While reflecting on recent episodes of police misconduct in my community and beyond, I began to think about how much law enforcement agencies resemble the Catholic Church. And no, this is not a pre-St. Patrick’s day Irish joke. Consider the following: The Church and police departments have both become safe havens for criminal abusers of authority. Both are allergic to accountability. Both are hierarchical institutions that value blind obedience and discourage internal dissent. Both focus more on covering their posteriors than they do on removing criminals from their ranks. Finally, neither of these entities truly value input from their respective communities.
I personally find the practice of bestiality to be utterly revolting, only a half step above pedophilia, and I hardly consider a ban on the practice in the name of curbing animal abuse to be any kind of human rights violation. But I do worry when things start getting banned in the name of “equality” given that “equality” along with “health” has become the principal rallying cry of totalitarian humanism.
The change in law reflects the contemporary view of sex as something that can only properly be enjoyed on a basis of equality.
I cautiously predict that the SCOTUS will use this case to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. This will likely be the Roe v Wade of gay marriage. I say “cautiously” because I’m not 100% certain in my prediction. There may be one or two liberal
or centrist justices who think the court stepping in and legalizing gay marriage in toto would be a little too bold at this time. But it will happen eventually either way.
Supporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party’s platform.
“The unspoken power dynamics in a police/civilian encounter will generally favor the police, unless the civilian is a local sports hero, the mayor, or a giant who is impervious to bullets.” ~ Journalist Justin Peters
From time to time throughout history, individuals have been subjected to charges (and eventual punishment) by accusers whose testimony was treated as infallible and inerrant. Once again, we find ourselves repeating history, only this time, it’s the police whose testimony is too often considered beyond reproach and whose accusations have the power to render one’s life over.
by Keith Preston
Perhaps the principal source of divsion between anarcho-capitalists and socialist-anarchists in the classical tradition relates to the question of who should control what the Marxists call the “means of production.” Anarcho-capitalists More…
If only all leaders of resistance movements had the level of competence and vision as this man.
The Minister Louis Farrakhan, 79, delivered his annual Saviors’ Day sermon on Sunday. As is usually the case, the three-hour address covered a variety of topics ranging from current events to the faith leader’s contentious views on race relations. Of particular note was an economic plan he posited — one in which African Americans would come together to invest in land — and a pledge to reach out to gang leaders to ask them for assistance in protecting the Nation of Islam’s interests.
by Keith Preston
Like the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, I very much recognize the importance of non-state property rights as a bulwark against the ongoing centralization and accumulation of state power. But where I part company with More…
“”Women account for $7 trillion in consumer and business spending… account for 85% of all consumer purchases… control more than 60% of all personal wealth in the U.S.” On top of this, 2011 data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showed women comprising 51.8 percent of employees in advertising and related services. In the 2006 update to Backlash, Susan Faludi wrote, “Hanes even persuaded a NOW official to endorse its ‘liberating’ pantyhose.”
‘A remarkable piece of apparatus’
Next year is the 100th anniversary of Kafka’s “In the Penal Colony.” We were introduced to someone identified only as “the officer,” who zealously outlined the workings of a torture device.
Forty nine years later, “The Sexual Sell” from The Feminine Mystique referred to the manipulator: “a man who is paid approximately a million dollars a year for his professional services in manipulating the emotions of American women to serve the needs of business.” An actual person, he personified the targeting of women in marketing and the advertising industry.
Last month there was a research report from Ruth Milkman, Stephanie Luce and Penny Lewis on the economic background of people who participated in some #OWS events in New York City. The New York Times and other press outlets picked up on one of the report’s findings — that
More than a third of the people who participated in Occupy Wall Street protests in New York lived in households with annual incomes of $100,000 or more … and more than two-thirds had professional jobs. Over on Facebook, Thaddeus Russell’s quick commentary on the story was:
New York Times: InOccupy,Well-Educated Professionals Far Outnumbered Jobless, Study Finds
Thaddeus Russell: There has never been a political movement in the United States in which this wasn’t the case.
Last August, the NYPD announced they’d partnered with Microsoft to create an elaborate city-wide spying/surveillance program, called the Domain Awareness System. The program provides the department with access to over 3,000 public and private security cameras, information that’s then instantly cross-referenced with criminal and terrorist databases, 911 call histories, license plate scanning machines, and radiation monitors.
All of this information is presented immediately, with a reportedly easy-to-understand (cop-friendly) design, across computers in the program’s lower Manhattan headquarters. When Bloomberg announced the program, he added that New York City, which invested $30 – $40 million in the system, hoped to turn a profit by eventually licensing the software – New York gets a 30% cut of profits — to other cities. Now, based on a report from the Associated Press, the push to sell the program is in full swing, and not just to other cities; Microsoft is also looking to license it to private companies that manage large events.
This article unintentionally gets to the point. This is why I am pro-Second Amendment. I don’t give a damn about hunting or burglars. I hate the NRA as much as most liberals do. Most conservative gun rights advocates are also cop-loving, flag-waving jingoists. Fuck ’em. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the final showdown with the System.
“Wonder if gun advocates would be so blithe about asserting this interpretation of the Second Amendment if it were being advanced by, say, black separatists or animal rights ultras or Native Americans demanding their land back?”
No problem here.
Kudos to National Review’s Kevin Williamson for coming right out and articulating the “conservative” (for once the quote marks are truly necessarily) perspective that is usually left just beneath the surface of the GOP’s and the gun lobby’s position on regulation of firearms:
“I think bourgeois Americans are not as conservative as Hoppe assumes that are in some of his writings. Even with today’s dominant social values, most Americans would not want to live by rules as strict and culturally rightwing as he implies would be common.
I heard Hoppe say in a talk once that the drug war would be impossible without a state. Conservatives might support a drug war with socialized costs, but they won’t incur the costs themselves to wage a crusade against this personal activity. I think without a state, social oppression is possible but the costs become much more personalized. For social oppression to thrive without the state requires authoritarian pressures running through the culture. It is possible but exhausting. The more these authoritarian currents are softened through free trade, migrations, social interactions, the internet, the media, and so forth, the harder it is to maintain voluntary authoritarianism of the kind we see some rightwing libertarians advocate. A covenant rule against homosexual activity, for example, is possible in a small community, but has a limit to its enforceability, especially insofar as the other values of a free society thrive in the community.
I predict that if we abolished the state today, there’d be private communities with more conservative social pressures than I would personally favor, and probably even a few that we might consider anarcho-fascist. But I think they would be on the fringe, and they would tend to liberalize over time. If there are covenants that don’t allow gays or whatever, they would be few and far between even in modern conservative America A society as free as it would need to be simply to let go of the state would tend toward authoritarianism breaking down on the local level as well. If the truly oppressive social relations were stubborn in this regard, I and other libertarians would probably agitate for peacefully encouraging a move away from reactionary social norms.
To provide a quick background to the slave morality/master morality dichotomy. Firstly, this concept was described by Friedrich Nietzsche to explain a dichotomy between deontological ethics and consequentialism in relation to how Nietzsche viewed aspects of human behavior.
To Nietzsche master morality was the morality of the powerful. It emphasizes individual autonomy, hostility toward the mentality of the herd, the will to live for this life instead of an abstract afterlife and also a sense of self-improvement which had little regard for the lower born. As a “morality of consequences” (E.g. that of consequentialism), intentions counted for little among those practicing master-morality because results were ultimately all that mattered. Those who practive master morality seek to transcend their oppressors and do not simply seek to transform their oppressors into slaves who are in the same position as themselves.
Slave-morality, on the other hand, was the morality of the slaves and the herd. It emphasized duty, collectivization, herd-conformity, and was the morality of the weak. As a deontological ethical system (E.g. one focused more on duty than results), it was chiefly focused on a persons intentions and often meant seeking justice and rewards in the next life than this one as rewards for “good moral conduct”. Those practicing slave morality do not seek to transcend oppressors, but to simple transform them into slaves in the same position as themselves.
The various branches of the social justice movement place a great emphasis upon equality. In a sense, equality is presented as an ethical obligation on an axiomatic basis. What is rarely ever questioned however, is whether it is *always* desirable from a pragmatic analytical perspective in terms of its consequences.
Bradley Manning has slipped off the media’s radar, and not because he isn’t newsworthy: his “trial”—which has now reached its 1000th day – has been conducted largely in secret, with motions classified and testimony not available to the general public. This underscores the significance of and motive behind Manning’s “crime,” and highlights the fear his heroism inspires in his persecutors: the “crime” of truth-telling, and the terror truth inspires in our political class.
A recent exchange between some leftists and myself on the FB page of libertarian exemplar Anthony Gregory. Check it out if you wish.
I myself am an ardent reader of antiwar.com and have spent untold hours listening to the Scott Horton show. As my initial post on WWI historical revisionism might indicate I take war-revisionism, historical and theoretical, to be of great importance to breaking down a primary buttress of the nation-state ideology: “national defense”. That being said I see very little of use coming from the left on antiwar, simply because most of them are basically more-radical social democrats and liberals who will simply toe the popular line in a modified form. Liberal-tarians like Glenn Greenwald are rare, perhaps even rarer than right-wing anarchists, and they continue to be surprised when the readership of Salon and Mother Goose immediately stops calling things ‘fascist’ when a Democrat is doing them. I think if they could really grasp the nature of politics and political reasoning – as power gaming, social signaling and mating rituals – they would abandon political leftism altogether and simply become anarchists. Look at Paul Gottfried’s excellent article Is a Left-Right Antiwar Coalition Possible? for an evaluation of the possibilities.
I think there is some possibility for a coalition of interests with the left, but not within or oriented toward the existing political and ideological paradigms. Only the anti-liberal left displays serious discontent with the politics of the American state and its anti-racist/anti-sexist totalitarian agendas, and they are a marginalized minority within leftist circles. So long as the left remains staunchly liberal they will remain staunchly useless and counter-productive.
I believe that children can divorce themselves from their parents. The argument of “unable to make decisions” is true of half of the witless retards on this planet. I don’t believe in ‘rights’, but I do believe in the presumption of liberty in any coherent justice system. That presumption applies to any social, communicable being that has not deliberately sold himself into slavery (or murdered someone, etc.) There are only two options on children, in my mind:
- Children are built out of their parents’ materials, and are therefor property like a slave or a chair. This is not inconsistent with propertarian theory, and would extend indefinitely into the future. Presumably, children would default to self-inheritance upon the death of their parents.
- Children, at least ones who have some apparent reasoning and communication skills (it is not necessary that anyone be informed or wise to be at liberty) are utterly free to form and dissolve bonds as any 63 year old rancher would be.
I honestly feel that the decision between the two is logically a toss-up, but practically the second dominates and with good reason. I don’t expect a lot of agreement on this, because Breeders and Moralists are incapable of consistency and critical thought when it comes to kids or sex, but there it is.
Feb 21, 2013
Preface: I was raised to be against guns. My parents hated guns, and believed that they only lead to crime and accidental shootings.
I was raised in a blue state, and I have long been deeply influenced by leading voices for non-violence, such as Gandhi and King. So – until recently – I was pro gun-control.
As such, I was stunned to learn about the historical background behind gun control campaigns.
The Real History of Gun Control
UCLA Constitutional law professor Adam Winkler – whose commentary has been featured on CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, and numerous other outlets, and who is a contributor to The Daily Beast and The Huffington Post – notes (via the Wall Street Journal):
[The history of gun control in America] was a constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and revolt.
I really didn’t want to cover this subject, but a warning has to be issued to Natural News readers. Infowars writer Paul Joseph Watson has uncovered proof that a U.S. based company called “Law Enforcement Training, Inc.” has been selling millions of dollars worth of “no hesitation” targets to the Department of Homeland Security.
These targets (see images below) are used to train DHS employees to shoot American citizens and they depict pregnant women, old men, children and even young moms with guns. The purpose of the targets, according to the company that sells them, is to “eliminate any hesitation” that U.S. government employees might normally feel in shooting to kill pregnant women, children and old men. (I’m not making this up. The government’s plan to murder Americans is now right out in the open…)
InfoWars reports they have been informed the “no hesitation” targets were “strictly for Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies.”