PC Leftoid Therapeutism Goes Insane 1

The University of Delaware forces students to undergo PC brainwashing under the guise of therapy, or “treatments.” Read all about it.

This is the “totalitarian humanism” I have been warning about in the past. The totalitarian Left has spent decades working to gain control of the universities. Now, what’s going to happen when they finally gain control of the state, the police, the legal system, the army, etc.?  This is the Cultural Marxist Revolution in full operation.

[Update: Apparently, exposure has forced the university to drop the program. See here. But they’ll be back. These cretins view this as a Long March.]

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan)

Updated News Digest November 29, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

“That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane individual has ever given his assent.”

                                                                                          -Aldous Huxley

I don’t fight for lost causes, I fight for causes not yet won!”

                                                                                        -Chris Donnellan

“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion… while Truth again reverts to a new minority.”
                                                                                            -Søren Aabye Kierkegaard

“The only kind of freedom that the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters, and that is precisely the kind that we mainly have.”                    

                                                                                     -Henry Louis Mencken

“The doctrine of equality! There exists no more poisonous poison: For it seems to be preached by justice itself, while it is the end of justice.”

                                                                               -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

“Democracy…is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”

                                                                                             -Plato

“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

                                                                                     -Alexis de Tocqueville

Who Will Protest Obama’s War? by Justin Raimondo

Fourth Generation Warfare Comes to a Town Near You (hat tip to BANA)

Why They Hate Us by Stephen Walt

WASPs and Foreign Policy: The Empire Didn’t Begin with the Neocons by Paul Gottfried

Americans’ View of the World from David Kramer

The Nature of Modern Imperialism by Alan McKinnon

The Real Unemployment Rate is 17.5% by Jeff Cox

Neither Capitalism nor Communism: For a Third Position on Health Care

Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance by Jeff Cohen

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black: Corrupt U.S.-U.K. Criticize Afghanistan by Eric Margolis

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s Trial Will Convict Us All  by Paul Craig Roberts

The Department of Gomer Pyle by Don Cooper

Support Your Local Sexual Predator by William Norman Grigg

Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America by Kevin Carson (see Carson interview)

Mission Creep: Counter-Insurgency in Salinas by William S. Lind

The American Coup D’etat of 1947 (hat tip to Ray Mangum)

55% of Americans are Populist, 7% Support the Political Class from Rasmussen

The Anarch vs the Anarchist by Wayne John Sturgeon

Libertarian and Marxist Class Analysis by Lew Rockwell

Another World Was Possible by Kevin Carson

The Federal Reserve and the Power Elite by Charles Burris

Uber-PIG Joe Arpaio’s Amerika  by William Norman Grigg

The Democrats’ War Tax by Justin Raimondo

Letter of Imprisoned Revolutionary Anarchist from Infoshop.Org

America’s Supermax Prisons Do Torture by Kiilu Nyasha

The Next Liberal Fad: A Stolen Generation of Black Children? by Steve Sailer

How Israel Became a Night Unto the Nations by Yoel Marcus

Obama’s Worsening Civil Liberties Record by Glenn Greenwald

If Obama is a Pragmatist, Then What Was Bush? by Nick Baumann

The American Cause  by Daniel Larison

Dumb and Dumber Wars by Jeff Huber

Terror Lists Won’t Save Us by Ivan Eland

Are Conservatives Coming Around on Civil Liberties by Jacob Hornberger

The Extreme Secrecy of the Federal Courts by Glenn Greenwald

Battlefield in the War of Ideas by Eugene Robinson

A Reasoned Argument Against Mass Immigration by Brenda Walker

Is the Church Militant Back? by Pat Buchanan

My Thanksgiving Prayer by Chuck Baldwin

Census Worker’s Death Was Suicide-Not “Hate” by Robert De Brus

Greek Anarchists Attacked with Explosives from Infoshop.Org

Family and Friends of Victim Protest Outside Home of Murderous PIG from Infoshop.Org

A Good Reason Not to Celebrate Thanksgiving by Red Phillips

The Case of Lynn Stewart by Marjorie Cohn

The Bush-Blair Conspiracy by Dave Lindorff

Climategate? by Dr. Tim Ball

Glaring Proof that Hitler Made It Out of the Bunker from David Kramer

Obama Rejects Landmine Treaty by Desmond Butler

WASP Establishment and the Holocaust by Charles Burris

Obama Sells Out to the Neocons by Patrick Krey

Returning to a Secret Country by John Pilger

The Cost of War Is Higher Than You Think by Philip Giraldi

What Exactly is the Job in Afghanistan? by Jeff Huber

Obama Supporter Quits Gitmo Post by Glenn Greenwald

The Empire Has No Idea What It’s Doing Gareth Porter interviewed by Scott Horton

Japan’s Native People Fight for Survival from France24

Philip Blond: Red Tory Philosopher by Michael White

Sarah Palin is George W. Bush in a Skirt by James Edwards

Secession and State Militias by Russ Longcore

One Thing Stops Mass Murderers-A Gun by Vin Suprynowicz

Decentralization and Operational Secession by Gary North

Eco-Fanatics Devastate Tribal Peoples 

Is Global Warming Settled Science? by James Taranto

Israel’s Illegal Settlements in America by Grant Smith

The Auld Triangle Goes Jingle Jangle by Alexander Cockburn

Planning for Poverty? by Carl Ginsburg

Obama as LBJ by Franklin Spinney

The Devastating Consequences of the Corporate Health Insurance Bill by Shamus Cooke

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic Discusses Carl Schmitt

Iggy and the Stooges with James Williamson for the First Time Since 1974

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Anti-Egalitarian International 

Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy

Renters Becoming Latest Victims as Foreclosure Crisis Widens 

Wall Street’s New Gilded Age by Niall Ferguson

Russian Homeless Resort to Cannibalism 

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons by Ian Angus

The Second Wave of the Financial Tsunami 

Life Without Father and Disappearing Dads 

America’s Economic Pain Brings Hunger Pangs 

America’s Shadow Economy Is Bigger Than You Think 

15 Signs American Is Coming Apart at the Seams 

The Rise of Vertical Farms 

Homelessness in New York City at an All-Time High 

An Alternative to Globalization 

Bodies Go Unburied in Detroit 

The Pending Collapse of the U.S.A. 

Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody-Violent Deaths Now Follow Evictions 

Reagan Did Not End the Cold War 

Avoiding Mass Starvation 

The Influence of Nietzsche

Former Soviet States: Battleground for Global Domination 

Global Warming Rigged?

More Than 200,000 Animals Sacrificed in Nepal Festival 

Man Discovers Charles Manson Is His Real Dad

If You’ve Done Nothing Wrong You Have Everything to Worry About

Inmate Pushed Judge to Order Electrolysis for Transgender Surgery

The Inevitable Failure of Suburbia 

Nine Points of Inland Empire National-Anarchists 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

The Coolest Band You’ve Probably Never Heard of Performs Live in 1977

The PC Left is the New Moral Majority 1

So says a free speech attorney. This statement is particularly pertinent:

“Just when the decency police and moral values group have been all but defeated in the courts–both of law and public opinion–a new threat has emerged from our left flank: political correctness,” he continued. “The leftist thought police are now wanting to impose their view of propriety on modern cultural discourse. We’re now seeing objections to racial slurs and sexist video game content that feminists and minority groups take offense to. Now without taking a position on the propriety on that content in modern video games, this trend is just as damaging to free expression rights.”

Walters pointed out legislation pending in New York that aims to prohibit sales to minors of games that have various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes, derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons as setting a dangerous precedent.

“Think about that for a minute. Would we ever in a million years tolerate the government passing a law that movies cannot have profanity, racial jokes, or derogatory language? That would eliminate practically every movie made,” he said.

The good news is that this should produce plenty of rebellious youth eager to join an anti-PC “alternative-anarchist” movement. PC is the theocracy of liberalism.

H. L. Mencken: Anarchist of the Right? 2

by Anne Ollivier-Mellio

[Keith: I translated this from the original French using online translation technology, so it’s a bit of a rough read in places. I eschewed further editing, so as to avoid additional deviations from the original.]

Mencken: anarchist of the right? Oxymoron or mere provocation? Is there not some irony in wanting to classify it, his whole life, tried to remain unclassifiable, shuffling cards, prohibiting anyone from the catalog? Described as skeptical, iconoclastic satire, turns literary critic, columnist and editor, is found at the crossroads between journalism and literature, philosophy and publishing. And if the breadcrumb to the contemporary reader to find his bearings in this maze, was simply politics? And if Mencken was, among other things, one of the most famous of American anarchism? Of course, not anarchism left of Emma Goldman (1870-1940) or Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), his Russian mentor, but anarchism synthesizing large American values and that of the right.

In his book on the right-wing anarchists in France, François Richard identifies three trends in anarchist thought. The anarchism of Max Stirner Gross (1806-1856), German thinker who rejects the generally accepted data humanistic tradition and promotes excessive individualism. Anarchism left inherited the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which seeks to empower people and the exercise of political power by all at the price of radical and violent actions (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin), and finally a Right anarchism or libertarian aristocracy, founded on a critical (or rejection) of democracy, a rejection of the egalitarian premise of 1789, a duty to revolt, hatred of intellectuals and a fierce defense of individual liberties (Richard 56). Very well represented in French literature, de Gobineau of Marcel Ayme through Leautaud, Celine, Bernanos or Anouilh, anarchism plunge right he also rooted in a uniquely American tradition of anti-statism, individualism extreme and fierce defense of individual liberties? 
 
In any case, what seems to support David De Leon in The American as Anarchist, work in which he studied the different forms of radicalism in the United States, and concludes that there is a current anarchist and right of current anarchist left the United States. We look for us to show that right-wing anarchism is perhaps one of the keys to better understand and perhaps try to classify the unclassifiable Mencken, without reducing or freezing his thought. By choosing this angle of attack will then be examined in turn led to his defense of individualism and freedoms, including freedom of expression, his critique of democracy in general and particularly the United States, its glorification of ‘individualism and opposition to the state. I finally try to evaluate ideas in light of the American libertarian tradition. To Mencken, the starting point for any discussion on freedom of thought remains the Founding Fathers. During the revolutionary period, they are the true defenders of individual freedoms. They do not believe in an egalitarian democracy, contrary to popular wisdom says, but want to establish a republic. They are wary of people, the populace (the mob) but rely on an enlightened minority, able to defend individual freedoms and equality with men before the law. In his essay on George Washington, Mencken writes: “George Washington Had No belief in the infallible wisdom of the common people, but Regarded as inflammatory dolt them and tried to save the Republic from them” (Chrestomathy 220).
 
To Mencken, love of freedom requires courage, ability to be autonomous (self-reliant) and entrepreneurship, qualities which are often destitute people. And to quote William Graham Sumner, famous Darwinist professor of economics at Yale, too, in the late nineteenth century clearly distinguishes democracy and republic. The republic is a form of self-government whose goal is not equality between men but civil liberties. It requires that we be vigilant and we will beat it when freedoms are under threat (Douglas 71). Mencken fully supports the ideas of Sumner, he considers the people too passive and too little attention to assaults on their liberties. When people fight, “he said, he does not name the key principles such as freedom, but to meet practical needs, immediate and material.  
 
Beyond principles, the reality will Mencken’s struggle for freedom of expression, a priority throughout his life. Certainly, we see expressed in his columns on topics as diverse as Puritanism, morality, religion, sex and politics. It withers mercilessly American heroes like Lincoln or Roosevelt. But he forgets the satire and irony, and rallying as soon as the individual freedoms of others, especially freedom of expression is threatened. Witness his stance in favor of the writer Theodore Dreiser, when it becomes the target of American censorship after the release of his 1915 book Genius (Bode 59-60, Hobson 151, Williams 73). In 1917 he took up the cause of the socialist Scott Nearing, dismissed from the University of Pennsylvania, because of its pacifist positions. He has no personal sympathy for Nearing but would primarily defend freedom of expression of this teacher, even a pacifist and socialist.  It is clean, Mencken later said, and if I had a son, I wish he could meet him.  In 1916 and 1917, he also takes a stand against censorship suffered almost all radical magazines (whether of the literary magazine The Seven Arts, was forced to cease publication after the release of anti-war articles Randolph Bourne, or The Masses, a magazine more politicized directed by Max Eastman, also censured by the Wilson government in autumn 1917). The fierce defense of freedom of expression animates still in the thirties when he denounced the dismissal of a teacher, Mr Blows, accused by the board of the university to be communist, or when it intervenes to support the visa application of anarchist (left!) Emma Goldman, then in exile in Europe. The anarchist deported to Russia by the U.S. government in 1919 after thirty-three years ago in the United States, was denied a visa by the authorities because of his ideas deemed seditious.
But freedom of expression has meaning only if one is willing to fight for his defense.
 
But Mencken, if committed on a personal level, doubts that his compatriots are capable of such a struggle. The people, in his view, unable to stand up for a cause as noble as freedom, because he strayed into its idiotic belief in democracy. The second theme occupies a prominent place in the political writings of Mencken. Plus an opponent of democracy, especially criticizing the excesses of the American system, he said officials from the tyranny of the majority of the emergence of movements such as fundamentalism or Prohibition or the pervasiveness of what ‘ he calls the moral puritan.
 
 The first aspect of his critique of democracy as political system is structured to reflect on Puritanism in the United States.  His target is not the Puritanism of New England in the seventeenth century because it does not arise as a historian of ideas but slayer this moral code (much more than Victorian puritan) still present in the United States at the turn of the century. His denunciation of the Puritan morality (rather than religious practice) is akin to that formulated by Van Wyck Brooks a few years ago in a book entitled Wine of the Puritans (1908). Both vilify this narrow moral code which stifles the individual and his instincts and weighed like a leaden pall over the entire American literature. “I’m against Puritanism to the last gasp,” he wrote to Dreiser in 1919 (Epstein 50). To Mencken, Puritanism and Democracy are intrinsically linked because they represent two sides of the same idea (Chrestomathy 183, Douglas 83). Both are rooted in hatred of the poor man for those who are superior. The Puritan as a Democrat (it must be understood by the individual in a democracy) are afraid of being surpassed by his peers. He believes so strongly in equality of men that do not tolerate those who want to advance, rising above the common lot.  And to sum up his thoughts in a phrase famously: “Democracy is a condition of life In which people are set to worrying Whether somebody, somewhere is enjoying things that they are not and take action to see that they do not. That is what Puritanism is also “(Douglas 83). Thus, the Puritan as the Democrat, fears excellence, hates art and those who create it, and hope that everything is measured against its own mediocrity. Precisely this race to the bottom that Mencken deplored in American society.
 
The mistake of the Americans is the belief that all men are equal in talent and ability, whereas the term gender as used by the Founding Fathers, refers only to equality with men before law. Hence the reluctance of the average American (the average man), obsessed by the idea of egalitarian democracy, to accept the geniuses, intellectuals and men of emergency. Besides Mencken believed in the existence of men of superior intelligence. Like Nietzsche, to whom he dedicated a book in 1908, he hates morality and bourgeois lifestyle (the booboisie!), And sees egalitarian drift of American democratic system the sign of the decline of a civilization. Progress (in whatever form) can only come from a creative elite and not the man in the street, whose goal is to ensure that their material comfort (12-13 Notes on Democracy ).
 
In his articles on democracy, Mencken did not yet pose a political philosopher, but a mere observer of American life. Its almost anthropological study leads him to conclude, as did Nietzsche, that democracy, more than any other political system, encourages the standardization of tastes and moral conformity and discourages the contrary originality, excellence and Imagination (Douglas 100).  To justify his position, he draws his examples from American history, and especially the withers Jacksonian period (1828-1836: under President Jackson that all white men become eligible to vote) and the populist movement (movement in the 1890s, denounced the plutocracy and demanded more rights for the masses), according to him responsible for the spread of democracy and its abuses.
 
But most of the examples from the past, the First World War Mencken offers food for thought on the evils of American democracy. In April 1917, the United States entered the war, and the Wilson government therefore seeks to silence all opposition to the conflict, they are pacifists, socialists or anarchists. One by one, all the radical magazines (whether more politicized journals as The Masses – 1911-1917 – or more interested in art as The Seven Arts – 1916-1917) fall under two laws , the Espionage Act and Sedition Act (passed in 1917 and 1918) and must stop their publication. Mencken, however, reluctant to support what he called “the red ink fraternity” (that is to say, radical intellectuals, Forgue 68), while denouncing censorship and the U.S. government. But he also openly condemned the democracy, the American people and his lack of courage. Indeed, public opinion strongly opposed the war until the end of 1916 (the Democratic Party had not he contributed to Wilson’s re-election hammering, “Wilson kept us out of the war ?), had continued to support Wilson after the outbreak of war the United States. The American people had accepted without hesitation Wilson’s argument that “this [was] a war to make the world safe for democracy”, even though individual liberties were shamefully violated and crushed the opposition. Is it just asks Mencken in a letter to Socialist Louis Untermeyer in 1917, about the inherent love of the American people for freedom? No, such a passion does not exist. He continued: “It is only an aristocracy that is ever tolerant. The masses are invariably cocksure, suspicious, furious and tyrannical. This is in fact the central objection to democracy: that it hinders progress by penalizing innovation and non conformity » (Forgue 109). 
 
Mencken remains convinced that only an aristocracy (elite) is capable of defending freedom of expression and to see a major issue (since it only has the affluence that allows it to be selfless and act for the defense of principles), while the masses, too preoccupied with defending an egalitarian democracy, have recently demonstrated their inability to react when individual liberties are at risk. Thus, the war had shown that one of the greatest dangers to democracy remained much the emergence of a “tyranny of the majority”, a term used by Alexis de Tocqueville [1] but that sums up perfectly the feeling of the Mencken early twenties. The mistake the Americans since the late nineteenth century had been pushing democracy in the extreme, to the point of forgetting the republican principles of the Founding Fathers: the equality of all before the law – not equal all at birth – and the duty of politicians to defend the res publica, that is to say the public, the public good, without seeking to flatter the masses by illusory promises.
 
But if this harsh criticism of democracy can Mencken put together a Micberth (born in 1945, this writer and pamphleteer, is considered one of the leaders of the French right-wing anarchism. His critique of the contemporary including democracy leads to write: “Equality: not know, I know some constant amount, while others laziness, filth, vice and demean themselves poor, Richard 57), his apology for the ‘individual approaches also the right-wing anarchists. He has repeatedly criticized this “tyrannical majority” herd instinct “Democratic man is quite unable to think of himself as a free individual, he must belong to a group or shake with fear and loneliness, and the group, of course, must have its leaders, “he wrote in 1926 (Chrestomathy 157). Mencken was an individualist who opposes any allegiance to a group or party. He reproached Dreiser, where it feeds yet sympathetic, his left drift (during WWI) but he will acknowledge especially to serve a group, the radical intellectuals of Greenwich Village. A decade later, he sent the same complaint to the many intellectuals who look to the communist movement. This is not the fascination of these intellectuals to the communist ideology that shocking (he wrote in effect: “If I were younger and on my own, I would be sorely tempted, I suspect, to take a look at Russia . Though most communists [are] laughable, communism [is] at least an interesting idea … quite as sensitive as democracy, “Hobson 387), their subservience to the group, their renunciation of individual combat. Individualism is indeed a fundamental value for Mencken.
Yet this desire to be free and independent group does not make him shut up in an intellectual ivory tower. Instead, he led many battles individually, refusing, like many right-wing anarchists, “to bend at all considered particularly despicable conformism” (Richard 47).
Among the battles Mencken include that he is waging against what he calls comstockery.  Comstock was a member of Congress who had pushed through a law in 1873 – known as the Comstock law – prohibiting “the mailing, transporting or importing of anything lewd, lascivious or obscene” (Parrish 143). The influence of the Comstock Act on American morality was still strong in the twenties and comstockery become a favorite target of Mencken, who committed to showing the absurdity, hypocrisy and anachronistic. Many papers in his Chrestomathy under “Morals” in the form of attack more or less veiled moral code of the legacy of the nineteenth century ( “The Lady of Joy,” “The Sex Uproar,” “Art and Sex , 48, 54, 61). It says for example these lines tasty:
 
One of the favorite notions of the Puritan mullahs who specialize in pornography is that the sex instinct, if suitably repressed, may be “sublimated,” as they say, into idealism, and especially aesthetic. That concept is to be found in all their books, they ground it upon the theory that the enforcement of chastity by a huge force of spies, stool pigeons and police would convert the Republic into a nation of moral aesthetes. All this of course is simply pious fudge. (61)
 
But his struggle against the moral hypocrisy and narrow is matched only one he waged against Prohibition (passed in 1919, it remains in force until 1933) or against Southern Methodist in the United States (185 ) and fundamentalists [2]. Ultimately, Mencken never stop, his whole life, fighting through American society. Like the anarchists of the right, he acts independently of any group or party, for his crusade is personal. Like them, he believes that “fertility intellectual and moral greatness inevitably require a personal attitude of opposition towards what might be called the socio-cultural consensus” (Richard 48).
 
Finally, Mencken conducts a final battle which relates to certain anarchists right: not content to criticize democracy, we have seen, he also accuses of having contributed to the increased role of federal States United, a phenomenon he sees as responsible for a large drift of American political system. The federal government had gradually acquired more responsibilities throughout the nineteenth century the Civil War who played a significant role in this development), but mainly in the twentieth century through the Progressive movement (1901-1914 ) and the New Deal (in the thirties) he sees his role increase dramatically. The progressive movement is driven by reformers from the middle class. Given the inequalities of American society led since the Civil War, by a minority of plutocrats, the middle class American is looking for solutions to improve the plight of the poorest in order to minimize social protest. This improvement is through better social protection and distribution of wealth more equitable, the federal government should be able to put in place. After a moment the arguments progressives rallied during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1908), Mencken never stop criticizing the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson from 1912. He believes, like the English philosopher William Godwin, the function of government should be duplicated and limited to protecting the individual against the attacks of his fellow citizens and foreign policy. He writes: “The government is in essence not a mere organization of ordinary men like the Ku Klux Klan, the U.S. Steel Corporation or Columbia University, but has transcended organism composed of aloof and impersonal powers, wholly devoid of self interest “(Douglas 118).  For him, the increased federal role that inevitably affects the autonomy and individual freedom, so dear to Americans. In the thirties, he did not condemn the New Deal, in which he receives one of the most serious damage to American values (independence and anti-statism). Overall, he believes that the independence and autonomy of the individual decrease as the role of government increases. 
 
But this criticism added another complaint: the government, in its current form, Mencken wrote in the thirties, only serves the interests of the people, the populace, the man in the street, at the expense of ‘aristocracy of the elite, the superior man. His essay on the nature of government begins to elsewhere in these terms: All government is a conspiracy against the superior man, its permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior in law against the man who is superior in fact, if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both.( Chrestomathy 145)
 
Found in his analysis of Government (145-153) the same distrust of the masses, the same fear that the autonomy of the individual harmed, and even condoning (suggested) of the elite – is ie the exceptional men but also all those who seek to rise, to grow in short, out of their mediocrity. Should we conclude that as an anarchist Mencken was right, as suggested by the somewhat provocative title of this study? If one refers to the definition given by Francois Richard in his book, Mencken seems to refuse, like the French right-wing anarchists, democratic and egalitarian assumption that the underlying. Like them, he sees the revolt as a duty as much moral and intellectual. This revolt is both “an act of self defense intelligence, an infallible test of the quality of people” (Richard 47).  He said he agreed that “without the virtue of disobedience, which alone can defeat the Democratic regimentation, there is no dynamic life possible, realization of being in its totality” (Richard 51) . Consciousness must stop guide the individual to dictate his conduct, and civil disobedience can be a virtue. For thus it never ceases to proclaim, there are good and bad laws, and these deserve only contempt and disobedience (for example, he criticized the arrest of radicals during the First World War and segregation in Baltimore After the Second). In addition, he poses as the defender of the individual, the cornerstone of the social system.
Far from any ideology, doctrine or party, the touchstone of action remains, for Mencken, his personal convictions, first and foremost, the idea that human equality is a delusion, and that only an aristocracy (of outstanding men) is capable of advancing society.  Finally, he deplores the increasing federal role, including when it tries to curb unemployment and fight poverty and distress of Americans during the Depression. Yet despite what appears to bind to anarchism right, Mencken remains a figure difficult to assess in the context of American intellectual.
 
In his book, De Leon is trying to show that Americans are all, in essence, libertarian (as he deems less provocative than that of “anarchist”). It seeks to explain the causes of what may seem in the eyes of an outsider, an anomaly of history, and proposes a taxonomy of the various currents libertarian (anarchist) in the United States. It firstly analyzes anarchism on the right, in its most extreme form is to deny the existence of the state.  This tradition makes the individual and autonomy the cornerstone of the social system. This current anarchist, who may well live with the capitalist system, is represented by Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) or by philosophers Transcendentalists, Thoreau and Emerson. In an essay remained famous, “The American Scholar” (1837), it is also to consider the individual as a “sovereign state” (De Leon 9).
De Leon then studied what he calls the leftist anarchism (including Johann Most and Emma Goldman are probably the most famous representatives in the U.S.) that it offers an alternative to capitalism. This second course offers a critique of institutional authority, calls the local decision-making and wants to promote solidarity and mutual assistance, where the term “anarchism” community “. If it is ruled not want to classify Mencken in the latter course, it is not necessarily easier to classify in the first. Certainly, it could hardly be indifferent to the words of Benjamin Tucker accusing the government of attacking bloated civil liberties. But would it not also a William James applauded the aftermath of the Dreyfus Affair when he wrote: “We, intellectuals, must all work to keep our precious birthright of individualism … Every great institution is perforce a means of corruption” (De Leon 45)? And would not it also agrees with this phrase from the sociologist C. Wright Mills, who said in the fifties: “I can not give unconditional loyalties to any institution, man, state, nation or movement. My loyalties are conditioned upon my own convictions and my own values » (De Leon 14) ? Neither James nor Mills were however anarchists in the strict sense, Americans are reluctant to adopt any form of authority, where individualism and spirit of independence and self-reliance are important values. Perhaps we should then conclude, like De Leon, the American is in essence an anarchist who, in various forms, continues to express its rejection of centralized power and its commitment to individual liberties, or his civil disobedience? In light of this analysis, Mencken appears to be the solitary figure in the American cultural landscape.  Anarchism of Mencken, he is undoubtedly more individualistic and community, would it ultimately more typically American, the less original they had assumed at the beginning of the study? 
 
Perhaps then we should try to appreciate this singular spirit differently. In his calls for civil disobedience, Mencken arises heir to Thoreau (author of an essay entitled “Resistance to Civil Government” (1849), in which he criticized the war (1846-1848) that the United States have waged against Mexico and its citizens called for civil disobedience). In his criticism of big government and state prerogatives, Mencken echoed Benjamin Tucker.
Finally, his stubborn defense of individual liberties including freedom of expression can bring both the anarchists of the right than a Emma Goldman, for which he also had the greatest respect. Its originality is perhaps something else. His impassioned defense of American values – freedom, autonomy and anti-statism – if sincerely held, is not exceptional, but it is imbued with his reading of youth. For Mencken, as we know, spent his childhood and adolescence, that is to say, the 1890s, to devour books.  His insatiable curiosity has led Mark Twain to Nietzsche, from Henry Adams, William Sumner and Herbert Spencer – the father of social Darwinism. It would take too long to explain here in detail the impact of these thinkers and writers on Mencken. Nevertheless Mencken’s anarchism, it is undeniable, is strongly imbued with the ideas of Nietzsche on democracy and its nihilism, printed by the social Darwinism of Spencer, influenced by the great liberal economic theories – laissez-faire – in short, all influenced by the dominant values of America where he grew up. And perhaps eventually the ability to make a synthesis between the great American values and common ideas in vogue at the turn of the century, making this Mencken empêcheur think in circles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
· Bode, Carl. The New Mencken Letters . New York: The Dial P, 1977.
 
· Cain, William E.  “A Lost Voice of Dissent.HL Mencken in Our Time. “Sewanee Review. (Spring 1996): 229-47.
 
· De Leon, David. The American as Anarchist . Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
 
· Douglas, George H. HL Mencken, Critic of American Life . Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1978.
 
· Epstein, Joseph. “Rediscovering Mencken”. Commentary (April 1977): 47-52.
 
· Forgue, Guy Jean, ed. Letters of HL Mencken . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961.
 
· Hobson, Fred. Mencken, a Life . New York: Random House, 1994.
 
· Mencken, Henry Louis. Notes on Democracy . New York: Octagon, 1977.
 
· —. A Mencken Chrestomathy . New York: Vintage, 1982.
 
· Parrish, Michael E. Anxious Decades, in America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941. New York: Norton, 1992.
 
· Richard, François. Les Anarchistes de droite . [1991]. Paris : PUF, 1997.
 
· Williams, William HA HL Mencken Revisited. New York: Twayne, 1998.
NOTES
[1] In Democracy in America, it analyzes the U.S. political system as he had seen during his trip to the United States in 1831. In the chapter entitled “The tyranny of the majority”, he explains how the desire to create a democracy eventually led the U.S. to plebiscite the majority opinion to stifle all dissent, protest or simply original.
 
[2]In the twenties, they defended a literal interpretation of the Bible, going to ban the teaching of Darwinian theory – evolutionary – in some states. Scopes, a biology professor who had agreed to defy the fundamentalists and teaching Darwin’s theories in Tennessee, was tried in 1925. The Scopes trial – or Monkey Trial – was an opportunity for Mencken to deploy all its verve and fun of the fundamentalists and their figurehead, the old populist politician William J. Bryan ( Chrestomathy 246).

     

© Cairn.info 2009

Updated News Digest November 22, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”

“The first forty years of life give us the text; the next thirty supply the commentary on it.”

“We can come to look upon the deaths of our enemies with as much regret as we feel for those of our friends, namely, when we miss their existence as witnesses to our success.”

                                                                            -Arthur Schopenhauer

War: Our Chief Industry by Justin Raimondo

Obama and Liberal Chickenhawks Michael Hasting interviewed by Scott Horton

FIRE TO THE PRISONS  Issue # 7 

Edward Abbey, Conservative Anarchist by Bill Croke

A Short Discussion With a Stranger by Luke SD

Police State U.S.A. by Tom Engelhardt and Alfred McCoy

Internet Under Siege by Philip Giraldi

Pathology and Ideology: Hasan and Anarchist Assassin Leon Czolgosz by Evan Matthew Daniel

The Trial of the Century by Justin Raimondo

Israel Lobby Still Pushing Iran War by Philip Giraldi

Why Do They Hate Us? Israel!! Ray McGovern interviewed by Scott Horton

History Promises Disaster in Afghanistan for Blind America by John MacArthur

The Myth of Racist Kids (thanks, Ean!)

A Visit to Christiania by two Tasmanian National-Anarchists

Inspiration from Maine by Christopher Ketcham (thanks, Peter!)

War After Economic Bust? by Ryan Huang

Why the Democrats Now Dominate American Politics by Peter Beinart

Red Taliban by Siddharth Srivastava

Cultural Marxists Attempt to Censor Heidegger by Patricia Cohen

Black-On-Black Slavery from the BBC

The Seattle Quality of the Copenhagen Mobilization by Naomi Klein

The Stag Party Is Over by Mike Payne

Newt Gingrich Takes Out Another Contract on America by Harrison Bergeron 2

New Publications on Greece’s 2008 Revolt from Infoshop.Org

The Principality of Hutt River 

Class Struggle in the Service Sector from Infoshop.Org

Confronting the Prison-Industrial Complex from Angola 3 News

Crisis of the Capitalist System: Where Do We Go From Here? by Immanuel Wallerstein

We Need Health Care, Not Insurance by Carol Miller

Shining a Light on the Roots of Terrorism by Ray McGovern

Doctors Light Up by Norm Kent

Torture Resisters Arrested at Fort Huachuca by Brenda Norrell

The Ayn Rand I Knew by Ralph Raico

Reading the Af-Pak Tea Leaves by Jeff Huber

Obama’s Fractured Israel Policy by Daniel Larison

Obama Is Haunted By Gorbachev’s Ghost in Afghanistan by James Fergusson

Ex-Islamic Radicals on What Motivates and Impedes Extremism by Glenn Greenwald

To the Brink and Back Again  by Johann Hari

The New State Solution by Chris Hedges

Israeli Racists and the Demographic Demon by Uri Avnery

Why the McKrystal Plan Will Fail by Conn Hallinan

Obama’s China Junket by Mike Whitney

The Bogus Success of the Surge by Ray McGovern

The Historic Right to Nationhood by Ron Ridenour

A First Look at the Military Commissions Act by Joanne Mariner

With Enemies Like This, Who Needs Friends? by Kevin Carson

Why Anarchists Should Hurrah the Recession by Alex R. Night

First U.S. Marijuana Cafe Opens in Portland by Tom Johansmeyer

How to Buy a Used Firearm (and why you should) by Chuck Hawks

The U.S. Military Threatens the Entire Planet by Rick Rozoff

Against the Armies of Multiculturalism and Social Justice by Walter Block

Obama, Don’t Lecture China On Censorship by Dave Lindorff

Teuton and Gaul Will Never Fight Again by Eric Margolis

A Case for Secession-Introduction by Patrick Samuels

Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting by Doug Samuels

And You Thought Getting Into Harvard Was Tough by David Kramer

NEVER Call the Police for Help by William Norman Grigg

More Green Will Cost You More Green by David Kramer

Palin Drinks the Neocon Kool-Aid by James Ostrowski

Palin’s Paradox by Christopher Manion

Crooked Cops Shooting Fish in a Barrel by Karen De Coster

NEVER Ask the Police for Help, Continued by William Norman Grigg

Rothschild/Warburn Mouthpiece ADL Mouths Off by David Kramer

NEVER Talk to the Police: They’re Trained to Lie by William Norman Grigg

Afghanistan, Iraq Near Bottom of Corruption Index by Jim Lobe

The View from China by Robert Dreyfuss

Our National Cognitive Dissonance by Jeff Huber

I Fought the Law…And I Won by Steve Bierfeldt

An Anarchist’s Story: The Life of Ethel MacDonald by Chris Dolan

Steel Workers Consider Worker-Run Cooperatives by Andrew McLeod

Arianna’s PC Delta Force by David Nathan

Let’s Get Fiscal by Mike Whitney

Fear in Nicaragua by Danny Weil

Rush to Judgement on Terror Trials by Walter Brasch

Some Thoughts on Obamastan by Alex R. Knight

Common Sense Isn’t Common Anymore! by Dave Chappell

Father Abraham Had Many Sons by Thomas Knapp

Magazine Editor Questions Global Warming, Hysteria Ensues by James Delingpole

Sick of Military Double Speak? by Laurence Vance

PIG Tases 10 Year Old Girl 

Hitler, Bush, and Obama by Jacob Hornberger

Leviathan’s Orphans by William Norman Grigg

The War on Switzerland by Mike Rozeff

The Recession Creeps Across the Land by Stephen Carson

Private School Students Learn About Martial Law by William Norman Grigg

Lou Dobbs is Antiwar Now! by Karen De Coster

The Gitmo Trial: Why Now? by Justin Raimondo

Hey, I Know! Let’s Have a Show Trial! by Arthur Silber

Ditch Tribunals Entirely by Anthony Romero

Obama’s Extrajudical Killers by Nat Hentoff

Is Our Children Learning? by Pat Buchanan

It’s Show Trial Time! by Alexander Cockburn

Secession from Obamamerica by Zach Jones

It’s a War on the Poor! by James Brittain

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic interviews Paul Gottfried

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody

Potential for Criminal Behavior Evident at Age 3 

Ernst Junger 

National Liberal Part-The Third Way 

Red Toryism: A Lesson for the Left? 

American Indians Object to Loss of Identity 

Is France’s Identity Debate a Call to the Far Right? 

Mark Steyn and the Limits of Neoconservatism

Journal: Loyalty? from John Robb

Fort Hood: Pre-Westphalian Loyalties or Postal Rage? by John Robb

PIGS Taser Unarmed Man to Death 

Are There More Universes? from New Scientist

Somali Woman Stoned for Adultery 

U.S. Residents Fight for the Right to Hang Laundry 

When the Left Was Right from American Conservative

Conservative Ralph Nader by Jack Hunter

Wendell Berry: Against the Death Penalty

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage 

Top Ten Evil Human Experiments 

Strategies and Tactics at the World Trade Organization 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Are Men More Intelligent Than Women? 4

John Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn say yes, but Adrian Farnham says no. What do you think? Does it matter?

My position on this has always been to promote meritocracy. Whether women (or blacks or Mexicans or some other group) are on average less intelligent or not, if someone from a group whose average intelligence is lower than others can still rise according to their own abilities, then what does it matter? For instance, if women, blacks, or others are individually capable of being great scholars, scientists, inventors, or artists, and no one prevents them from doing so, then what else is there to be concerned about?

Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! 7

by David Graeber

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life.

* If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent — which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short:
anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an
anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society — at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public
relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

“It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others…” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.
Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over
the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no”, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but
second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

Global Warming, Peak Oil, and HIV=AIDS Denialism 6

I recently came across this George Will column pointing out how in the 1970s, there was an emerging scientific consensus on the inevitability of “global cooling.”

Of course, we all know that today it is “global warming” that it supposed to be the big ecological issue.  Many deniers of the global warming hypothesis are considered to be shills for the petroleum industry, but Alexander Cockburn has argued that some from the “global warming alarmist” crowd can be accused of being similar shills for the nuclear industry.

The other big doomsday scenario currently being promoted is Peak Oil. At the North American Secessionist Conference in 2008, I heard Sebastian Ronin give a comprehensive and convincing overview of the case for the theory of Peak Oil. Yet there are serious arguments for the other side as well.

Another interesting scientific controversy of this type is the HIV=AIDS denial movement. The most important figure in this movement is probably Dr. Peter Duesberg. According to Duesberg and others of this camp, AIDS is caused not by HIV, but by malnutrition, drug abuse, congenital problems like heart disease and hemophilia or, in some cases, anti-AIDS drugs themselves. There does seem to be some evidence to support this theory, like the case of Lindsay Nagel. The problem is that for every case that seems to detract from HIV=AIDS orthodoxy, there are others that seem to confirm the orthodox position, like that of Christine Maggiore

So what’s the real story with all of these different controversies? I have no idea, and I have no relevant credentials, experience, or training in fields that would allow me to make an educated guess about the “truth” on these questions. What do readers think?

Updated News Digest November 15, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quote of the Week:

“Humanity only finds peace in death. Life is struggle.”

                                                                           -Chris Donnellan

“The prevailing idea of what it means to be modern is a post-Christian myth. Christians have always held that there is only one path of salvation, that it is disclosed in history, and that it is open to all. In these respects, Christianity differs radically from the religious and philosophies of the ancient world and from non-western faiths.

In the polytheistic cults of the Greeks and Romans, it was accepted that humans will always live different ways. When there are many gods no way of life is bonding on all. Worshipping one god, Christians have always believed that only one way of life can be right.

“Enlightenment thinkers like to see themselves as modern pagans, but they are really latter-day Christians: they too aim to save mankind. The ancient pagans did not believe that the mass of mankind could be saved. Or, for that matter, that it was worth saving.”
                                                                                 -John Gray

The Fall of the Berlin Wall Did Not Kill Off the Totalitarian Left by Melanie Phillips

Society After State-Capitalism: Resilient Communities and Local Economies by Kevin A. Carson

Depression, Secession, Revolution Gerald Celente interviewed by Lew Rockwell

An Anarchist on “National Defense by Wendy McElroy

Can Attacks on a Military Base Constitute “Terrorism”? by Glenn Greenwald

How Maine Sprouted a Militia by Christopher Ketcham (hat tip to Brady Campbell)

Camille Paglia: Last of the Open-Minded Liberals by Danny Huddleston

Evil Empire by Paul Craig Roberts

A Call to the Alternative Right by Paul Gottfried

The Cultural Revolution Is Complete by Richard Spencer

Black Metal: A Weapon in the Cultural Arsenal of the Revolution? by Alex Kurtagic (more on metal from Nina Kouprianova)

Morality vs Material Interests by Paul Craig Roberts

Stop the Mexodus-Legalize Marijuana! by Brenda Walker

Monetary Crime Bosses by Murray Rothbard

One in a Hundred by Alexander Cockburn

Dixie and Vermont: Contrasting Styles of Secession  by Ron Miller

Obama Fails to Reset Foreign Policy by Melvin A. Goodman

Israel Routs Obama As the Dollar Dies by Paul Craig Roberts

Afghanistan’s Sham Army by Chris Hedges

The Deal with Iran by Robert Dreyfuss

Israel’s Apartheid Is Worse Than South Africa’s by Yitzak Laor

More Troops? Only if U.S. Wants More Afghan Chaos from Detroit Free Press

Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans by Patrick Cockburn

The War at Home by Justin Raimondo

A Day That Shook the World by Eric Margolis

How To Demilitarize Your Church by Laurence Vance

The FBI’s Hippie-Anarchist Twitter Raid from David Kramer

U.K. PIGS Report Pregnant Woman to Social Services Over a Half-Decorated Home from David Kramer

Stop, Look, Listen Before Jumping Into the Afghan Abyss by Justin Raimondo

A Year With Obama and U.S. Foreign Relations Have Gotten Worse by William Pfaff

Why Most Counterinsurgency Wars Fail by Ivan Eland

Israel Is About to Get What It Wished For by Stephen Walt

America’s Alliances Are Costly Relics by Justin Logan

Wanna Get Laid? Avoid Women With College Degrees! from Entitled to An Opinion

Supposedly Reactionary, Homophobic Salt Lake City Passes Gay Rights Law with Mormon Church Endorsement from Richmond Times-Dispatch

PIGS Have a Good Time at Taxpayer Expense from Richmond Times-Dispatch

Is the Day of Great Leaders Past? by Chuck Baldwin

Leftoids Rally Against Free Speech from IndyMedia

The Legacy of Albert Parsons by Joseph Grosso

To Be Young and Unemployed Forever by Carl Ginsburg

The Totalitarian Trotsky by Ray Mangum

Another Ivy League Professor Loses It Over Race by James J. O’Meara

The Blackwater Plot Thickens by Jeremy Scahill

Newspaper is Punished for Criticizing Iraqi Leader by Glenn Greenwald

The U.S. Invasion of the Vatican by Jacob Hornberger

Why Die for Karzai? by Tom Hayden

Obama’s Arrogance of Power by Gene Healy

Is Israel too Strong for Obama?  from the Economist

Without War We Are Nothing, Apparently by Alex Massie

Middle Class Resorts to Shoplifting to Keep Up Appearances by Adam Fresco (go middle class!!)

D.C. To Pay $450,000 to 8 Antiwar Protestors Who Were Interrogation Victims from News Channel 8

The Crafting of a Loophole by Andrew Cockburn

A Small “d” Depression by Mike Whitney

Ten States Going Bankrupt

The Truth About the House Health Care Bill by Rose Ann DeMoro

The Dalai Lama Sticks His Thumb in the Dragon’s Eye by Peter Lee

General Electric Goes Green from David Kramer (now we’ve seen everything!)

Taser Nation by Karen DeCoster

U.S. Out of North America? by Thomas Knapp

When Dictatorship Came to America by Thomas DiLorenzo

On General Labor and Socially Created Value by Kevin Carson

Conservatives Blindly Support “Our Troops” In Defense of the Big Lie by Kevin Copenhagen

The Legal Caste Strikes Out on This One by Bill Anderson

Health Insurance: Solution, or Part of the Problem? by Saul Weiner

Why Students Don’t Like School..Well, Duhhh! by Peter Gray

Why Switzerland Is Still Free and American Is Not by Ron Holland

Free Switzerland  by Heidi (more on the Swiss, and more)

The Odd Couple: Chinese Communism and Capitalism by David Kramer

Chinese Government Invokes Lincoln to Justify Oppression of Tibet by Tom Di Lorenzo (wow!)

 Libertarianism and Identity by Richard Hoste

Snitches in the Native Youth Movement from Infoshop.Org

Failing the People on Health Care by Ralph Nader

Political Correctness: The Bomb That Exploded at Fort Hood by Patroon

Meeting Our Afghan Ally: Stealing, Selling Heroin and Raping Boys by Patrick Cockburn

The Militarization of Mental Health by Mary Lynn Cramer

Pot Doc Down by Fred Gardner

Godless China: What Obama Will Find by John V. Walsh

Paramilitaries in Colombia by Charles R. Larsen

Minority Report by Ray Mangum

Kentucky Joins the Nullification Movement by Michael Boldin

“Guilty” of Scaring Undercover PIGS by William Norman Grigg

Middle Schoolers Jailed for Food Fight by Lew Rockwell

The Winds of Change Die Down (It was all hot air to begin with) by Justin Raimondo

Not Every Tragedy is Terrorism  by Charles Pena

Say Nyet to Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

23 CIA PIGS on the Run After Italian Conviction for Kidnapping Scott Horton interviewed by Scott Horton

What Do These Religiously Motivated Terrorist Acts Tell Us? by Glenn Greenwald

Obama’s Betrayals  by Sheldon Richman

150 Years of Accumulated Reasons to Secede  by Russ Longcore

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Jonathan Bowden on Heidegger and Death’s Ontology

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six,

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

“Two Can Keep a Secret If One of Them Is Dead.” -Hell’s Angels (attributed)

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

No Nation Can Liberate Another by Malalai Joya

Jewish Anti-Semitism by Uzi Silber

A Crisis Made by Neoliberalism by Michael Yates and Fred Magdoff

90,000 Casualties, But Who’s Counting? by Kelley B. Vlahos

Casualties of Diversity  by Jack Hunter

The Fall of the Wall  from Front Porch Republic

Tasmanian Autonomous Zone 

Framed for Child Porn by a PC Virus 

Joblessness May Reach 13% in U.S. 

Church Electioneering 

German-American Internee Coalition 

Plowing Detroit Into Farmland 

Global Guerrillas: TRIBES! 

Supporters of the Lakota Indian Independence Movement 

Ukrainian Christian National-Anarchism 

Religious Affilitiation by Ethnicity in the United States 

Is the History of Psychiatry a Big Mess? 

Landing a Job Is Like Getting Into Harvard

Dennis Kucinich: Why I Voted No on the Health Care Bill 

Designer Vagina Trend “Worrying” 

German Neo-Nazis: “We’re Pro-Israel, Condemn Anti-Semitism” 

Fight Against Workplace Prejudice for Alternative People 

Karl Marx Vs Political Correctness 

One Million Strong for the Separation of Corporation and State 

Dissolve the United States of America 

North American Secessionist Conference 2010 

Sweden Paying Immigrants to Leave 

The Origins of Sesame Street in Cultural Marxism 

Judge Orders Phoenix Church to Stop Feeding the Homeless 

Final Hour Lap Dances for Hasan

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Camille Paglia: Last of the Open-Minded Liberals 4

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/camille_paglia_last_of_the_ope.html

by Danny Huddleston

[Keith: While I agree with much of the analysis in this, I disagree that the economic policies of the Obamaites can rightfully be classified as “socialist” or “communist.” Obamanomics is closer to corporatism, or “state-capitalism,” i.e. fascism. As an example see this critique of Obamacare  from a more authentic leftist-socialist perspective from Dennis Kucinich. Obama is just as much a stooge for the banksters as Bush was. However, the Obamaites do represent a coming to power of Cultural Marxism derived from the New Left, so some of the confusion on this question found on the Right is understandable if inaccurate.]

What would you call an acknowledged member of the intellectual elite who is skeptical of global warming, likes to listen to Rush Limbaugh, has an ongoing battle with the feminist establishment and is a fan of Sarah Palin? I would call her the last of the open minded liberals. Don’t get the wrong idea, she’s no dittohead. And she has some controversial and disturbing ideas that would be right at home in the far left universe. But what she doesn’t do is blindly follow today’s liberal orthodoxy. Her answer is similar to the main theme of many of her other recent columns. She has some harsh words for those around Obama and some of his policies while still holding out hope that he can turn it all around, as reflected in this comment: “Count me among those who are very critical of many of Obama’s actions or evasions but who continue to like him and to believe in his potential as a world leader.” A good example of her disdain for those around Obama can be found in this excerpt from a column she wrote in March of this year:

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons — his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship. Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama’s first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)

Interestingly this is not the first Democrat administration that Camille has had a problem with. In a 1995 interview in Playboy she was asked: “Were you optimistic when Clinton was elected?” Her answer:
 
Of course. We finally had a great opportunity. It was a chance to rethink everything that had failed as a result of the shoddy thinking in the Sixties and to try again with a new, reasoned approach. The Clinton administration should have been a think tank for the nation–he himself should have led the debate, reaffirming all Sixties ideals but correcting them where they had become excessive. It’s a tragedy that he didn’t. Instead of surrounding himself with progressive intellectuals, he surrounded himself with Eighties yuppies–like George Stephanopoulos, whom I loathe with a passion. I wish Clinton would fire everyone around him. I want a Saturday night massacre. I hate them all. But Clinton has totally lost the persona of leadership. It’s pathetic. He’s looking like a salesman.
 
It’s deja vu all over again, she has a chronic case of buyer’s remorse.

Notice her criticism of the Clinton administration extends all the way to the guy at the top. She even criticized Clinton for not resigning after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But today with her critique of the Obama administration she stops short of blaming Obama himself. It will be interesting to see if this changes in the future.

Why do influential liberals like Camille continue to give Obama a pass? Clearly Obama and those he has surrounded himself with are far more radical than the Clinton administration was. A new video has surfaced showing Anita Dunn, the White House communications director extolling the virtues of Mao Tse-Tung. This is just the latest in a string of marxists and radicals found serving in the Obama White House.

There is a logical reason the Obama administration is far more radical than the Clinton administration was. It is the culmination of a decades long trend. Professor Paglia’s colleagues in academia have been a little too successful in their efforts to change our culture. Many parts of American society including political parties — particularly the Democrat Party — have been moving to the far left for many years now.

Camille and a few other liberals like her who still believe in liberty and freedom and reject political correctness have been shut out of the debate. No one is listening.

Her writings are filled with heartfelt questions for her party. Some may wonder if her thought process is taking her down the same road that Robin of Berkeley traveled recently? That’s not likely, Camille has traveled too far as a Democrat. Here are some of her pleas to the Democrat establishment from her September 9th column:

Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? […] It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings.

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

How has “liberty” become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? […] I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party — but I must be living in the nostalgic past. […]

[A]ffluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible.
 
It’s almost painful to read the lamentations of a JFK Democrat pleading with today’s Democrat establishment. Camille doesn’t realize that the Democrat party has been taken over by leftists. She believes that Obama is a pragmatic rational liberal like herself and all his missteps to date come from the bad advice he’s been getting from his inept advisers.

The idea that Obama’s problems may be self-inflicted is probably too terrible for her to contemplate. Camille doesn’t realize that Obama is a product of the new Democrat Party. The Democrat party of her youth is no more. It has been replaced with a party that is flirting with socialism and dare we say it — communism. Camille is shocked that the anti-establishment hippies of the 60’s now see no problem giving up their freedom to a huge government bureaucracy. Perhaps it’s because those hippies from the ’60s have become the establishment.

As the Democratic Party continues to ignore the advice of open-minded liberals like Camille Paglia and heads down the self-destructive path of radicalism there is a valuable lesson here for conservatives. We should always vote for the most conservative candidate we can find because once he or she gets to Washington . . .

Well, you know what happens. Surrounded by the trappings of seemingly unlimited federal power politicians from both parties seem to be inexorably pulled to the left. Even Reagan couldn’t get rid of the Department of Energy.

Updated News Digest November 8, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quote of the Week:

    I Like this quote I dislike this quote“The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play. There is no more appalling caricature of freedom of thought. Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to want to think, and this they consider freedom.”

                                                                                     -Oswald Spengler

The Paranoid Style in Center-Left Politics by Jesse Walker

Secret Aristocracies: Junger vs Sartre by Dominique Venner

Ellsberg: Obama Fears Military Revolt by Sari Gelzer

Obama Continues Bush Administration Policy Regarding Posse Comitatus by Joe Wolverton III

Why Does the U.S. Have an Empire in Asia? by Paul Craig Roberts

Tortured in Far Off Countries: Obama Continues Bush Rendition Policies by Sherwood Ross

Ongoing U.S. Efforts to Protect and Coddle Israel by Glenn Greenwald

Hoh’s Afghanistan Warning  by Ralph Nader

A Look at Tenant Organizing and the New Gentrification by Andrea Gibbons

U .K. Anarchists Attack Probation Office, Bank from Infoshop.Org

Sch0ol Makes You Stupid by Walter Williams

A Progressive-Libertarian Party in 2010? interview with Gerald Celente

Why the Innocent Flee From the Police  by William Norman Grigg

The Disenfranchised Antiwar Voter by Justin Raimondo

The Media as Ennablers of Government Lies by James Bovard

Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act by Chuck Baldwin

The New Economy by Richard Spencer

Too Fat to Fight by Alexander Cockburn

The Battle of Seattle: Ten Years Later by Mike Whitney

Big Brother in England to Spy on “Deadbeat Dads” by Tom Whitehead (hat tip to David Heleniak)

An Opportunity for Secession by Robert Eschauzier

George W. Obama by Jack Hunter

Victimless Crimes-More G20 Cases Fall Apart from Infoshop.Org

Hollow Victory by John J. Mearsheimer

From Lifestylism to Insurrection from Infoshop.Org

Iraqi Christians: Long History, Precarious Future by Genevieve Pollock

Murderous Idealism by Paul Hollander

Nietzsche’s Dionysian Faith by Stephen N. Williams

Keeping Afghanistan Safe From Democracy by Robert Scheer

Why Does AIPAC Spy on Americans? by Grant Smith

Europe Wants Out of Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

Unicorns in Kabul by George F. Will

The Tragedy of Leonard Peltier vs the U.S. from Infoshop.Org

Secession: Timing Is Everthing by Russell Longcore

Starved Into the Army by Sandy Leon Vest

Most U.S. Youth Unfit to Serve in Army, Says Pentagon by Laurence Vance

Authority Worship by Butler Shaffer

Book Review: The Assassination of Fred Hampton from Infoshop.Org

Cowardly PIGS Torture Teen-aged Hero by William Norman Grigg

Prosecutors: A Protected Criminal Class by William Norman Grigg

Breckenridge, Colorado Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana by Eric Garris

PIGS vs Punks in Gainesville, Florida from Infoshop.Org

Libertarian Shot in the Back by PIG by Eric Garris

Dangerous People Needed by David Swanson

Exhibiting Genuine Tolerance by John Derbyshire

Class Struggle Anarchist Conference Report from Infoshop.Org

Whither the Alternative Right? by Jack Hunter

RE: Whither the Alternative Right? by Dylan Hales

The Practical Considerations of Building an Effective Anarchist Program from Infoshop.Org

Not a Revolution by Richard Spencer

The GOP’s Dumb New Image by Ellison Lodge

Government Will Default on Its Debts by Gary North

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray Rothbard

Jim Rogers Says Currency Crisis Is on the Way by Lindsay Whipp

Japan Is Ready to Topple by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

 Another FED/Goldman-Sachs Rip-Off by Matt Taibbi

Canadian PIG Tortures Teen-Aged Girl by William Norman Grigg

CIA Seeks Manhunters to Assassinate Enemies of the State by David Kramer

U.S. Adopts Obsolete Counterinsurgency Doctrine in Afghanistan by Justin Raimondo

Hillary’s Ill Will Tour by Justin Raimondo

Member of Pagans MC Killed by PIGS by Mark Holmberg

The American Way of Abandonment by Pat Buchanan

The Sleep of Reason Produces Heidegger by Ray Mangum

Roman Orgy by Taki Theodoracopulos

Dying to Serve by Craig Hulet

Another Target of the Police State by Lew Rockwell

Undercover PIGS Engaged in Undercover Repression by William Norman Grigg

Grand New Pagan by Richard Spencer

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Mutualism: The Anarchism of Approximations 

Steelworkers Forms Collaboration with Mondragon 

Migrants Going North Now Risk Kidnappings 

The New Temple Prostitution 

Freedom of Speech vs Political Correctness/Corruption 

Is Economics the New Culture War? 

The U.S. is a Banana Republic 

An Ordinary Israel 

Americans Against the American Way of Life 

Battered on Wedding Day for Being a Goth 

The Revenge of Karl Marx 

Being Grumpy is Good for You 

What Is a Fascist? 

Despicable Baltimore PIG and more 

The Process Church of the Final Judgement 

Glenn Beck interviews Sam Beck of the Communist Party U.S.A.

Nestor Ivanovich Makhno: Ukrainian Anarchist Guerrilla Fighter 

Cercle Pierre-Joseph Proudhon 

Mouvement Anarchiste Bakouniniste 

I Support These 137 Nations That Want to Be Free

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

New Statement of Purpose for AttacktheSystem.Com? 10

Here’s a new statement of purpose I am proposing for AttacktheSystem.Com:

AttacktheSystem.Com is maintained by American Revolutionary Vanguard, a dissident tendency within North American anarchism.  It is our contention that the mainstream of the anarchist movement has become unduly focused on left-wing cultural politics, countercultural lifestyle matters, and liberal pet causes. Consequently, the mainstream of contemporary anarchism has abandoned the central focus of the historic anarchist movement: overthrowing states, ruling classes, and empires. We aim to restore anarchism to the position it held during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centures, that of the premier revolutionary movement in the Western world.

We reject the Left/Right model of the political spectrum and work towards a synthesis of the currently scattered anarchist tendencies. These include anarcho-collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, post-structuralism, Green anarchism, primitivism and neo-tribalism from the Left, and anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-feudalism, national-anarchism, tribal-anarchism, paleo-anarchism and Christian anarchism from the Right. Sympathetic persons from other ideological currents are welcome to participate in our efforts.

The most strategically feasible anarchist movement for contemporary North America would be an anarchist-led, pan-secessionist action emphasizing the principles of radical decentralization and appealing to the legacy of the American Revolution. Its primary class foundations would be the lumpenproletariat, petite bourgeosie, lower proletariat, sinking middle, neo-peasantry and declasse’ sectors, within the context of a broader populist framework.  A struggle rooted in these classes would necessitate a political re-alignment of the populist right, radical center, independent left, and others outside the center-left/center-right paradigm of the existing state and ruling class.

We reject the “culture wars” of mainstream American politics as a rivalry within the upper-middle class which is irrelevant to our revolutionary struggle. Anarchist participation in the “culture wars” is an unnecessary distraction from the struggle at hand. Irreconcilable cultural differences are best handled through individual autonomy, voluntary association, pluralism and peaceful co-existence where possible. Otherwise, secession, local sovereignty, community self-determination, and mutual self-separation should be the rule. Contemporary political science and social science research shows that Americans are currently in the process of self-separating into diverse communities oriented towards the specific interests of those of a particular culture, religion, political affiliation, language, occupation, economic values, age, race, ethnicity, sexuality or preferred way of life. This is how it should be. The natural results of people using their freedom of choice are a pluralistic anarchism, or “anarchism without adjectives.”

We identify as our primary enemies the American regime, the American ruling class and state-capitalist overlords, the international American empire and its accomplices. We therefore support self-determination for all peoples throughout the world, and the struggles of all enemies of imperialism. We stand in ruthless opposition to the domestic American police state, its prison-industrial complex, therapeutic state, legal caste, and the institutions responsible for the dissemination its propaganda, from the state-licensed media to the state-run educational system. We further oppose the ideology of Political Correctness embraced by totalitarian Left which has been appropriated by the forces of liberal-capitalism as the current manifestation of its ideological superstructure. Against this ruling class vision, we offered an alternative vision that is anti-authoritarian, non-Marxist, non-militarist and decentralist.