The essence of what American Revolutionary Vanguard-Attack the System is all about:
““But try as much as you like, you can’t ignore the big one—Leviathan—the central state. Eventually it must be tackled head on and this can only be done by a nation-wide mass movement.This does not mean an opposition between local organizations and the larger movement, on the contrary, the latter must be based upon the former. This must be a single issue movement, uniting everyone with a grievance against the state into a movement for the decentralization of power. It must not be allowed to be bogged down by secondary and therefore divisive issues. These can be dealt with by other groups.””
-Larry Gambone, “Sane Anarchy,” 1995
Perpetual war and world empire in the name of humanity, as explained by one of its proponents.
This week, the Barack Obama administration’s most eloquent and ardent advocate for humanitarian intervention overseas, Samantha Power, the ambassador to the United Nations, tweeted the following about the alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack: “Reports devastating: 100s dead in streets, including kids killed by chem weapons. UN must get there fast & if true, perps must face justice.”
Since then, she’s been publicly silent. Apparently, she’s on a previously scheduled, and unfortunately timed, vacation (which a handful of Republicans are casting as a scandal of some sort, Democrats not being allowed to take vacations in August).
Even if she were in town, Power most likely wouldn’t be tweeting, or speaking publicly. The administration is bollixed-up by this latest horrendous news from Syria, and the Pentagon has been pushing hard against the diplomats — John Kerry chief among them — who would like to see more direct American intervention. (For more on Kerry’s argument with the Pentagon, please see this column.)
In a telling anecdote from President Clinton’s first inauguration in 1993, one attending Democrat looked up to watch the Air Force’s fighter jet fly-over and remarked: “Those are our F-15s now.” There was hardly a nationalist Left back then, as many liberals and those even further Left had spent the better part of two decades alienated from the institutions, symbols, and instruments of U.S. power and influence. Over the succeeding two decades, however, we have seen a muscular Left nationalism rise to set liberal foreign policy, and begin to set the Democratic agenda here at home.
Nationalism and patriotism were hard sells to a generation of the disenchanted Left, thanks to the Vietnam War and revelations of assassinations both attempted and successful, coups, and more nefarious activities carried out by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies. There was “Cold War liberalism” for a time, but it rarely if ever made vulgar attempts at jingoism to sell its policies to the wider public. Cold War liberalism always argued to work in concert with the international system that it had helped create. Such jingoism was instead often used by the Right, especially after the Liberal crack-up of the late 1960s when the Cold War liberals became isolated in the halls of the liberal power elite, cut off and opposed to their party’s activists on the Vietnam War, the size of military budget, nuclear weapons, U.S involvement in Central and South America, direct military action in placed like Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the first Gulf War and other foreign policy issues.
What changed the American Left was power, pure and simple.
Globalism versus nationalism is the real issue. Richard Spencer on Russia Today.
With the United States on the verge, once again, of military action in the Middle East, it’s important to look at the Syrian conflict as what it is: the epicenter of a widening regional conflict. The limited U.S. missile strikes expected to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons will sink the United States more deeply than ever into this turbulent quagmire. But there’s no guarantee that inaction would help the Obama administration get out or stay out. The regional players include too many American allies that are too important to U.S. interests, even though many of them are rivals and enemies of each other.
Now, this is funny.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who served under former President George W. Bush and was a key player in the decisions to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Wednesday that President Barack Obama has so far failed to justify U.S. intervention in Syria, telling Fox News‘ Neil Cavuto that the administration’s strategy is “mindless.”
“One thing that’s very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox Business Network.
He argued that intervening in Syria would not aid the United States’ key interests in the Middle East, which he believes are the relationship between Syria and Iran and Iran’s nuclear program.
Libertarianism is, in theory, no defender of the rich and powerful who must always be subject to market competition. As a libertarian who has engaged in countless classroom and online debates, I’ve often asked myself why other people cannot see that. However, I’ve come to understand the reasoning behind the intuitive criticism from the Left that libertarianism is about maintaining current power structures. Libertarianism should not be an apologia for the rich and the status quo – but, on reflection, I have to concede that it is. The issue is not with the theory and ideology of a free market, but problems arise when we deem current economic structures to be reflective of a genuine free-market (and therefore legitimate) when in reality our market economy is rigged by the state on many levels. This is what Roderick Long refers to as ‘conflationism.’ Libertarianism is based upon solid intellectual and theoretical foundations of how a free-market society should operate, but when these free-market arguments are applied to defend the corrupt, cronyist, corporate state rigged market capitalism we have at present, the effect is not to support a free market, it is merely to excuse rent-seeking corporations that are beholden to state power.
People who want more government income redistribution programs often sell their agenda with the lament, “The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer,” but how about some evidence and you decide? I think the rich are getting richer, and so are the poor.
According to the most recent census, about 35 million Americans live in poverty. Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, using several government reports, gives us some insights about these people in his paper: “Understanding Poverty and Economic Inequality in the United States” [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm].
In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.
Median household income is a good test of a household’s economic well-being. Half of households earn more. Half earn less.
With mean average income, the incomes of the rich skew the figure upward. Not with median income.
After four years of the Federal Reserve’s tripling of the monetary base, Americans are worse off today.
What’s that? Worse than in the supposed bottom of the recession? Yes. This report tells the story. Household income is down 4.4%.
Based on new estimates derived from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), real median annual household income, while recovering somewhat from the low-point reached in August 2011, has fallen by 4.4 percent since the “economic recovery” began in June 2009. Adding this post-recession decline to the 1.8-percent drop that occurred during the recession leaves median annual household income now 6.1 percent below the December 2007 level.
Sentier Research supplied these figures. Here is the company’s assessment. “Based on our data, almost every group is worse off now than it was four years ago, with the exception of households with householders 65 to 74 years old.”
Let the division continue.
Why is the nation more bitterly divided today than it’s been in 80 years? Why is there more anger, vituperation, and political polarization now than even during Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s, the tempestuous struggle for civil rights in the 1960s, the divisive Vietnam war, or the Watergate scandal?
If anything, you’d think this would be an era of relative calm. The Soviet Union has disappeared and the Cold War is over. The Civil Rights struggle continues, but at least we now have a black middle class and even a black president. While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been controversial, the all-volunteer army means young Americans aren’t being dragged off to war against their will. And although politicians continue to generate scandals, the transgressions don’t threaten the integrity of our government as did Watergate.
And yet, by almost every measure, Americans are angrier today. They’re more contemptuous of almost every major institution — government, business, the media. They’re more convinced the nation is on the wrong track. And they are far more polarized.
The online liberty group “Thoughts on Liberty” pumps out some good stuff more often than not. The site is intellectually managed and operated by “a team of ladies writing about freedom” who offer their unique perspective on libertarianism. Like most addressing the liberty movement, the authors usually take a right leaning (or all-out right stance) on most issues pertaining to the liberty. This, of course, is their prerogative and I do enjoy much of their posts.
I was discouraged when I came across “5 Foreign Policy Problems Libertarians Need to Address” on the site. It reads like a shameless endorsement of vulgar libertarianism.
There are many rooms in the libertarian ideological house. That fact often derails rational discussion of libertarian issues, but it need not be a problem in this instance because the question being asked is most efficiently examined by testing it against the flintiest wing of libertarian thought. If that pristine, uncompromising form of libertarianism is incompatible with the maintenance of cultural roots and collective identity, then all other shades of libertarianism will be incompatible to some degree.
This is an interesting discussion of what the intellectual foundations of fascism actually are from Matthew Lyons’ blog. For those who don’t know, Lyons is very critical of ARV-ATS but this is good stuff. I’m sure our linking to a far left anti-fascist site will also increase accusations of fascism against ourselves for some reason or other.
I guess you could say ARV-ATS is involved in a four-way fight: Against the liberal-democratic state-capitalist system but also against fascism and communism to the degree these present a credible threat, possess the military capabilities to impose a worse system than we have now, or hold actual state power.
Of course, anarcho-pluralism, anarcho-populism, pan-anarchism, etc have nothing to do with fascism, communism, or capitalism, but are about decentralizing political and economic power in a way that moves beyond all of these older ideologies.
“Congress doesn’t have a whole lot of core responsibilities,” said Barack Obama last week in an astonishing remark.
For in the Constitution, Congress appears as the first branch of government. And among its enumerated powers are the power to tax, coin money, create courts, provide for the common defense, raise and support an army, maintain a navy and declare war.
But, then, perhaps Obama’s contempt is justified.
For consider Congress’ broad assent to news that Obama has decided to attack Syria, a nation that has not attacked us and against which Congress has never authorized a war.
Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.
The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absenceof any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has usedchemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.
Tell us something we don’t know.
Over at the Christian Science Monitor, Nathan Gardels interviews Hans Blix, chief UN arms inspector for Iraq from 2000-2003 and former head of the IAEA, on the Obama administration’s plan for bombing Syria. Blix, of course, has some experience dealing with American plans for war prior to UN confirmation of WMD allegations.
In most Hollywood horror franchises we know that the villains – take your Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, or your rakish Freddy Krueger – always come back. No matter what painful death or injury felled them in the previous romp, an endless string of potential victims means room for one more film. Make that 17 more.
The neoconservative war doctrine of aggressive military force and self-serving regime change did not die after the failed wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, which proponents pushed with an enthusiasm not equaled since the world tilted on its axis and Freddy met Jason in an epic hack-off. No, the neocons went nearly dormant (there is a Bram Stoker trope here, somewhere), reduced really, to sniping at Obama, but more or less biding their time until the next opportunity to manipulate global affairs in the Middle East.
The pathetic bleating flock of the British political media are helping to beat the drums for war. Yet again.
Late last week, the BBC began blasting the airwaves with stories about a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. Initially, its reporters and presenters were reasonably careful to point out that the videos on which this claim was based were unverified – and in fact impossible to verify. As has since become quite clear, the site of the alleged atrocity is very difficult to reach. This fact would be well-known to those who released the films. Indeed, they are in a position to make the site hard to reach. This is by no means the first such allegation that has been made. No reliable proof has ever been produced of any of them.
Although the world is focused on the military coup in Egypt, the accompanying repression of the supporters of the duly elected democratic government, and the real possibility of massive societal strife, another authoritarian government is busily taking its country down a similar road to civil war.
Here we go again. As Americans prepare to march on Washington, Washington is preparing to march on Damascus. As part of the buildup to war, a chorus of liberal hawks and neoconservatives has issued a new manifesto in—where else?—the Weekly Standard calling upon President Obama to engage in regime change in Syria. Just as they demanded military action to topple Saddam Hussein, so they now are insisting upon the removal of Bashar al-Assad.
Officials familiar with the situation say that Britain and the United States have “finalized” their plans for an attack on Syria, and will begin lobbing missiles at the country within a matter of days.
If US officials had their druthers, it appears the strikes would start on Thursday, but the complication of British parliament returning to session could hold up the war for an additional day or two. The US Congress is in recess, and unlikely to even be asked to authorize the war until it has already begun.