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.



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.


“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 AttacktheSystem.com.

“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.


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…

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.



Keith Preston: Americans’ knowledge of Islam based on false information 13

Press TV. Listen here: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/11/18/438188/Americans-knowledge-Islam

The majority of American people have a very limited and “primitive” knowledge about Islam and have mostly received false information about the religion, a political analyst in Virginia says.

“Most Americans know very, very little about Islam and the little they know is based on false information,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com.

“Americans, to a large degree, when they think of Islam, they simply think of terrorism, they think of groups like the Daesh (ISIL), or they think al-Qaeda or someone like Osama bin Laden,” Preston told Press TV on Wednesday.

“Most Americans have very little knowledge of the tradition of Islam, the history behind Islam, the theology of Islam,” he added.

“The concept of the people of the book within Islam, the people of the other monotheistic religions are considered to be under the protection of Islamic law,” Preston noted. “That’s something that Americans have no awareness of either.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has voiced concerns over a spike in Islamophobia in the US, following the recent attacks in Paris.

The Muslim advocacy organization called Tuesday for additional safety measures in the Islamic places of worship in the wake of the attacks, which the Daesh Takfiri group has claimed responsibility for.

Since Friday’s Paris attacks, there have been a series of anti-Muslim incidents reported, including terror threats to Florida mosques, vandalism at a Nebraska mosque, shots fired at a Florida Muslim family’s home, hate graffiti targeting a Connecticut Muslim student, a tweet threatening Michigan Muslims, and innumerable hate messages sent online and by phone.

CAIR demanded that state and federal law enforcement authorities investigate the vandalism as a hate crime.

Paul Z. Simons on the Dispaches from Rojava; part 1 of 3 1

A-Infos Radio Project

Summary:  In 2012, a power vacuum formed in parts of northern Syria as a result of the civil war. These areas, part of the lands inhabited by Kurdish peoples,soon became a testing ground for an implementation of an anti-state communalism influenced in part by an American former Anarchist turned Communalist named Murray Bookchin. Bookchin’s thought helped to shape the ideas of Abdullah Ocalan, ideological leader of the Kurdish Worker’s Party, PKK, in neighboring Turkey. The people participating in what’s been branded The Rojava Revolution are organizing administration and defense based from the neighborhood councils. Popular militias are attempting to fight external enemies like the Syrian military of Bashar Al-Asaad and ISIL/Daesh as well as the internal structures which hold in most societies such as patriarchy, class division and xenophobia. Anarchists, anti-capitalists of all stripes from around the world, feminists, ecologists… these peoples and more around the world are among those engaging with the 3-year-runnning experiment of Rojava.

This week’s episode features the first of three segments of conversation with Paul Z Simons,a post-left anarchist and co-editor of Modern Slavery Magazine. Paul, writing under the name El Errante, documented his recent tripto the Rojava region in Northern Syria. This first episode will not be followed up immediately by another episode on the subject, however we are making the second and third episodes content available alongside of this one online. Parts 2 & 3 will make their way into radio versions in the near future.

Bursts and Paul talk about Democratic Confederalism, gender, ecology, international intervention, religion, ethnicity, anti-capitalism, competing tendencies, holding tensions, international fighters and much much more

To follow the links that our guest mentioned in this interview, just click these websites below!


Paris Attacks Serve to Create Division between Muslims, Non-Muslims: US Analyst 1


TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An American political analyst is of the opinion that the Takfiri Daesh terrorist group launched the Paris attacks on November 13 in the hope of creating division between Muslims and Western Christians.

“While it is certainly true that such attacks contribute to the growth of Islamophobia, the ambition of the terrorists is to create division and polarization between Muslims and non-Muslims, with the hope that this polarization will fuel the growth of radicalism among Muslims, and increase the degree sympathy for the Daesh among Muslim communities. While the growth of Islamophobia is certainly not in the interests of Muslims, the Daesh ironically benefit from the rise of Islamophobia because of its potential effect of driving young Muslims towards radicalism of the kind the Daesh represent,” Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of attackthesystem.com, told the Tasnim news agency in an interview.

The following is the full text of the interview.


More Anarchistic Than Thou 1

A reply to “Anti-Fascist News“:

An uninformed lay person reading the pathetically ignorant and barely literate bromide against Attack the System recently issued by “Anti-Fascist News” would hardly know anarchism is a vast tradition in modern political philosophy with roots in the radical Enlightenment more than two centuries ago. Further, history provides examples of many anarchist prototypes extending back for thousands of years (Peter Marshall’s magisterial work “Demanding the Impossible” ably demonstrates this point). However, our critics at “Anti-Fascist News” would have everyone believe that the sum total of anarchist traditions have never been more than a sectarian brand of anarcho-communism derived from the left-wing of anarchism as it was in the 1930s. This is akin to a modern Protestant fundamentalist insisting that the entire Christian tradition consists of nothing more than seventeenth century English Puritanism (no offense to Puritans).

While I am an admirer of the anarcho-communist tendency within classical anarchism of the early twentieth century, there is certainly no reason why anarchism should be exclusively and forever defined within the confines of these limited parameters. As a reading of even the most elementary level book on anarchism will indicate, anarchism is in fact a collection of many varied and diverse currents just as, to use the Christian analogy once again, the Christian faith consists of many thousands of traditions, sects, and denominations that have existed throughout history and throughout the world today. As John Zube has ably demonstrated, there are indeed many readily identifiable traditions within anarchism, some of which maintain a paradoxical relationship to each other. Of course, it is true that there will always likely remain sects within anarchism that refuse to recognize one another as “true” anarchists, just as there are sects of Protestants and Catholics, Sunni and Shiites, who refuse to recognize each other as “true” Christians or Muslims.


Mass-Immigration: The Athenian Approach 1

By James Norwood

Libertarian Alliance

Mass-immigration brings two main challenges. The first is displacement of the traditional population. The second is enlarged membership of the political nation – that is, the grant of voting and other citizenship rights to the newcomers.

These tend to be seen as a single challenge. With or without citizenship rights, immigration on a large enough scale will transform a country. The grant of citizenship rights only becomes critical when the number of alien citizens passes beyond a certain level.

This being said, the two are separable. What brings many immigrants – certainly the tidal wave readying itself at the moment to overwhelm Europe – is the promise of lavish welfare. Some, no doubt, are exactly what the mainstream media tells us they are. Either they are fleeing persecution in their own countries, or they are coming in search of economic opportunities that may bring positive, if limited, benefits to the settled population. But many, it seems, are coming for the free money. Why else are they hurrying through Hungary and the Czech Republic, to claim asylum in Germany?

Moreover, once they are settled in their host countries, it is usually a matter of five or ten years before the newcomers are able to vote. They then swell the constituency of voters for all the policy and legal changes that are summarised by the words “political correctness.”

But suppose entrance to a European country brought no citizenship rights. Suppose there were no welfare, no free education, no hope of citizenship and the vote. As said, some would still come. Fear of persecution at home, or the chance to start a business here, would not be abolished. There would even be some beggars – the streets of Paris or Berlin or London would be more welcoming than the streets of Mogadishu. But the tap would be more than half shut off. The freezing of the electorate would slow the further growth of ethnic voting blocs. The immigration controls we already have might then begin to work.

I will not discuss whether the political will exists to make the necessary changes. I will instead show that the political will has existed in other times and places. Citizenship and its attendant rights have not always been a category granted by the State. Let us take the example of Classical Athens between the 6th and 4th centuries BC.


Keith Preston: US foments terrorist groups in Middle East to eliminate independent governments 1

Press TV. Listen here: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/15/437774/Keith-Preston

The terrorists that carried out the attacks in Paris on Friday are part of a terror network fueled by the United States to eliminate the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and other sovereign states that operate independently from US foreign policy, a political analyst in Virginia says.

“These groups were essentially fomented by the CIA and by American foreign policy as a means of destabilizing the Assad government in Syria,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com.

At least 129 people were killed and over 350 others were injured in the French capital on Friday night, in the deadliest attacks to hit the country since the Second World War.

Since 2011, the US government has been avidly working to destabilize and foment an insurgency in Syria, Preston told Press TV on Sunday.

“And the purpose behind that is to eliminate independent nationalist regimes in the Middle East that are independent of Washington,” he added.

On Saturday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum blamed the administration of US President Barack Obama for the creation of Daesh (ISIL), after the terrorist group claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks.

He said that the terrorist group “is a creation of a political decision by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to abandon Iraq — against all of our generals’ recommendations, against all of the policy recommendations.”

ISIL terrorists, who were initially trained by the CIA in Jordan in 2012 to destabilize the Syrian government, now control parts of Syria and Iraq. They have been engaged in crimes against humanity in the areas under their control.

Observers say while the US and its allies claim they are fighting against terrorist groups like ISIL, they in fact helped create and train those organizations to affect their policies in the Middle East.

Ex-CIA’er to Ex-KGB’er: Defeat, Mr. Putin, lies in ignoring the Islamists’ words and waging less than total war 4

By Michael Scheuer


From this distance, Mr. Putin, it appears that when you unleashed the Russian air force on 30 September 2015 you expected to save Bashir al-Assad’s regime and bring order to Syria and Iraq in a relatively short period of time. Well, the application of Russian air power is continuing, but only a month after its start, the Islamic State’s (IS) fighters responded by executing a superbly professional operation that destroyed a Russian airliner flying over the Sinai, killing the 224 people aboard.

Damn tough luck, Mr. Putin. It is clear that Russia has a serious strategic problem with the Islamists, but in the past six weeks you behaved as a reckless, ignorant, and really rather dumb jackass, as have Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama, Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Cruz, former-Secretary Clinton, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Blair, Mrs. Merkle, Mr. Hollande, and sundry other lesser European leaders.

You have behaved as if your air force would be sufficient to deliver victory, that it would intimidate the mujahedin into quitting, and that Russia would suffer few casualties as you unfolded in Syria a Russian version of the Cheney-Rumsfeld “cakewalk” in Iraq. The odds also are enormous that you never bothered to read a word of what the mujahedin have said and written since Osama bin Laden declared war in 1996, and so you were entirely ignorant of the kind of enemy you were facing. Frankly, Mr. Putin, these are very bad grades for a man that history will assess as aspiring to be “Tsar of all the Russians.”

Since the year of 1996, Islamist leaders, sub-leaders, theologians, field commanders, and fighters-in-the-trenches have said U.S./Western interventionism had motivated them to wage war, that they would kill as many of their enemies as was necessary to rid the Islamic world of Western military interventionists, and that they were waging a religious war, one that their faith required them to fight until they won or were eradicated.

The Islamists also told their foes that they intended to geographically expand their war as quickly and as far as possible, and that they believed that, while victory could only be granted by Allah, they could assist the divinity by inflicting casualties on their sophomoric, casualty averse-enemies. They also explained that, Allah willing, they would cause a steadily increasing drain on Western nations’ treasuries — especially that of the United States — which had already been bankrupted by the devastatingly destructive spendthrifts who govern them. Allah, it seems clear, has delivered in spades to those on whom his favor falls.


No, the Military Has Not Withered Away Under Obama Reply

By Ryan McMaken

It is common to see articles and columns in the Conservative media claiming that President Obama is engaging in “historic defense cuts.” There are claims that not in decades has the military ever endured such budget slashing. “Romney blasts Obama over military cutbacks” one headline blares.

Upon closer examination of these claims, one notes that the authors are careful to never mention actual dollar amounts in context, or any meaningful historical context beyond single recent year-over-year comparisons.

Most of these stories are careful to only mention military spending on certain projects, and never military spending as a whole. They look at troop numbers and other measures that don’t reflect total military spending.

And it’s not surprising that total military spending is never mentioned. Because, if it were, it would quickly become apparent that military spending is in fact near historic highs, and above the levels of spending that occurred under Ronald Reagan during his own Cold War buildup.

So, if you are worried about military spending, you can rest easy. Nor is there any cause for alarm in the wake of the most recent budget deal approved by Republican leaders and Obama. There will be nothing but budget increases over the next two years:

The plan will lift caps on the appropriated spending passed by Congress each year by $50 billion in 2016 and $30 billion in 2017, evenly divided between defense and domestic programs. Another approximately $16 billion would come each year in the form of inflated war spending, evenly split between the Defense and State departments.

So, not only will there be more base-level defense spending, but what is currently in the agreement can also be voided in favor of even more defense spending in case of new wars.

Even if there were “cuts” on the table, its unlikely military spending would be cut back to Cold War levels, let alone to Vietnam War-era levels. Here is military spending (excluding spending on veterans, diplomatic programs, and Homeland Security) in constant 2009 dollars:

US Military Spending, Constant 2009 Dollars (in billions of $)


Insurgent Islands: A Continuing Conversation on Anarchism with Principles, by Kevin Van Meter Reply

Institute for Anarchist Studies

“Freely Disassociating” appeared in June 2015.  Although it was written a year prior, the half dozen Left and radical publications to which it was initially submitted would not print it.  Since its publication by Perspectives on Anarchist Theory inquiries and positive responses (such as Scott Campbell’s, on which I have commented upon elsewhere ) have found their way to me either directly or through intermediaries.  Of course there was a series of irrational and nonsensical comments online that only served to confirm my claim that there isn’t an “audience that can access arguments and positions outside those with which it already agrees.”  And for that matter, the positive responses confirm this as well.  What is interesting about those who are generally supportive of my arguments is that they often agree with the analysis of the problems that currently exist in radical movements, but are neither able to completely disassociate from the “tyrannical bitterness” of contemporary radical politics nor to engage with the proposal that anarchism with principles will arise from a political project rather than being proposed a priori.

What I had not fully articulated in the original article is that until there is a counter-pole to current radical movements there cannot be a shift toward creating anarchism with principles.  It would violate common sense to suggest that you can decrease X (involvement in radical movements as they are currently composed) and as a result Y (a counter-pole, anarchism with principles) would emerge.  Our increasingly ideological anarchism is defined by theoretical practices: the setting of ones own limitations rather than common horizons; obsession with imaginary relations instead of relations between anarchism’s collective imagination and the ability to collectivize them in the world; and there is not a Yes to many, many No’s reversing the call for “One No, Many Yeses.”  It is these practices that anarchism with principles seeks to counter.  Moreover, and possibly more important, two interrelated problems suggest the need for another passage out of the current malaise.  The approach of creating forms of organization, from clandestine cells to non-profits, a priori to the desires and activity that will propel them forward, postulate purpose, set priorities, and provide the content and context in which they will operate is fatal.  This is exacerbated by the inability to make a clean break from current radical movements and instead align oneself with the rich, substantive history of revolutionary ideas and practices.  Until these three separate issues are properly addressed the preconditions required for anarchism with principles to develop cannot be established.  I will take each issue in turn.