The appeal of Trump: Why immigration may be the defining issue of the 21st century 1

Will the future of political conflict pit a hyper-capitalist Left versus an anti-capitalist Right?

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

The Week

There was once a fanciful idea that the internet and all its attendant technologies of cheap communication would reverse the pattern of urbanization in developed countries. Some people still believe this: People could telecommute to work while enjoying the comforts of the small towns and country roads of their childhood. A few people, in fact, do this. But the for the most part the opposite phenomenon is playing out. The information age is the age of moving people. And if that’s true, Donald Trump is just the first manifestation of a new era in global politics.

The information age makes it very easy for a small town kid to find an apartment, a job, and a social network in the big cities and growth areas. It also allows him to stay connected with friends at home. In other words, it lowers the price of moving and the cost of leaving. It reduces the feeling of disorientation in new places, while allowing people to still belong, in some sense, to where they came from. New York, Los Angeles, D.C., Silicon Valley, Portland, and Austin have all benefited from these trends.

And the truth is that this is a global phenomenon. It’s easier than ever to establish social, commercial, and employment relationships in places thousands of miles away from you. So why not go there? According to the U.N.’s figures, by 2013 the number of emigrants from the Global South that emigrated to the Global North was equal to the number of emigrants in the Global South that emigrated within the Global South. One of every nine Africans with a tertiary diploma was living in one of the elite nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It’s not a coincidence that Trump is surging ahead because of his anti-immigration views in America, while Europe is roiled by debates over how to handle migrants crossing the Mediterranean.

This, incidentally, is why I am convinced that there was no way that the GOP could have precluded the Donald Trump moment in American politics by passing comprehensive immigration reform two years ago. The movement of people from country to the city, from poor nations to richer nations, from the Global South to the Global North, may be the great political problem of the next age in global development. Just as the building of trade routes and the maintenance of empires defined the mercantile age, then the construction of a political economy (capitalist or socialist) became the major problem of the industrial age, the mass movement of people may be the defining issue of whatever we’re calling the information age.


Keith Preston: Cheney, his cohorts seek war scenario for Iran 1

From Press TV. Listen here:

Former US Vice President Dick Cheney and other neoconservatives in America have been trying to prepare a scenario for an attack on Iran similar to the one used prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003, says an analyst.

Keith Preston made the remarks when asked about recent remarks by Cheney in which he accused President Barack Obama for the emergence of the Daesh terrorist group in Iraq, while calling on members of Congress to be prepared to “make the threat of military action [on Iran] very credible.”

“As far as Cheney’s comments about Iran, if the George W. Bush administration, if the neoconservatives like Dick Cheney and his cohorts were still in power, they would be at war with Iran today,” said Preston, chief editor and director of

“They had Iran in their sights every bit as much as they had Iraq in their sights, and what Cheney is advocating and what his neoconservative cohorts in American foreign policy circles are trying to do today is engineer a repeat of what happened with Iraq in 2003,” he added.

“They are now trying to fabricate claims that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction, even though international arms advocates all across the spectrum refute that, and they’re trying to use this as a pretext for military aggression against Iran just as they did with Iraq in 2003,” he explained.

“If the neoconservatives were currently in power that’s what they would be doing, they would be gearing up for a war with Iran under the same pretexts of what they did with Iraq 12 years ago,” Preston emphasized.

The analyst said that the warmongering politicians in the US are “playing to the ignorance” that many ordinary Americans have about the Middle East. “That’s how some American political figures get away with making these kinds of outrageous claims.”

He went on to say that US neoconservatives “want to establish an American empire that has unquestioned control over Middle Eastern natural resources like petroleum and natural gas and so forth.”

“They want to do this in collusion with the Israelis and create an American-Israeli co-prosperity sphere, in which any kind of independent regime has been eliminated,” he added.

“They are in league with the Saudis in the process …and the other (Persian) Gulf monarchies that provide the funding for these Sunni insurgency groups,” Preston noted. “They want to exclude any potential influence by the Russians, by the Chinese and by anyone else that would challenge American hegemony.”

Wayne John Sturgeon talks to Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance 1

A must read.

Libertarian Alliance

Wayne John Sturgeon talks to Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance

Please could you introduce yourself and how you became Director of the Libertarian Alliance?

I joined the Libertarian Alliance in December 1979. Just before the death of its founder, Chris Tame, from cancer in 2006, I became Director. I don’t regard myself as a natural leader. However, I am the most prolific and the most prominent libertarian in England, and Chris had come, in his final years, to despise almost everyone else round him. It was the case that either I should follow him, or he would dissolve the organisation.

What is the difference, if any, between a liberal and a libertarian?

Until about 1910, in both England and America, a liberal could be defined as someone who believed in limited government under the rule of law, and who opposed state regulation of interactions between consenting adults. Since then, the word has been applied to various kinds of statists – some of them rather totalitarian. One day, it may come back to us. But there really is no point in sharing a word with people like Nick Clegg and Hillary Clinton. For this reason, we grabbed the word libertarian back in the 1960s. It had been coined by, and was first attached to, leftist anarchists in the 19th century. However, they did little with it after about 1917, and it was almost bona vacantia when we took it up. More…

Benjamin Tucker on Anarcho-Capitalism Reply

By Charles Johnson

Center for a Stateless Society

The following article was written by Charles Johnson and published on his Rad Geek People’s Daily, December 1, 2007.

Well, kind of.

Obviously Benjamin Tucker had no direct opinions about “anarcho-capitalism,” because the term was not even coined until many years after his death, and several decades after his retirement from radical politics. But Tucker did have quite a bit to say about the relationships among anarchism, socialism, and capitalism, and it may be worth having a look at it.

The question’s interesting partly as a matter of historical curiosity, but partly also because it may help shed some light on an old argument which has mostly produced heat. There are certain groups of anti-capitalist anarchists — most of them communist or collectivist anarchists — who tend to start spitting fire when pro-capitalist anti-statists like Murray Rothbard or David Friedman describe themselves as “anarcho-capitalists,” or identify their position as a form of “anarchism” simpliciter, or identify anarcho-capitalism as a close relation of the free-market individualist anarchism of Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Victor Yarros, et al. The locus classicus of the fire-spitting on the web is of course Section F and Section G of the “social anarchist” Anarchist FAQ; if that’s not where you’re encountering the debate, you’re almost certain to hear it get cited repeatedly anyway. At this point a heated debate soon follows over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism, or an unrelated form of right-wing anti-statism being fraudulently passed off as anarchism. The debate often focuses in on the notion of an anarchist tradition, and the argument turns to the question of (1) whether a pro-capitalist position is or is not incompatible with essential and continuous elements of that tradition; and (2) whether anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate part of that tradition or an independent and basically alien ideology that has just nicked some terminology and a couple slogans from traditional anarchism. And this is where the individualist anarchists get dragged into the fight.


Keith Preston: US Jews shifting their views on Israel, Iran 1

From Press TV. Listen here:

The majority of Jews in the United States are shifting their opinion about Israel and Iran, decreasing their support for Tel Aviv while increasingly favoring the nuclear agreement with Tehran, a political analyst from Virginia says.

“It seems that American Jews are actually becoming more in favor of peace, less in favor of taking a provocative stance against Iran,” said Keith Preston, chief editor and director of, a website dedicated to encouraging revolt against domestic and foreign US government policies.

“That seems to be true among younger Jews as well,” Preston told Press TV on Wednesday.

“What we’ve seen in the United States, in American culture and politics generally in recent times is that the younger generation has taken a sharp shift leftward on a lot of social issues and cultural issues,” he added.

Earlier this month, a petition urging support for the Iran nuclear deal Iran in Congress was signed by 340 US rabbis from the major denominations of Judaism.

In contrast, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other pro-Israel lobbying groups in the US have launched a massive campaign to scuttle the historic agreement with Iran.

The Obama administration is trying to save the accord in Congress, which is reviewing the pact and is likely to vote on it in September.

The chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations acknowledged on Tuesday that the White House’s lobbying campaign for the accord has generated results.

Senator Bob Corker, a Republican representing Tennessee, said he does not know if opponents of the agreement in Congress can prevail.

How Anarchy Works: Security Without The State Reply

Government Denies Knowledge

Whenever someone is exposed to the ideas of market anarchy, their first thought is “but what about the roads?” Soon after this, more interesting questions arise, mostly relating to security issues. How would the law work? How would an anarchist society repel armed invaders? Who stops the bad guys? What’s to stop a powerful gang from looting everyone else (as though that isn’t precisely the situation we have with governments)? And so on.


Christian Anarchism: A Forgotten Alternative for the Peaceful Ordering of Society Reply

By Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

Anarchy Archives

Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 4-6 April 2006, Reading University, Session 1, Anarchism stream: panel 1 (Tuesday 4 April, 14:15-15:30), Alexandre Christoyannopoulos (, Department of Politics and International Relations, Rutherford College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NX United Kingdom

(DRAFT ONLY — please contact the author before citing)


Christian anarchists question the widespread belief that a socially contracted state provides the only guarantee of human freedom and security. For them, the state is a vicious system that perpetrates the very violence that its mandate pretends to keep at bay. They are therefore not surprised by the current climate of insecurity — but they believe the solution requires another look at Christianity and its political implications.


Where Did the Antiwar Movement Go? 1

A damn good question.

By Tom Engelhardt


Let me tell you a story about a moment in my life I’m not likely to forget even if, with the passage of years, so much around it has grown fuzzy. It involves a broken-down TV, movies from my childhood, and a war that only seemed to come closer as time passed.

My best guess: it was the summer of 1969. I had dropped out of graduate school where I had been studying to become a China scholar and was then working as a “movement” printer – that is, in a print shop that produced radical literature, strike posters, and other materials for activists. It was, of course, “the Sixties,” though I didn’t know it then. Still, I had somehow been swept into a new world remarkably unrelated to my expected life trajectory – and a large part of the reason for that was the Vietnam War.

Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t particularly early to protest it. I think I signed my first antiwar petition in 1965 while still in college, but as late as 1968 – people forget the confusion of that era – while I had become firmly antiwar, I still wanted to serve my country abroad.


The Neoconservative Empire Returns Reply

An interesting discussion of the divide between the Jewish wing of the Power Elite and rank and file Jewish opinion on Iran.

By David Bromwich and Tom Engelhardt


Everyone knows the basics of the dispute over the nuclear deal with Iran. In no time at all, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leaped directly into the American political arena to take potshots at that agreement in a way that, had any other world leader acted similarly, would have been denounced across the political spectrum. And he did so backed not only by his own party and government but by established opinion makers in Israel, all of whom are deeply convinced that the deal is neither reasonable nor in Israel’s best interests. Similarly, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other similar organizations got involved in a giant, multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to ensure that the agreement is given a congressional thumbs down, they represented not just the interests of Netanyahu and the Israeli ruling elite but of American Jewish opinion, which naturally believes that a deal bad enough to be nixed by Israel is not in the best interests of the United States either. All of that seems obvious enough – the only problem being that it isn’t so.

Let’s start with Jewish opinion in America.


Will the Real Military Please Stand Up? Reply

It appears that the state’s military is gradually being hollowed out from the inside while being demoralized with perpetual failed wars.

As revolutionary anarchists, out ambition should be the establishment of Hezbollah and PKK model fourth generation militias that eventually surpass the state’s military forces.

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

Several weeks ago, something very important in the development of Fourth Generation war happened. On our own soil, the U.S. “military” had to be protected by civilian volunteer militiamen.

The protection of U.S. military recruiting offices by armed volunteer militiamen occurred in response to the Islamic attack on two recruiting centers in Chattanooga. The Defense Department soon asked the militiamen to cease and desist, which they did. The fact that a militia’s defense of the U.S. “military” lasted only briefly does not undo its significance. The sort of thing we are used to seeing in hollow states such as Lebanon happened here.

The militia’s action was not required, let me stress, because the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who man our recruiting stations are incapable of defending themselves. The can do so, and would be happy to do so (well, the men anyway). Accounts of the Islamic attack suggest many of the recruiters behaved bravely, risking and sometimes giving their lives to protect others. They could not defend themselves because they are not allowed to be armed.


President Obama is Right on Iran Reply

A broken clock is right twice a day.

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

Real conservatives hate war. War is the most expensive activity the state can engage in. Its outcome is always uncertain. Only revolution is a more powerful agent of social and cultural change, change conservatives exist to oppose (and war may be a prelude to revolution). Large standing armies are both an enormous expense and a threat to the rule of law. No wonder Edmund Burke, when Parliament was debating a possible war in the Low Countries, exclaimed, “A war for Antwerp? A war for a chamber pot!”

President Obama was thus right in both senses of the word when he said on August 5th of his deal with Iran, “Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some sort of war–maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”

The President was right because, in the end, we have two choices: a deal with Iran, or war with Iran. There is no evidence we could negotiate a better deal than the one the Obama Administration got. All the (well-financed) debate you will hear and read over specific terms of the deal are irrelevant. If we reject it, for whatever reason, we are on course for yet another war in the Middle East.


Are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Tapping into Rage Against the Machine? Reply

Nick Gillespie may be right about these guys actual prospects of getting their party’s nomination, but a Sanders vs Trump presidential election would be advantageous. I wouldn’t endorse or vote for either of them, but I would cheer on their de-legitimizing the system, and creating still more political polarization.

On one hand we have an actual member of the plutocrat class who doesn’t mind calling the system the fraud that it is, and likewise doesn’t mind offending politically correct sensibilities. On the other hand, we have a life long New Left ex-hippie Marxist who doesn’t mind calling out the plutocracy. A Sanders vs Trump election was create an even wider polarization between the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe than there is now, all the while de-legitimizing the system by calling attention to the institutionalized bribery that characterizes the state and plutocratic domination of the economy.

By Nick Gillespie



Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, interviewed GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina for USA Today and asked her about the Donald Trump bubble, which may have already popped given the Republican furor over his slagging of John McCain.

Here’s the former HP CEO’s take on why a loudmouth with no political experience is sitting atop current GOP polls:


A Quick Guide to the Foreign Policy Views of the Democratic Presidential Candidates Reply

It would appear that Lincoln Chafee has the best foreign policy views of any of these people. Not coincidentally, he is arguably the least viable of any of the Democratic candidates.

By Brandon George Whitehill

Foreign Policy Institute

As of this writing, five Democrats are running for their party’s nomination for President of the United States: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee. Of these candidates for president, three (Sanders, Clinton, Chafee) were members of Congress during 9/11 and the votes on Afghanistan and Iraq Wars; two (Clinton, Webb) served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, two (Webb, Sanders) on the Veterans Affairs Committee, one (Webb) on the Foreign Relations Committee, and one (Chafee) on the Homeland Security Committee; one (Webb) was the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, and a Marine Captain; and one (Clinton) was the nation’s top diplomat as Secretary of State. Among the Democrats, Webb, Sanders, O’Malley, and Chafee opposed the 2003 Iraq War from the beginning (initially supported by Clinton) and the 2011 intervention in Libya (supported vigorously by then-Secretary Clinton). Webb stands alone in his opposition to the current deal with Iran. Sanders opposed the Gulf War in 1991 in which the US and its allies ousted Iraq from Kuwait; he also opposed Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009.


Understanding the Anarchist Philosophy Reply

For readers who are interested in learning more about the traditional anarchist philosophy and its history, I would recommend the following works:

“Demanding the Impossible” by Peter Marshall gives a very comprehensive overview of the entire anarchist tradition. Noam Chomsky argues this is the best book on anarchism, and I tend to agree. It’s full text is available on the Lib Com website. Warning: It’s over 800 pages long.

Read it here.

“The Political Theory of Anarchism” was published by Australian political scientist April Carter in 1971, and is a very good discussion of anarchist political theory on a more abstract level within the context of a short booklet.

Read it here.

“Anarchism” by Paul Eltzbacher is a work by a German judge published in the early twentieth century examining the work of the seven classical anarchist theorists who are arguably the “founding fathers” of anarchism: Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, and Tucker.

Read it here.

Last, I would certainly recommend reading my own book, “Attack the System: A New Anarchist Perspective for the Twenty-First Century.” What I do is take the traditional anarchist philosophy as its been developed thus far and modify it a bit for the sake of making it relevant to contemporary world conditions.

It’s available from Amazon.Com.


4 Million Muslims Killed In Western Wars: Should We Call It Genocide? 1


By Kit O’Connell

Mint Press News

Afghan villagers sit near the bodies of children who they said were killed during a NATO air strike in the Kunar province of Afghanistan. April 7, 2013. (Reuters)

It may never be possible to know the true death toll of the modern Western wars on the Middle East, but that figure could be 4 million or higher. Since the vast majority of those killed were of Arab descent, and mostly Muslim, when would it be fair to accuse the United States and its allies of genocide?

A March report by Physicians for Social Responsibility calculates the body count of the Iraq War at around 1.3 million, and possibly as many as 2 million. However, the numbers of those killed in Middle Eastern wars could be much higher. In April, investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed argued that the actual death toll could reach as high as 4 million if one includes not just those killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the victims of the sanctions against Iraq, which left about 1.7 million more dead, half of them children, according to figures from the United Nations.

The term “genocide” did not exist prior to 1943, when it was coined by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin created the word by combining the Greek root “geno,” which means people or tribe, with “-cide,” derived from the Latin word for killing.


Is Trump Our Last Chance? 1

My take on Donald Trump:

Unlike many anarchists, I think immigration can be criticized on a variety of grounds. Mass immigration appears to be an effort to an effort to flood the economy with cheap labor for capital, thereby dispossessing the traditional working class. It also appears to be an effort to create a permanent constituency for the left-wing of capital, thereby assuring permanent electoral victory. Immigration also appears to be an effort to impose global capitalist mono-culture on all societies everywhere. There’s also the concern about large-scale immigration from highly reactionary societies that inevitably bring their cultural norms with them. Do we really want Islamist parties to become competitive in Western elections?

That said, Donald Trump’s anti-immigration program as outlined by Jared Taylor in the article below clearly involves a massive extension of state power and approaches the level of being a “war on immigration” comparable to the “war on drugs.” Taylor is a white nationalist who regards preserving the white demographic majority in the United States as the highest political good. Fair enough. But as revolutionary anarchists our principle ambition should be to weaken and destroy our primary enemy, the plutocratic-imperialist-police state based in Washington, D.C. As I wrote in “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America“:

On immigration, it is clear enough that the only viable solution is one of local sovereignty. Obviously, we should not wish to strengthen our great common enemy, the US federal government, by militarizing the borders and building a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande. Instead, the Swiss model can be applied to immigration policy and individual communities can decide whether to be pro-immigrant “sanctuary” communities, anti-immigrant communities with the Minutemen stationed at the county line, or somewhere in between.  The great Israeli dissident Israel Shamir discussed the value of the localist approach in his debate with Noam Chomsky: More…

Bernie Sanders—Yes or No? Reply

My take on Bernie Sanders:

It’s interesting to see an actual major party presidential candidate who denounces the corporatists with as much fervor as Sanders, and the positive response he is getting. That said, Sanders is not one of us. He is a statist, centralist traditional Marxist economic determinist, and not a revolutionary anti-imperialist, let alone an anarchist. As a politician, he has a lengthy history of compromising with militarism or US imperialism for political or economic reasons.

The revolutionary anarchist movement in North America needs to establish and maintain a specific hierarchy of priorities: revolutionary anti-imperialism comes first, followed by resistance to the domestic police state, followed by the class struggle, followed by social and cultural issues (environmentalism is something of a wild card issue depending on one’s perspective). The majority of the Left in the United States, including the anarchists, have adopted a nearly reverse order of priorities by placing cultural issues first (gay rights, transgenderism, political correctness), followed by economic issues (“Fight for Fifteen”), followed by anti-police state issues (though the focus and critique is largely limited to race issues), with genuine anti-imperialism being last.

Sanders program is, at best, a variation of European social democracy (which has been very easily incorporated into the global-plutocratic imperialist system).

By Bill Kauffman

The American Conservative

iprimages / Flickr

The 58th Presidentiad, to use Walt Whitman’s coinage, is upon us, and among its biggest surprises is the spirited campaign of Bernie Sanders, socialist senator from the Green Mountain State.



Murder Made Sexy 1

By William T. Hathaway

The US Special Forces is a bizarrely gendered world, as I found out when I joined it to write a book about war. This all-male bastion is sexualized in a truly perverted way, particularly in its methods for turning young men into killers on command.

Being the epitome of patriarchy, the military creates soldiers by forcing them into the role of the lowliest creatures in patriarchy: women. The recruits’ sense of personal power is stripped away, and they are required to obey commands from the men higher in the hierarchy and do the military’s “housework”: scrubbing and waxing floors, dusting windowsills, washing dishes, cleaning toilets to meet the standards of the commanders. They are forced to be obsessed with their appearance and to stand passively at attention while the older, more powerful men inspect them from a few inches away about how closely they’ve shaved, how neat their hair looks, how correctly they are dressed, often insulting them, calling them pussies and queers.

This intimate domination stirs homosexual feelings and at the same time represses them, creating psychological conflicts that are then channeled into aggression. A confused inner rage is generated in the young men, then given an outlet: the enemy.


Why Evangelicals Worship Trump Reply

The evangelical/fundamentalist subculture in the US really is proof that P.T. Barnum was correct when he said a sucker is born every five minutes. When will they realize they’re on the losing end of the culture wars and embrace secession?

By Betsy Woodruff

With his brash demeanor, rough language, womanizing, and general Trump-ness, you’d think evangelicals would would loathe Trump. You’d be wrong.
Evangelicals were supposed to hate Donald Trump.His ostentatious wealth, his colorful language, his serial marriages—he was supposed to be the anti-Huckabee, the candidate least appealing to conservative Christians and their reality TV-unfriendly sensibilities.

Then there was Trump’s cavalier discussion of his faith at the Ames, Iowa Family Leadership Summit in July—where he said he doesn’t ask God for forgiveness.

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York argued that comment would hurt him more than his disparagement of Sen. John McCain’s war record.

And The New York Times noted that Trump’s comments on his faith and multiple marriages “prompted the most muttering and unease in the audience.”


Justin Raimondo: Is Donald Trump a False Flag for Hillary? Reply


Wednesday on “The Alan Colmes Show,” Alan spoke with Editorial Director Justin Raimondo, who has a controversial theory about Donald Trump’s Presidential run. Raimondo believes Donald Trump might be a “false flag” candidate to help hand the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Raimondo told Alan why he thinks the Democrats are just as pro-war as Republicans, why Trump may drop out of the race (“he’ll pull a Ross Perot”) and guarantee a Clinton victory, and why Trump actually turns off conservative voters.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 964 other followers