Bring Back our Balls! 1

By Gavin McInnes

Taki’s Magazine

In 1974, a daredevil walked across a tightrope that connected the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers. It was called “the artistic crime of the century.” The DA considered trespassing charges but dropped them in the face of the city’s enthusiasm for their new hero. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey awarded him with a lifetime pass to the South Tower’s observation deck.

Last week, the NYPD demanded that the BASE jumpers who leapt off the Freedom Tower last September turn themselves in to authorities. After they surrendered on Monday, the NY Post said that the jumpers’ “only regret was getting caught.” My only regret is that we didn’t hold a parade for these guys. Have you seen the video? It takes balls to even watch. They are standing there almost 2,000 feet off the ground breathing heavily and saying things such as “Hell, yeah,” “Thanks, bro,” and finally, “You got this, man” before leaping into the black abyss. The highest bungee jumps in the world are barely half that height, and I doubt anyone reading this would have the courage to try any of them. These guys did it with no help from anyone, and they landed on the West Side Highway without inconveniencing a soul. But instead of giving them lifetime passes, the new Port Authority joined “the NYPD in condemning this lawless and selfish act.” Our life expectancy may have increased by ten years in the past half century, but our balls are 80% smaller.

“America was founded on mutts from all over the world who were sick of being told what to do. Now we live in a culture where rules rule.”


What Libertarianism Is, and Isn’t Reply

“It’s easy to defend the rights of people who are popular and whose views are in fashion. It is much more difficult – thankless, even – to defend the rights of those whom society despises. Libertarians need not endorse or actually be such people – I know of no one proposing such a thing – but if we do not defend their rights we are frauds.”

-Lew Rockwell

By Lew Rockwell


The explosive growth in the number of converts to libertarianism since Ron Paul first ran for president is one of the most exciting developments of my life. But I’d like to issue a note of caution.

There are several ways a young libertarian can distinguish himself. He can be an effective communicator of libertarian ideas as a writer or speaker. He can employ his unique talents — as an artist, animator, interviewer, or whatever — to convey the libertarian message in new and compelling ways. He can become a specialist in some area of scholarly inquiry relevant to libertarianism. Or he can add to the edifice of libertarian thought by solving a longstanding problem, critically reexamining an old question, or applying libertarian theory to new areas as technology develops and civilization evolves.

I can think of people who fit all these descriptions. What distinguishes them all is that they worked very hard to establish their well-deserved niche within the community of libertarian thinkers.

By contrast, people might establish niches for themselves by devising their own peculiar version of libertarianism, and claiming that their discovery alone is the real thing. Not only is this method easier than the ones I described above, but it also allows the creator the pleasure of rendering sanctimonious judgment on those benighted souls who cling to plain old libertarianism, with no labels, no caveats, and no apologies.


Paradox Polemics Reply

A new blog established by some friends of ATS. Check it out.

The Week in Bullshit March 27, 2014: Nickelodeon, Normandy and Empirical Evidence Edition

By The Digger

Nickelodeon Taken Seriously

Nick Cannon is a former Nickelodeon star. As far as I can decipher, this is his claim to fame (I don’t consider riding the Nickelodeon gig to a variety show host position a great leap forward). This former Nickelodeon star painted himself in white face and made some music. Many people are upset by this.

I have to say that I am disappointed that we live in a nation that is even emotionally moved by the hijinks of a former Nickelodeon star. I’m doubly disappointed that anyone would take a former Nickelodeon star seriously. The fact that both of those statements were necessary to make my point is a sad indictment of the bullshit that encapsulates many of the troubles in the United States today.


Has Chris Hedges Been Reading ATS? 15

He sure sounds like it. Hedges is an example of what a serious Left would look like, although he’s still obviously not as radical as ARV-ATS.

The War on Drugs Remains Literal Reply

By Lucy Steigerwald


On March 13, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a ruling that may provide a benefit for a small but not insignificant number of the people arrested for marijuana in the state. Brandi Jessica Russell had her 2011 conviction for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana overturned, and this precedent could be applied to other specific cases where the defendants had appeals in process when Colorado’s Amendment 64 passed in November 2012.

The victory will be small, since most people charged with drug possession plead out instead. But it’s progress. And in spite of some handwringing about the legal precedent set by retroactively applying a law by such dissenters as The Denver Post editorial board, this is a good thing. As Tom Angell, the founder of the Marijuana Majority, told me by email, “The voters of Colorado … declared the war on marijuana a failure on Election Day 2012. It’s very good news that their sensible action at the ballot box will not only prevent more people from being arrested under senseless prohibition laws but will provide help to those who have been caught in the grips of those laws in years past.”


Libertarianism In One Country Reply

By Justin Raimondo

This week marks the fifteenth anniversary of the bombing of Serbia by President Bill Clinton – and the beginning of as a full-time full-coverage news site. It’s a double anniversary fraught, for me, with irony. Back then the Big Bad Bogeyman wasn’t al-Qaeda, which had barely crept into the American consciousness, although Osama bin Laden was a known quantity. No, the Enemy of the Moment was Russia, which was desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to block Washington’s eastward expansion – and it looks like that moment has returned with a vengeance.

With Russophobia all the rage – they’re even warning us Putin, not content with Crimea, is about to invade the North Pole! – we’ve come full circle, back to where we started. But we aren’t exactly in the same place.

In 1998 the anti-interventionist movement was tiny, and our readership reflected that. With the cold war over, and many conservatives deciding it was time to “Come Home, America,” as Pat Buchanan put it, our audience and base of support came increasingly from the right side of the political spectrum. Liberals were deserting the antiwar movement in droves, cowed – or won over – by the “humanitarian” interventionists and the 24/7 cycle of war propaganda beamed at them by CNN, back then the one and only cable news station. We called it the “Clinton News Network” because there was Christiane Amanpour, married to State Department spokesman James Rubin, lying nonstop for hours on end.


Islam, Globalism and Freedom 1

I wrote this in 2001, during the time between the September 11 incidents, and the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Evaluate for yourself how well my geopolitical analysis holds up thirteen years later, and whether I’ve mellowed any since then.


By Keith Preston

Islam, Globalism and Freedom


“Only an engaged and informed citizenry can bring about a reversal of the neo-imperial
foreign policy that has been foisted upon us…by the elites of both Beltway parties.”

“And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution?…Or will it take
some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price
of empire?”

-Patrick J. Buchanan, speech delivered to the Antiwar.Com
Conference, March 24, 2000
“If you want to be king, some people don’t want to be subjects.” -Jerry Rubin, 1969

I have a co-worker whose aunt worked as a stockbroker on the twenty-sixth floor of the second of the World Trade Center towers to be attacked on September 11. As the phone lines in much of the New York City area were down for a couple of days after the attack, he was unable to contact family members in the area in order to inquire about the fate of his aunt. Finally, on Thursday evening, he was able to get through. His aunt had been in her office when the attack on the first tower occurred. Most of her co-workers ran to the windows after feeling their own building vibrate. His aunt wisely chose to run to the stairs instead. She continued running down the stairways, out of the building and, by the time the second tower had been attacked and the first building collapsed, she was already five blocks away. Still, she received a number of cuts and scrapes from flying debris and rubble. It had been a lucky day for her. More…

Against the Libertarian Cold War Reply

By Anthony Gregory

Libertarian Standard

A controversy has arisen in the libertarian movement over the proper approach to the events concerning Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea. Like many such controversies, it has quickly polarized almost everyone, and has served as a proxy for long-standing factionalism within the movement. People quickly accuse each other of supporting Putin’s aggression or backing violent U.S. intervention. I myself have been accused of both kissing up to the Russian regime and dishing out State Department propaganda. This doesn’t itself show I have the right balance in my position, only that this feud has galvanized libertarians and hardened their rhetorical loyalties.

We might learn something from looking back at the 20th century. During the Cold War, most western critics of state power erred too far in one direction or the other. There were some whose opposition to U.S. wars led them to soften their assessment of communist aggression. Free-market and leftist lovers of peace both made this mistake. At the same time, many who favored economic and political liberty often let their anti-communism translate into support for American militarism and the security state. This confusion pervaded Americans across the spectrum.

We can all see this now: Yes, some antiwar Americans were obscenely soft on the communists. Well-meaning but foolish westerners said nice things about Lenin, Stalin, and Mao—and many of a more moderate tinge had no perspective of just how much worse international communism was than the U.S. system, at least as it concerned domestic affairs. Meanwhile, many libertarians and almost all conservatives ditched their supposed attachment to skepticism of government power and signed onto the U.S. Cold War effort. This American project included dozens of coups and interventions, the instruction of foreign secret police in unspeakable torture techniques, murderous carpet bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of peasants, and wars that indirectly brought about the Khmer Rouge and the rise of Islamist fundamentalism, both of which also became directly funded in the name of anti-communism.


Ron Paul Is Right About Crimea Reply

By Justin Raimondo


The libertarian movement has always been a contentious arena: that’s the nature of the beast. After all, we’re talking about libertariansindividualists to a fault: getting them to agree on anything is often like trying to herd cats. Aside from this question of temperament, however, there have been some very substantial ideological differences over the years, and – not surprisingly – many of these internal conflicts have been over US foreign policy.

That’s because it’s relatively easy to ascertain the libertarian position on matters domestic: government spying on our emails? We’re against it. Higher taxes? We’re against all taxes, period. The National Endowment for the Arts? Abolish it.

Easy stuff. But when it comes to foreign policy – where historical context and knowledge of facts on the ground are decisive factors – it gets more complicated. And not all are up to the task: certainly Alexander McCobin, unelected “President” of Students for Liberty (SFL), isn’t. His article for the Panam Post, entitled “Ron Paul is Wrong When He Speaks About Secession and Crimea,” is an amalgam of misinformation and smears.

After waffling on about how libertarians have to be against “unnecessary wars” (although he doesn’t say which ones are or were necessary), and paying lip service to the idea that “our generation” has a “critical attitude toward foreign intervention” (only “critical”?), he finally gets to the point:

“While it’s important criticize misconduct of the United States and some of its Western allies exacerbating the turmoil in the Middle East over the past two decades, it is also important to remember that there are other aggressors in the world; Russia – with its ongoing wars in the Northern Caucasus, the invasion of South Ossetia, and it’s most recent annexation of Crimea – being key among them.

“Former Congressman Ron Paul, whose views are interpreted by many as wholly representative of the libertarian movement, gets it wrong when he speaks of Crimea’s right to secede. Make no mistake about it, Crimea was annexed by Russian military force at gunpoint and its supposedly democratic ‘referendum’ was a farce. Besides a suspiciously high voter turnout without legitimate international observers, the referendum gave Crimeans only two choices – join Russia now or later.”

McCobin is wrong about South Ossetia: like the Crimeans, the Ossetians held a referendum and voted to separate from Georgia’s central government. In response, Georgia invaded the region, sending in its troops before the Russians ever got there. They bombarded Tsinskvali, capital of the rebel province, deliberately targeting civilians, killing and wounding hundreds. According to Human Rights Watch, Georgian artillery fired directly into basements – where civilians were sure to be hiding. As the BBC put it:

“The BBC has discovered evidence that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August. Eyewitnesses have described how its tanks fired directly into an apartment block, and how civilians were shot at as they tried to escape the fighting.”

McCobin hasn’t even bothered to do the most basic research: he’s simply swallowed the new cold war mythology whole. It’s easier that way.

As “evidence” for his contention that the Crimean referendum was invalid, he links to a piece by David L. Phillips, Director of the “Program on Peace-building and Rights” at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights,” and Carina Perelli, formerly head of the UN’s Electoral Assistance Division. Absurdly, the authors aver:

When a referendum is properly conducted, both winners and losers accept the outcome. However chastened, losers resign themselves to defeat because of guarantees that their rights will be preserved through constitutional and other means.”



Would America Go to War with Russia? Reply

By James S. Robbins

The National Interest

Vice President Biden was in Warsaw last week to reassure our eastern NATO allies that they have the support of a “steadfast ally.” But if Russia moved against Poland or the Baltic States, would the United States really go to war? Or would we do nothing and effectively destroy the NATO alliance?

President Obama has ruled out a “military excursion” in Ukraine. America is not obligated legally to take action against Russia for annexing Crimea. We would not go to war if Russia mounted a large-scale invasion of Ukraine to restore the ousted, pro-Moscow government of Viktor Yanukovych, currently under U.S. sanctions. And we would not even send troops if Ukraine was partitioned, or absorbed by Russia. Americans have no interest in such a conflict, and no stomach for it.

NATO allies are a different matter. The North Atlantic Treaty is a mutual-defense pact, and Article 5 says that an armed attack against one member state “shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is a clear red line. The only time Article 5 has been invoked was in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and most NATO allies sent troops to support the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Could the current crisis expand to touch NATO? The developing situation in Ukraine has been compared to Germany’s absorption of Austria in 1938, or the subsequent partition and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Hillary Clinton compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, which by extension puts President Obama in the role of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who famously failed to achieve “peace in our time” at Munich.


Push the analogy further. The Second World War was sparked by Warsaw’s resistance to Berlin’s demand to annex the Polish Corridor, a small stretch of land—smaller than Crimea—separating the German provinces of Pomerania and East Prussia. Hitler responded by invading Poland and partitioning it with the Soviet Union. Britain and France had pledged to defend Polish independence, and two days after Germany invaded, they declared war. In his war message, Chamberlain explained that Hitler’s actions showed “there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.”

This may or may not describe Mr. Putin, as Mrs. Clinton alleged. But if similar circumstances arise in the near future, will the United States honor security guarantees made to Poland and the Baltic States when the Russian threat was only a theory?

Mr. Biden stood with Estonian president Toomas Ilves Tuesday to “reconfirm and reaffirm our shared commitment to collective self-defense, to Article 5.” He wanted to make it “absolutely clear what it means to the Estonian people” and that “President Obama and I view Article 5 of the NATO Treaty as an absolutely solemn commitment which we will honor—we will honor.” Shortly thereafter, Moscow “expressed concern” about the treatment of ethnic Russians in Estonia. Mr. Putin justified his actions in Crimea as “restoring unity” to Russian people. Estonia’s population is 25 percent ethnic Russian, compared to 17 percent in Ukraine, mostly in the north and east part of the country. Suppose anti-Russian riots “spontaneously” broke out in Estonia. What would the United States do if Moscow invoked a “responsibility to protect” these people and bring them “back” to the Motherland? Would President Obama take military action against Russia over a small, secluded piece of a tiny, distant country? Would it be like the Polish Corridor in 1939? This is highly doubtful—highly doubtful.


An interesting crack in the PC coalition emerges Reply

Katy Murphy

San Jose Mercury News

A bill that would have let California voters reconsider the state’s 16-year-old ban on race-conscious college admissions is off the table, its author announced on Monday.

Constitutional Amendment 5 passed the state Senate in late January on a party-line vote but ran into an unexpected wave of resistance — mostly, from Asian-Americans concerned that affirmative action policies would unfairly disadvantage Asian applicants to the intensely competitive University of California system.

A petition to stop the referendum had more than 112,000 signatures on Monday.

After an about-face by three Asian-American senators who voted for the bill in January, Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, is putting the bill on hold — and making no promises about its revival.

Sen. Ed Hernandez (left), 2012.

Sen. Ed Hernandez (left), 2012. (Rich Pedroncelli / AP)


Is Europe Cracking Up? Reply

By Pat Buchanan

A week ago, in the St. George’s Hall in the Kremlin, Russia’s elite cheered and wept as Vladimir Putin announced the re-annexation of Crimea. Seven in 10 Russians approve of Putin’s rule.

In Crimea, the Russian majority has not ceased celebrating. The re-conquest nears completion. In Eastern Ukraine, Russians have now begun to agitate for annexation by Moscow.

Ukrainian nationalism, manifest in the anti-Russia coup in Kiev, has produced its inevitable reaction among Russians.

While praising the Ukrainians who came out to Maidan to protest peacefully, Putin said that those behind the decisive events “resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup.” The Kremlin erupted in cheers.

But not only in Ukraine is ethnic nationalism surging.



Hans Cany and National-Anarchism 5

An interview with one of the three co-founders of national-anarchism.

Alliance Nationale Anarchiste

IN ENGLISH : Hans Cany and national-anarchism [INTERVIEW]


Exclusive interview with Hans CANY, coordinator of the Alliance Nationale-Anarchiste, by Betty Monde

Translated by Sigurd Caroff Lindsley


Hello, Hans CANY. You are thus one of the original founders of national-anarchist current ?

HC: Yes, I contributed to the launch of this sphere of influence from the end of the 1990s e.v., simultaneously with Troy Southgate in the United Kingdom, and Peter Töpfer in Germany. Töpfer is out of the race nowadays, because he transferred in other domains. Troy Southgate and myself are today two of the three founders, and we’re still in track.



Venice votes to split from Italy as 89% of the city’s residents opt to form a new independent state Reply

By Hannah Roberts

Daily Mail

Venetians have voted overwhelmingly for their own sovereign state in a ‘referendum’ on independence from Italy.

Inspired by Scotland’s separatist ambitions, 89 per cent of the residents of the lagoon city and its surrounding area, opted to break away from Italy in an unofficial ballot.

The proposed ‘Repubblica Veneta’ would include the five million inhabitants of the Veneto region and could later expand to include parts of Lombardy, Trentino and Friuli-Venezia Giulia.

Residents of Venice have voted 89 per cent to leave Italy and become an independent state in protest at high taxes levied on the wealthy in order to prop up the poor and crime ridden Mezzogiorno south

Residents of Venice have voted 89 per cent to leave Italy and become an independent state in protest at high taxes levied on the wealthy in order to prop up the poor and crime ridden Mezzogiorno south



Only Brutalism Can Save the Liberty Movement Reply

By Christopher Cantwell

Some time ago, I joked that the leftists could have the “liberty movement” and I would start my own. At the time, I called it the “Do whatever the fuck you want so long as you don’t hurt anyone movement” or something to that effect. After all, that’s what I thought liberty was all about in the first place. Unfortunately, the leftist ideological contagion does not limit itself to State politics. Anything that is not decisively anti-liberal will eventually find itself infected with this plague.

I had been trying to think of a new name for it. Something shorter, that would signify that we were libertarians in the truest sense, hard line non aggressionists, intolerant of State sympathizers, and welcoming that portion of human society which Church and State had done everything in their power to destroy. Mankind’s animal instinct, straight talk, in your face activism, uncensored humor, vitriolic rhetoric, and a readiness for defensive force.

For all my contempt for the way Jeffrey Tucker portrayed it, the “brutalism” label stuck with me, and I think I may embrace it. I have even begun work on a piece I am calling “The Brutalist Manifesto”.

Libertarian Brutalist Uprising

Libertarian Brutalist Uprising


Left Libertarians Are Worse Than Racists 2

Ooooh…someone’s itching for a fight.

By Christopher Cantwell

As I’ve spent the last few months railing against so called left libertarians, it comes up from time to time that they claim to support only voluntary solutions to their imaginary problems of privilege. That this, by my own definition makes them libertarians, as I define libertarianism as the non-aggression principle. Alright, fair enough point. If racists can be libertarians, so can leftists, especially since left libertarians are inherently racist.

Mind you, I don’t actually believe them to be non aggressionists. Left libertarians, like their statist counterparts, tend to be extraordinarily dishonest. After all, leftist ideology is generally little more than an excuse to steal and be irresponsible, so what use is the truth in that? If they are dishonest enough to call every off color joke “racism” on par with slavery, why tell the truth about anything else?

Left Libertarianism

Left Libertarianism


Growing state secession movements 1

By D. Christian Moore


Republican leaning counties in deep blue states are pushing to secede and form states of their own. Residents of Northern Michigan, parts of California, Maryland and Colorado are seeking to break away from their Democrat controlled states and form new self-governing entities. These efforts are long shots because the state government would have to approve the secession and the federal government would have to accept the new states into the Union. Still, the growing movement illustrates the dissatisfaction many on the right have with the high taxes, deficit spending and liberal social engineering that have come to define leftists in the 21st century. They may also signify just how divided we have become as a country in the last decade.


Western Maryland’ Secession Movement Growing 1


(CBS) – A tale of two Marylands: Western Maryland and the rest of the state. Fed up with high taxes and gun control, some people want to break away and go it alone.

Mary Bubala explains why they’re trying to form their own state.

There’s a storm brewing over the beautiful mountains and valleys of Western Maryland. More and more people in those five counties say Governor Martin O’Malley is out of touch and they want to break away from the rest of the state.

“I can’t imagine Maryland without Western Maryland,” said Governor Martin O’Malley.

“Do you actually care about your citizens?” questioned Rob Parr.



The New USA? Secession Movement Gains Steam Reply

By David Brody

CBN News

GREELEY, Colo. — If you mention the word “secession” most people think of the South during the Civil War. But today, a new movement is gaining steam because of frustration over a growing, out-of-control federal government.

A number of conservative, rural Americans are taking about seceding and creating their own states, meaning a new map of the United States of America could include the following:

  • A 51st state called Jefferson, made up of Northern California and Southern Oregon
  • A new state called Western Maryland
  • A new state called North Colorado

These are real movements gaining traction with voters across the country. Jeffrey Hare runs the 51st State Initiative in Colorado, an effort to fight an out-of-control legislature trying to ram big government policies down the throats of voters.

“We’re at this point of irreconcilable differences,” Hare told CBN News.

Secessionist talk has filled town hall meetings and the divide discussed is not just ideological.

“It’s predominately left versus right, but it’s urban versus rural because you typically find more typical conservative values in rural America,” Hare said.