better than no union because the real alternative to the E.U. is not 28 independent libertarian states but some kind of authoritarian dystopia in many if not all states.
It is pleasing that Roháč makes a coherent argument for the E.U., not the usual false dichotomy offered by right-wing politicians: Brussels or Moscow.
Roháč is an outstanding and inspiring libertarian scholar. However, in “The Libertarian Case for the European Union” I find his reasoning unpersuasive and lacking basic counter-arguments to his case.
It is true that the E.U. is overregulated, the euro is a disaster, the structural funds lead to corruption, the Common Agricultural Policy is unsustainable, and spending is absolutely wasteful as Roháč not only mentions but himself has authored in many of his criticisms of the E.U.
“Victory for the Eurosceptic forces would likely be a victory for protectionism, economic nationalism, immigration barriers, and Putin.”
They say that like it’s a bad thing.
I always did think Reason tended to be a bit neoconnish and this illustrates it.
Support for “free trade” (globalization) is definitely an area where I disagree with orthodox libertarians, who apparently do not realize that regional super-states (like the European Union or the apparatus of NAFTA) and a de facto global super-state (in which the American empire is senior partner and military arm) have largely been created in the interests of fostering “free trade.”
Globalization is the primary force that is causing the re-proletarianization of labor in the post-industrial countries, along with neo-liberal domestic economic policies.
Mass immigration is the “reserve army of capital,” as thinkers from Ralph Nader to Alain de Benoist have pointed out, and only serves to hasten the re-proletarianization process.
Also, it’s possible to be neither a Putin-idolator or a Putin-phobe. Contemporary Russia is not the Soviet Union, and while Russia certainly remains an imperialist country, it is largely a backyard imperialism, comparable to American imperialism as it was during the nineteenth century. Nothing to get worked up about, from an international or geopolitical perspective.
There is much to agree with in Petr Mach’s response to my article about the European Union (EU). As he puts it, my defense of the EU is “utilitarian,” not a principled one, and I fully accept that it is possible to imagine alternatives to the current political arrangements in Europe that would be much friendlier to individual freedom than the status quo.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mach’s text does little to address my main concern, namely that such alternatives might not be on the menu of options available to us at the moment, and that the likely political dynamics of an EU downfall carry a big risk of making the continent, as a whole, less free.
The new city-state system begins to rise.
Hundreds of mayors are getting together to build a global network that could shift the balance of power and create a new force to be reckoned with.
Tousle-haired and enthusiastic Mayor Eberhard van der Laan welcomes his guests. Today he is not addressing Amsterdam’s council members as usual, but his peers.
From across Europe and America, city mayors have accepted his invitation to help build an institution which, if successful, could transform the way we are governed: A Global Parliament of Mayors.
In the US, polls show that the level of public trust in Congress runs at a paltry 12%. Trust in American mayors, by contrast, runs at between 60% and 65%.
Last week, the world’s most globe-spanning empire until the mid-20th century let its fate be decided by 3.6 million voters in Scotland. While Great Britain narrowly salvaged its nominal unity, the episode offered an important reminder: The 21st century’s strongest political force is not democracy but devolution.
Before the vote was cast, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his team were so worried by voter sentiment swinging toward Scottish independence that they promised a raft of additional powers to Edinburgh (and Wales and Northern Ireland) such as the right to set its own tax rates—granting even more concessions than Scotland’s own parliament had demanded. Scotland won before it lost. Furthermore, what it won it will never give back, and what it lost it can try to win again later. England, meanwhile, feels ever more like the center of a Devolved Kingdom rather than a united one.
The United States of Great Britain?
Devolution—meaning the decentralization of power—is the geopolitical equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics: inexorable, universal entropy. Today’s nationalism and tribalism across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East represent the continued push for either greater autonomy within states or total independence from what some view as legacy colonial structures. Whether these movements are for devolution, federalism, or secession, they all to varying degrees advocate the same thing: greater self-rule.
When mass protests against the government erupted in Venezuela early in February, murder rates in the country were already shocking—close to twenty-five thousand people dead in the previous year, with ninety-seven percent of cases going unsolved. They would soon get worse, as motorcycle gangs in civilian clothes began attacking and shooting unarmed citizens, particularly youngsters, with the security forces standing by.
Center for a Stateless Society
A new report from the Open Society Justice Initiative documents the overuse of pretrial detention around the globe. The report estimates that around 3.3 million people are currently incarcerated awaiting trial. These people have yet to be convicted of any crime, yet they are locked in cages and subjected to brutal human rights abuses. Martin Schoenteich writes that “Compared to sentenced prisoners, pretrial detainees often enjoy less access to food, adequate beds, health care, or exercise. Infectious diseases—HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and tuberculosis—are common. According to the World Health Organization, suicide rates among pretrial detainees are three times those of convicted prisoners.” In addition to undermining due process and prisoners’ rights, pretrial detention also undermines proportionality, because “many defendants spend more time behind bars awaiting trial than the maximum sentence they would receive if eventually convicted.”
On a clear morning this past February, the inmates in the B Yard of Pelican Bay State Prison filed out of their cellblock a few at a time and let a cool, salty breeze blow across their bodies. Their home, the California prison system’s permanent address for its most hardened gangsters, is in Crescent City, on the edge of a redwood forest—about four miles from the Pacific Ocean in one direction and 20 miles from the Oregon border in the other. This is their yard time.
Most of the inmates belong to one of California’s six main prison gangs: Nuestra Familia, the Mexican Mafia, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Guerrilla Family, the Northern Structure, or the Nazi Lowriders (the last two are offshoots of Nuestra Familia and the Aryan Brotherhood, respectively). The inmates interact like volatile chemicals: if you open their cells in such a way as to put, say, a lone member of Nuestra Familia in a crowd of Mexican Mafia, the mix can explode violently. So the guards release them in a careful order.
Dr Sean Gabb is a writer and broadcaster and academic. He is the author of twenty books, which include ten novels and three volumes of poetry. He has been commercially translated into Italian, Spanish, Greek, Slovak, Hungarian and Chinese.
He joined the Libertarian Alliance in 1979. He became its Director in 2006, shortly before the death of its founder Chris Tame.
We welcome Sean back to the show for a very interesting conversation about the recent Scottish independence referendum, secession, recent violence in Glasgow, the EU, the British empire, history, the current mood in Scotland and England, the position of the major UK political parties and what their prospects are for the future and the future of the UK.
This is one of the most striking and intelligent articles I’ve ever read, encouraging a total reconfiguring of how to view capitalism and revolution. Russell Means was a leader in the American Indian Movement (AIM) of the 1960s and 70s, and remains one of the most outspoken Native Americans in the U.S.
I came across this essay while researching for my upcoming critique of Marxism, and was blown away by its clarity. This is Means’ most famous essay. It was published in Ward Churchill’s book “Marxism and Native Americans”, under the title “The Same Old Song”, and has appeared elsewhere under the names “Marxism is a European Tradition,” and “For America to Live, Europe Must Die.” Yet, it is actually not very available on the internet. I hope by republishing it I will raise some much-needed debate on the nature of the revolutionary project today.
I want to point out one difference I have with the essay, namely that the “European culture” Russell Means criticizes is capitalism, and before it could commit genocide and ecocide on the rest of the planet, this social system had to be imposed upon Europe first. Silvia Federici’s book Caliban and the Witch is key to my understanding of these violent origins of capitalism. The importance of this distinction is to clarify what Means says at the end of the essay, that he is not making a racial argument, but a cultural argument. For me, we need more than that, we need a political/economic argument which cuts to the core of why capitalism is destroying the planet and making us all miserable. Only then does revolutionary change appear possible. [alex]
“For America to Live, Europe Must Die”
Reproduced from Black Hawk Productions.
The following speech was given by Russell Means in July 1980, before several thousand people who had assembled from all over the world for the Black Hills International Survival Gathering, in the Black Hills of South Dakota. It is Russell Means’s most famous speech.
“The only possible opening for a statement of this kind is that I detest writing. The process itself epitomizes the European concept of “legitimate” thinking; what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken. My culture, the Lakota culture, has an oral tradition, so I ordinarily reject writing. It is one of the white world’s ways of destroying the cultures of non-European peoples, the imposing of an abstraction over the spoken relationship of a people.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s classic Portland Declaration would seem to be a decent program for the right-wing of pan-secessionism, particularly those with a religious or traditional conservative bent, just as the “Wisdom and Vision” statement is an excellent model for the left-wing of pan-secessionism.
by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
The Free World today is menaced not only by hostile armies, but by sets of ideas which either reduce man to a purely materialistic animal, or present a philosophy of doubt if not despair. The effect of these ideologies, if they are not opposed, must be to crush us, or at least to undermine our will to resist.
The Free World has to rise to this challenge and declare a firm, coherent, and consistent belief in its values, values well grounded and anchored in a great tradition, for which we ought to be ready to make sacrifices, to fight, even, if necessary, to die. Such a belief might be called a philosophy, a world view, or indeed an ideology; whatever we call it, we cannot hope to survive without it.
Webster’s Second International calls “ideology” (under 4b) a “systematic scheme of ideas about life.”
Outstanding thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic have insisted that man, for better or worse, is an ideological creature distinguishing himself from the beasts by having, besides reason and religion, a coherent and logical view interpreting his personal and social existence.
Yet since, for many, this comprehensive view tends to be incoherent and indistinct, traditional thinkers in the Free World have a duty to give it a more precise profile, form, and color. Carefully, though: what can be said critically about utopias can also be stated about ideologies: as concrete visions set in the future, they can be thoroughly unrealistic, achievable only by unreasonable sacrifices out of all proportion to their value to mankind. Or they can be legitimate goals.
Finally, we must have before us a guiding vision of what our state and society could be like, to prevent us from becoming victims of false gods. The answer to false gods is not godlessness but the Living God. Hence our ideology must be based on the Living God, but it should appeal also to men of good will who, while not believers, derive their concepts of a well-ordered life, whether they realize it or not, ultimately from the same sources we do.
As I write, the Scottish independence referendum remains undecided, but the “No” camp is in the lead. Regardless of the outcome, though, Scotland will have more independence, either leaving the UK altogether or enjoying greater autonomy within it.
I was, frankly, surprised that many White Nationalists and Alternative Rightists oppose Scottish independence, which strikes me as a rather simple application of the ethnonationalist principle that different peoples need independent homelands to express their distinct identities and pursue their unique destinies, as free as possible from the meddling of others.
When different peoples are forced to share the same system of government, it breeds conflict, resentment, even violence. Thus to preserve peace and promote the well-being of all peoples, multicultural states should be replaced with ethnically homogeneous ethnostates.
What do our English or Scottish readers think of Sean’s analysis here? I’m not familiar with enough with the issues he raises to have an opinion on them. Besides, I’m neither English nor Scottish, so it’s none of my business.
Last week, in Bodrum, I wrote my Thoughts on Scottish Independence. In this, I made three points:
- That the issue was a nuisance, and I regretted the need to discuss it;
- That a narrow vote against independence would allow Scottish politicians to continue demanding English money with menaces until they could find an excuse for another referendum;
- That a vote for independence would at least save England from the Labour Party.
Well, the votes are now counted, and the result was rather close. Yet, rather than gloomy, I feel increasingly pleased. The difference between then and now is that I could not be aware of two important facts.
The first of these facts was the promise, made last Monday, that, if the Scottish voted to stay in the United Kingdom, they could have nearly full domestic autonomy and an eternity of English subsidies. I saw this in the newspapers at Gatwick Airport, and it threw me into a rage. That swinish fool Cameron had sold us out, I told myself. He should have told the Scottish to vote for the Union or to get stuffed – preferably the latter.