Monthly Archives: October 2015

In Praise of Margaret Thatcher Reply

by • Economics/Class Relations, Police State/Civil Liberties

By Keir Martland

Margaret Thatcher won the 1979 General Election after the vote of no confidence in Jim Callaghan’s government. Callaghan had not been particularly disastrous as Prime Minister until the winter of 1978/9, the so-called Winter of Discontent. Thatcher then proceeded to transform this country from a largely free one to a largely unfree one.

thatcher

Yes, we are told that Britain was the Sick Man of Europe in the 1970s and emerged into the 1990s a prosperous and libertarian country. Yes, the scandalously high tax rates were slashed, for example the top rate of income tax was cut during Thatcher’s time in office from 83% to 60%. Yes, union power was reduced. Yes, people were allowed to buy their own council homes. Yes, we went to beat up the Argies in the Atlantic.

However, was Thatcher a Good Thing for Britain? It’s my own opinion that the best thing about the woman was her rhetoric. She could talk about liberty and property with great passion and vigour, but when it came to the delivery of those two things, she failed. She spoke very well about rolling back the state, but under Thatcher, the state grew in both size and scope.

More…

Robert Stark Interviews with Winston Wu about American Culture Reply

by • Uncategorized

Robert Stark Interviews with Winston Wu about American Culture

Winston_Wu

Winston Wu is an Asian American expat writer, traveler and Internet entrepreneur. He was born in Taiwan but grew up in the California Bay area. His two successful and unique Web sites are Happier Abroad, which focuses on global dating and living community, and SCEPCOP, which counters pseudo-skeptic groups.

Topics include:

The Perils of State Surveillance, by Sean Gabb 1

by • Police State/Civil Liberties

By Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

Listen here.

Speech to the Traditional Britain Group
24th October 2015

Here is an audio recording made on my mobile telephone and then tarted up in Audacity. A better version will be available soon, but this will do for the moment.

I argue as follows:I was a techno-pessimist in the mid-1990s. I thought that, in spite of many collateral advantages, the IT revolution would enable states to gather and use vast amounts of information, and that this would be used to enslave us.

  • This fear seems to be confirmed by the Government’s current push to get access to all electronic data and to spy on us.
  • The push is excused by the need to protect us from the Moslems.
  • But the Moslems are not a problem at all as great as Sinn Fein/IRA used to be. Islamic terrorism in this country has produced a body count trifling set against the 3,500 killed in the Sin Fei/IRA insurrection. Every other difference is in favour of the Moslems – though there are other problems here that may need addressing in due course.
  • Nor will universal surveillance protect us from terrorism. That needs traditional policing.
  • The scale of surveillance currently demanded by the British State will carry us into a police state – this being better defined by the fact of control than any mode of enforcement.
  • To be watched is to be controlled. When people are watched in all they do, they will mostly obey without actual threat of punishment.
  • On the other hand, while there are dangers, the IT Revolution has given us powerful tools of resistance. We need to use these if we want to be free.
  • Also, the kind of police state we are getting is based on fear not of torture or death, but of disapproval and low-level persecution. If we want to be free, all we need is to find a collective backbone and stop behaving like girlie-men.

Libertarian Thoughts on State Welfare 6

by • Anarchism/Anti-State, Economics/Class Relations

By Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

One of the main British news stories at the moment is an argument over changes to part of the welfare system. The Government claims it wants to make the child and working tax credits system more efficient. The Labour opposition claims it wants to cut benefits to the poor. I realise that, in writing about the welfare system, I am under a double burden of ignorance. First, I have limited experience and knowledge of state welfare. Second, and partly in consequence, I am not able to say whether the Government or the Opposition is lying over the probable effect of the changes proposed. This being said, welfare benefits are an important issue; I have been urged to write about it; and, so long as I keep to broad principle, my ignorance of the details should not be a disadvantage.

As a libertarian, I try to judge the abstract legitimacy of any institution or government policy by asking whether it would exist without a state to uphold it. I have in my mind the idea of a purely natural order, in which all association between adults, excepting only defence against aggression, is voluntary. Since this natural order would have no government, and therefore no taxes and no redistribution of income, there would obviously be no state welfare system. On these grounds, I say that the British welfare state has no abstract legitimacy.

Note, however, the qualifying adjective. Just because something is illegitimate in the abstract does not mean that it should be immediately abolished, or even that its abolition should be high on the agenda of any military junta advised by libertarians. In applying libertarian principle to the world as it is, we need to take into account both abstract legitimacy and particular circumstances. Where state welfare is concerned, the circumstances should rule out abolition in both the short and medium term.

Though by any reasonable standard, I am on the political right, I accept one of the central insights of left-libertarians like Kevin Carson. This is that we should not confuse the present order of things with a natural order. We should not defend the present structure of outcomes as if they were the outcomes of a free market. To look only at England and America and the rest of the civilised world, there are many people – perhaps ten or twenty per cent – who cannot earn enough to enjoy what is generally seen as a fair standard of living. Some of these people are what used to be called “the undeserving poor” – that is, they are lazy, or they are drug addicts or habitual drunks, or they have in some other way made parasites of themselves. But many are victims of circumstances that, like state welfare, would not exist in a natural order.

I have no doubt that some kind of wage system would exist in a natural order. There are people who do not like risk, or who have a high time preference. Rather than produce today for an uncertain future return, they will prefer to sell their time for a more secure periodic wage. But the nature and scale of the wage system that presently exists is not natural. It came into being and is sustained by a set of laws and institutions that set at least the poor at a structural disadvantage.

More…

Keith Preston: US war against Iraq an imperial conquest Reply

by • Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

Press TV. Listen here: http://presstv.ir/Default/embed/435081

The US war against Iraq from 2003 to 2011 was an “unprovoked invasion” carried out under the false pretense that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons, a political analyst in Virginia says.

“This was a completely bogus pretext for the invasion of a sovereign nation and this was really an act of old-fashioned imperial conquest by the United States,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com.

“The criminal nature of this is obvious; this was certainly in violation of international law and the law of nations,” Preston told Press TV on Monday.

In March 2003, the US invaded Iraq in blatant violation of international law, over Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” but no such weapons were ever discovered in the country.

The US-led military invasion plunged Iraq into chaos, resulting in years of deadly violence and the rise of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was a precursor of Daesh (ISIL).

More than one million Iraqis were killed as a result of the lengthy occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.

The US war cost American taxpayers an estimated $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.

“One of the effects of the war in Iraq has been the growth of these terrorist organizations such as ISIS; there wouldn’t be an ISIS today if there had not been the US invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Preston noted, using another acronym for ISIL.

“Not only was this invasion a war crime, not only was it illegal from the perspective of international law, not only was it done under false pretenses, but it also generated tremendously high cost in terms of casualties, in terms of wounded, in terms of financial costs,” he added.

Preston also stated that prominent American author and linguist Noam Chomsky was “absolutely correct” about his recent condemnation of Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

During an interview with teleSUR on Monday, Chomsky called Washington’s 2003 invasion of Iraq “the worst crime of this century.”

“What right do we have to kill somebody in some other country who we don’t like,” Chomsky asserted.

The renowned scholar and intellectual said, “Suppose it had worked… it’s still a major crime, why do we have the right to invade another country?”

Horizontal Collaboration 1

by • Culture Wars/Current Controversies, Immigration, Left and Right, Men and Women, Military, Political Correctness/Totalitarian Humanism, Race and Ethnicity, Religion and Philosophy, Sexuality and the State • Tags:

12185890_10203561922847240_317974046_o-750x400

A raunchily revisionist review by Ann Sterzinger. Sheds more light on the Conflict Without Heroes that was World War II.

__________________

Is present-day Paris more puritanical than it was under the Nazis?

I’d love to simply dwell on the jaunty visual attractiveness—not to mention the entertainment and historical value—of author Mel Gordon’s recent coffee table book from Feral House press, Horizontal Collaboration: The Erotic World of Paris 1920-1946. It’s by turns a joyful and critical account of the legal sex industry in Paris before, during, and after the two world wars.

I’d also prefer to avoid painting myself into a corner as “That one lady who spends weeks at a time wondering aloud about what the French are going to do with all their enthused new Muslims.”

But as the EU brass continue prying national borders open to everyone who can fit on a boat, it’s almost impossible to read an account of Paris, sex, and the Nazi occupation without one’s mind wandering to Paris, sex, and the new theocrappation.

…Although the extent of said theocrappation depends on how you interpret some viscerally shocking poll data. For instance: does 3 percent of a sample of the French population responding “very favorably” to ISIS while 13 percent respond “rather favorably” add up to 15 percent of the electorate backing ISIS? You parse the adverbs.

But in any case, as my dear departed friend Lisa Falour used to say: Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke. (An influx of radical Muslims is comedy gold, in fact; just as France was running out of humorless Catholics, here comes the new boss…)

I am, however, aware that reductio ad Hitlerum is a running gag with all the kids these days; therefore, I shall drive straight on to reductio praeter Hitlerum.

Because if the research in this book is anything like accurate—and Feral House’s longtime reputation might imply that it is—it sounds like the Nazis were more tolerant of, if not titillated by, Parisian sexual culture than our new friends the jihadis.

Then again, the Nazis were also more fun, sexually speaking, than the native French feminists in all apparent likelihood, so there’s that to chew on as well… Not to mention the fact that the Nazi stormtroopers supposedly acted less rapey in gay Paree than the heroic American GIs who came to chase them away.

More…

Keith Preston: Russia, China in alliance to curb US influence 1

by • Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

Press TV. Listen here: http://presstv.ir/Default/embed/434957

Russia and China have forged an alliance against the American and Western hegemony and this is visible in Beijing’s stance on the South China Sea, says an American analyst.

“China is concerned about American influence in East Asia,” Keith Preston, director of attackthesystem.com, told Press TV on Sunday.

“China I think now is trying to counter that, trying to counter the American influence somewhat and create a defensive perimeter of its own,” he added.

The US accuses Beijing of conducting a massive “land reclamation” program through building artificial islands in the South China Sea, saying that China’s man-made islands could further militarize the region.

Washington does not recognize China’s sovereignty in the area and is weighing options to test its territorial claims.

China, however, insists it has sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea and accuses Washington of meddling in the regional issues and deliberately inciting tension in the region.

The US plans to send warships or military aircraft within 12 nautical miles of China’s artificial islands in the disputed South China Sea, possibly within days, Reuters reported on Saturday.

Chinese Foreign Ministry officials said this month that Beijing would “never allow any country to violate China’s territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly islands.”

Beijing’s policies concerning the region represents its growing influence ensued from its alliance with BRICS countries specifically with Russia, Preston said.

BRICS refers to an association of five major emerging economic powers: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

“China is working to strengthen its relationship with Russia for example, as one of the other major Asian powers, and I think both nations, Russia and China, view each other as important allies in countering American and Western hegemonies,” the analyst noted.

Preston added that aside from likely military purposes, the Chinese want to maintain access to seaports and shipping lanes in the disputed waters to deter a possible “American naval blockade.”

Robert Stark interviews Ellen Brown about Debt & the National Dividend Reply

by • Uncategorized

LINK!

Robert Stark and co-host Charles Lincoln talk to Ellen Brown. Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and a candidate for California State Treasurer. She has written twelve books, including Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free (2010), and The Public Bank Solution.

Topics include:

Ellen’s recent conferences on monetary reform
Open source software and money systems
Eco Villages and community currencies
Time for the Nuclear Option: Raining Money on Main Street
Nationalization of Banks
How we could pay off the debt with Quantitative Easing
Quantitative Easing for People: The UK Labour Frontrunner’s Controversial Proposal
Killing Off Community Banks — Intended Consequence of Dodd-Frank?
Trumping the Federal Debt Without Playing the Default Card

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Abby Martin 2

by • Activism, American Decline, Anarchism/Anti-State, Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy, Culture Wars/Current Controversies, Economics/Class Relations, Electoralism/Democratism, Environment, Left and Right

In this episode of teleSUR’s The Empire Files, Abby Martin interviews world-renowned philosopher and linguist Professor Noam Chomsky. Prof. Chomsky comments on the presidential primary “extravaganza,” the movement for Bernie Sanders, the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal, the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, modern-day libertarianism and the reality of “democracy” under capitalism.

NATA Interviews Augustus Invictus, Florida Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate Reply

by • Uncategorized • Tags: ,

Please introduce yourself.

My name is Augustus Invictus, and I am a Libertarian candidate for United States Senate in Florida. I am a father, a writer, an occultist, a philosopher, and an attorney.

How did you initially become interested in libertarian philosophy? How did you become involved with the Libertarian Party?ASI

I was actually raised as a libertarian by my father. From the time of my birth he instilled in me a

distrust of government and a respect for liberty. My father was and is a conservative tending toward anarchism, and while I do not consider myself an anarchist, this should go a long way in explaining my political bent.

As has been pointed out by many of my detractors, I was not always a libertarian. I left home and made my own way, and it was not for years that I would return to my libertarian roots. I have written papers on eugenics and studied Fascist legal theory, I have voted for Republicans and Democrats both, and I have spoken kindly of both Napoleon and Che Guevara.

I have never seen the ability to learn from enemies as a weakness. And I have never understood this anti-intellectual strain of thought here in America that insists we all remain what we were born into, this mob mentality that insists we never change an opinion. I have searched as far and as deep into the human experience as I possibly could before entering into politics. If my refusal to apologize for my willingness to learn from everyone and not just those who think like my father is somehow offensive, then so be it.
More…

Upcoming Appearances by Keith Preston (and some humor from the critics) 4

by • Activism

I have two speaking engagements coming up over the next few weeks. On Halloween I will be speaking to the National Policy Institute at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. My topic will be “American Imperialism vs The Identity of the World’s Peoples.”

I will also be speaking at the H.L. Mencken Club in Baltimore on November 7. My topic will be ““The Alliance of Transnational Capitalism and the Managerial Therapeutic State.”

I plan to smash a lot of sacred totems at both of these events.

Speaking of which, a self-styled “anti-fascist” (whatever that means) blog recently had this to say about yours truly:

“Preston will be known to people as he is a defector from the larger anarchist movements of the 70s and 80s, formerly a member of Workers Solidarity Alliance and was present at the founding convention of the Love and Rage Anarchist Federation.  He now runs the “pan-Secessionist” Attack the System, where he promotes right-wing libertarian ideas and racialist National Anarchism.  Here he will give his usual speech where he sadly attempts to soften anarchism to be compatible with authoritarian racial nationalism, which he sees as having common ground as they are both opposed to the current State.”

The description of my background here is largely accurate, although the description of my present views is a bit narrowly-focused. I suppose I could be considered a post-left, synthesist-anarchist, anarchist without adjectives, geo-mutualist-syndicalist, conspiracy-libertarian-populist, national-anarchist, paleoconservative panarchist. “Pan-secessionism” is a tactical and strategic concept, not an ideological one. Nor will I be speaking on “authoritarian racial nationalism” at NPI. I will be offering a critique of U.S. imperialism, and explaining why cultural, ethnic, or religious identitarians, including Europeans, should be opposed to the American empire.

Likewise, my name apparently came up during the course of a lengthy multi-part essay on a fellow named Michael Schmidt, who is supposedly a white South African “white nationalist anarcho-communist” or something to that effect, and who supposedly operates under multiple identities, including that of “Francois Le Sueur.” Apparently, this person has been the source of a great deal of drama in the left-wing anarchist scene in recent times.

More…

The Greatest Challenge: Can Anarchists Wipe Their Own Asses? 3

by • Anarchism/Anti-State
By Legionscatz
It occurs to me, that part of the reason I lost faith in anarchism (ok, perhaps faith isn’t the right word, leave me alone atheists) in the first place is because, ultimately, to manifest an anarchist society, anarchism must become popular with the people which that society is comprised of.
 
Okay, statement of the totally-effing-obvious. However, what isn’t so obvious is the question of whether most people actually possess the right physical and mental attributes to prosper in a society in which everyone has to take responsibility not only for their own particular concerns, but for themselves and their nearest and dearest.
 
Unbeknown to most of it’s proponents, anarchism is a statement of willingness to take complete responsibility for ones own destiny. Now naturally (at least before the ancoms start bitching at me) this does not exclude any collaborative and cooperative elements of our society but of course this doesn’t mean that there will be an overarching entity such as a state to wipe your arses for you if you are incapable of doing it yourself.
 
In fact, this is one reason why I don’t think it’s possible to dismantle the state. Anarchists are not just fighting intellectual dishonesty or lack-of-imagination, but they’re also fighting physical reliance which has been bred into people slowly-but-surely over a process of many generations (perhaps many millennia).
 
The unfortunate truth is that we have allowed ourselves to become domesticated as a species.
 
A member of the fully fledged Homo Sapiens species is capable, by fact-of-species, many things including self-defence, gathering the necessary means for ones own survival and so forth. Simple, basic behavioural assets that frankly, even a mouse is capable of.
 
However many humans today simply are not capable of these things. In fact, your average proletarian is so degenerate (that includes the stereotypical neo-nazi who spends all his goddamned time shouting about “degeneracy” and “racial supremacy”) that they simply aren’t able to perform these basic behaviours without an overarching entity such as a state to basically hold their hand while they do it.

More…

Tom Woods Loses Sight of the Intentions of Anarchism 14

by • Anarchism/Anti-State, Economics/Class Relations

This is a very interesting rebuttal to the standard anarcho-capitalist view of property theory from a classical anarchist perspective.

By Will Schnack

Evolution of Consent

Check out Will’s book here.

This is a reply to Tom Woods Show Ep. 507, “Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-Socialism: Why We Should Embrace Property Rights.”[1] In this show, Tom Woods speaks with Nathan Fraser, who asks him a variety of questions relating to property rights from a hypothetical social anarchist perspective. I believe Tom Woods’s position on private property to be a fair challenge to communism, while erring too far in the other direction. In doing so, Tom Woods loses sight of the original intentions of anarchism, and promotes statist economics in an anarchist political garb.

Opening the heart of the show, Nathan Fraser asks Tom Woods how he views property rights in the dispute between anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists. Tom Woods then makes a few statements regarding his support for private property, and how he believes it to be a natural right, but that consequentialist arguments can be made for it also. He delves into a concept of ‘original sinner.’ In this, he acknowledges the Rousseauian position, that property is theft, and which sees the source of conflict as having arisen from the private claim on the commons. However, he counters that he believes the source of conflict to originate with those who declare that no one can have private property. He sees these as the only possible sources of conflict. He chooses the latter position as being correct.

More…

J’accuse: Leftist intellectuals turn right 1

by • Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy, Culture Wars/Current Controversies, Economics/Class Relations, Immigration, Left and Right, Political Correctness/Totalitarian Humanism, Religion and Philosophy, Strategy

frenchleft02_186x138-714x475

From Politico.

Onfray’s book on atheism lies half-read on my print-pile; maybe one day, I’ll actually lay hands on it again.

~MRDA~

_________________

Unusual ideological bedfellows in France are uniting against globalization and the euro.

By Pierre Briançon

10/16/15, 5:30 AM CET

Updated 10/16/15, 7:14 PM CET

PARIS — When the newspaper Libération last month accused self-professed “left of the left” philosopher and best-selling author Michel Onfray of “doing the [far-right party] Front National’s bidding,” French intellectuals circled the wagons.

Riding to the rescue from the left and right to defend Onfray, they did what intellectuals do in these cases: organize a public debate. The headline of the event, to be hosted at the Maison de la Mutualité on October 20 by political weekly magazine Marianne in support of its sometime contributor Onfray, sets a new standard for navel-gazing: “Can we still debate in France?”

Spoiler alert: The fury stirred up by the controversy offers a good clue to the answer.

Onfray is only the latest French thinker whom government-friendly media and Socialist party officials accuse of pushing ideas similar to those of the far-right — on immigration, the role of Islam in society and the need to restore France’s battered sense of self.

More…

Either Way, It’s American Displacement Day 1

by • Culture Wars/Current Controversies, Political Correctness/Totalitarian Humanism, Race and Ethnicity

columbusday_sanc2

The Infernal take on “Columbus Day”.

_________________

Yesterday yielded another round of commotion regarding the infamous Christopher Columbus, designated “discoverer” of the so-called “New World” (Leif Erikson moans from Midgard!). No doubt, the less-than-vocal majority of Statesiders were simply thrilled to get a day off from work; the more vocal, however, reheated their rancour over the late Double-C’s conquering, raping, enslaving ways, wishing instead for an “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” to displace the dastard. Not surprisingly, this generated a bit of an uproar from the more reactionary elements of the World Wide Web, who predictably countersignalled in favour of Columbus.

Now, on October 13th, 2015, I sit here typing this whilst high (or, rather, low) on my favourite empathy-suppressant. Clearly, it’s a shitty batch, what with me feeling somewhat sympathetic to the prog pouting over this issue. Going by several accounts of his exploits, Columbus and his crew were certified cunts, engaging in kidnapping, murder, rape, and kiddy sex slavery, amongst other fun activities; all this after being, by CC’s own account, warmly welcomed by the Amerindian tribes who would become their all-purpose prey. Taking that into account (plus the fact he never actually set foot on the North American mainland) it does seems rather grotesque of Statesiders to dedicate a day of pomp and pageantry to his “discovery”; kinda like “Good War” enthusiasts fellating Bomber Harris for raining down death on civilian populations.

That said, I find the desired (and partially realised) replacement of the occasion with an Indigenous Peoples Day to be sublimely silly and short-sighted. For all the shit suitably slung the way of Columbus, Cortez, and all the other Christians who murdered Indians, they were but the most proximate of predators on the calendar of conquest. A decade ago, I stumbled upon a rather illuminating piece of historical revisionism on the late and lamented Loompanics site; its author, Bill Wilson, made the case that those favoured by the IPD-endorsers had encountered and erased a preceding population of decidedly different descent:

More…

Calling for Anti-Statist, Anti-Authoritarian Radical Alliances 2

by • Uncategorized • Tags: ,

On Sunday October 11th Derrick Broze spoke at Libertyfest in NYC about the history of the word Libertarian, the history of alliances between radicals on the left and right, a highlight of the work of Karl Hess and Samuel Konkin III, and the need for less ego and dogma in the interest of building new alliances between radicals across the political spectrum.

Radical means taking a direct action approach to your activism. By using Agorist methods of building counter-institutions to the state in the areas of economics, media, education, and others we can create a competing infrastructure that could use a variety of mutual aid strategies to create interlocking communities that voluntarily associate, and trade. We encourage tax resistance, and using black and gray markets to make your money outside of the state’s central economic system. We also encourage the spreading of propaganda against the state whenever and where ever possible. Creating affinity groups, or freedom cells is an incredibly necessary way to build solutions on a local level.

Libertarianism is a political and philosophical position that values liberty, specifically individual liberty, as of utmost importance in our lives. The historical usage of the term began with Anarchists of the 19th, and 20th centuries. Libertarian has always meant anti-authoritarian, and individual. Beyond that, a Libertarian can support whatever economic system they choose as long as it does not result in Authoritarianism, Statism, or the trampling of individual rights.

Alliances are a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations, or a relationship based on an affinity in interests, nature, or qualities. It is wise for radicals that are anti-state, and anti-authoritarian on all sides of the spectrum to focus on organizing together for common ground issues and putting aside dogma to build a network that can support communities without the state.

From Syndicalists to Individualists, Mutualists and Agorists, Voluntaryists and Market Anarchists, Panarchists and Anarchists without Adjectives, and other self-identified radicals – this talk is aimed at those who are against Authoritarianism, Statism, and Oppression in all forms. This talk is aimed at those who recognize the power of the Individual and seek to work together as a whole.

We will work with others regardless of their preferred economic systems. As long as individuals are capable of forming alliances without using force on one another they should seek to form temporary alliances around common ground issues or immediate threats. It is also important to remember we do not need to sell out our own individual principles in the interest of these alliances.

Find more videos like this at: http://www.theconsciousresistance.com

Mainstream Media Declares Clinton the Winner of Debate, Their Own Polls Say Otherwise 1

by • Uncategorized

Truth Axis

Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders Photo: Harald Dettenborn and United States Dept of Veteran Affairs

Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders
Photo: Harald Dettenborn and United States Dept of Veteran Affairs

Who won last nights Democratic Debate? If you’re reading mainstream media headlines, then you’ll see that the press has been quick to crown the heir apparent of the Clinton Dynasty. Digging a little deeper shows that the mainstream media’s own viewer polls say otherwise. Slate, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and Time Magazine all ran headlines declaring Hillary Clinton the winner while also conducting live polls showing that their audience thought Bernie Sanders won the debate. Who is controlling the political narrative here?

Below are headlines and accompanying excerpts of articles praising Clinton’s performance, followed by screenshots of their online polls. You can follow links to most of the articles and polls to see for yourself.
More…

Robert Stark interviews Andy Nowicki about Notes Before Death Reply

by • Uncategorized

Here!

Notes Before Death

Robert Stark talks to Alternative Right co-editor Andy Nowicki about his latest book Notes Before Death

Topics include:

The Philosophical questions regarding life and death
The Suffering God and the Culture of Death
Confronting one’s own mortality
How the onset of adolescents and sexualization changes ones view towards life
Andy’s book Considering Suicide
The book’s essay “The Street Hardly Understands” about T.S. Elliot
The shallowness of Christian Hollywood and why Christian art doesn’t always have to be wholesome
The Black Pill and how nihilism can be liberating

Keith Preston: US wants ‘puppet states’ in power in Middle East Reply

by • Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

Press TV. Listen here: http://presstv.ir/Default/embed/433161

The military and political strategies deployed by the US imply that the West is only after preserving “puppet states” through which it can have more dominance over the region.

Since the breakout of war in Syria and the expansion of turmoil in the region, the US has tried to back and fund militant groups that are pro-western and part of its so-called coalition partners, Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of attackthesystem.com, told Press TV Monday.

In Syria, where Washington claims to seek demise of the Daesh terrorists, it provided support for the militants fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

With Russia launching airstrikes against Daesh in Syria, the militants have become  “increasingly isolated” and the US finally resorted to air-dropping weapons for them.

“It has gone very poorly and many of the weapons have fallen into alternative hands,” Preston said.

US Central Command spokesman Colonel Patrick Ryder said in a statement on Monday that “the aircraft delivery on Sunday included small arms ammunition to resupply counter-ISIL ground forces so that they can continue operations against ISIL,”

US officials have told The Associated Press that Russia has directed parts of its military campaign against US-backed terrorists and other extremist groups in an effort to weaken them.

As stated by Preston, US is supporting fundamentalist terrorists and insurgent groups through the Persian Gulf states which are part of the western coalition allegedly against Daesh.

A New Anarchist Economic Paradigm 2

by • Economics/Class Relations

From Will Schnack:

“Consider purchasing a book, and helping a young farmer-philosopher to subsist! It’s quality material, and I have been blessed to have receieved some favorable responses from some of my own favorite authors, including the infamous mutualist, Kevin Carson, and a more personal inspiration to me, Dr. Ulisse Di Corpo, a psychologist from Rome, Italy. More recently, I have also received much appreciated support from pan-secessionist, Keith Preston. See their reviews below:

“The world is facing one of the most dangerous periods of modern history. Europe is confronting a descent into chaos and conflict. The international financial crisis and the risk of default of public debts are unprecedented. The global economic system could collapse altogether… We are witnessing a dramatic increase in entropy and chaos and people are becoming scared of the future, they sense that a new world conflict is getting closer.”

In this collection of essays William Schnack offers a new and fresh perspective. He suggests that it is possible to shift from entropy to syntropy, from chaos to wellbeing. It is a complex and controversial topic, which needs to be widely addressed and debated, and which could provide a way out from the catastrophic future towards which humanity is now heading.”

More…

Wolf Country Reply

by • Environment

By William T. Hathaway

This year marks the 20th anniversary of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. From 66 released originally they’ve increased to over 300 and are no longer endangered. That they thrive here is not surprising, for they are creatures of this raw land in a way that we aren’t. Wolves are fitted to this environment, and so to understand them, we have to know the country that nurtures them.

The area from Yellowstone to central Idaho has one of the lowest densities of human population in the United States. Those who do live here are held in thrall by land and weather, too harsh for most of our species. The elements keep us ever on the defensive without even noticing us.

People claim to own this country, but she owns us. Daily she teaches us how small our power is: we are like children clinging to a shaggy bison, helpless riders on a massive beast. We had enough power to exile the wolves, but then the wilderness was no longer whole, the grazing herds became unhealthy, and we had to bring back these culling predators. The banishment was short from their time frame.

The mountains they lope around are the eruption of a force that begins to rise in the Dakotas, gathers momentum as it buckles the prairie into ridges and ravines, then thrusts the earth’s crust into peaks. Humans read time on the land, and it dwarfs us: Rivers cut the earth for millennia, then vanished into the bottoms of their canyons, leaving them lime dry. Glaciers sheared off mountains, scraping them down to flat mesas. Epochs of wind are still gnawing the buttes into knobs of pocked rock. Now it’s time for wolves again. A missing totem, Sunmánituthaka of the Sioux, has been restored, an ancient spirit returned to us. More…