Žižek: Fortress Europe’s staunch defender on the left Reply

Expect more cracks of this type to emerge on the Left in the future.

Post image for Žižek: Fortress Europe’s staunch defender on the leftŽižek’s thoughts on the refugee crisis are useless, even harmful, for creating a pan-European leftist movement capable of challenging the far-right.

Photo by Mariana Costa, via Flickr.

In a recent article Žižek replied to the critique of a previous text he wrote on the so-called ‘refugee crisis.’ The exchange between Žižek and his critics essentially revolved around whether the left should support the refugees and migrants’ demands for open borders and the right to live where they choose, or not.

Žižek claimed that the refugees’ dream, represented by “Norway,” doesn’t exist, whereas one critic points out that it is our duty to create it. Particularly problematic is his use of phrases like “our way of life,” “Western values” and figures like “the typical left-liberal.” The most important thing that is missing in Žižek’s text is an analysis of the potentiality of the refugees and migrants’ struggles.

In his response to the criticism, Žižek begins by complaining about the shift from what he calls “radical emancipatory movements” like Syriza and Podemos to “the ‘humanitarian’ topic of the refugees.” This, we are informed, is not a good thing because the refugee and migrant struggles are actually nothing but “the liberal-cultural topic of tolerance” replacing the more genuine “class struggle.”

Why this is the case is left unclear. Rather, we are told that:

[t]he more Western Europe will be open to [immigrants], the more it will be made to feel guilty that it did not accept even more of them. There will never be enough of them. And with those who are here, the more tolerance one displays towards their way of life, the more one will be made guilty for not practicing enough tolerance.

There are several problems in this statement, especially the idea of a “we” of “Western Europe” contrasted against an image of a “way of life” somehow shared by all refugees and migrants. Before turning to that problem, however, it is useful to examine one of Žižek’s favorite tropes — the “typical left-liberal” — which sits at the heart of his critique.

Žižek’s “typical left-liberal” — a figure that is reiterated and criticized throughout much of his writing — is a figure who holds tolerant and multicultural views, but whose antiracism is actually a kind of subtle racism. In the piece in question the “left-liberal” humanist figure is a person who is afraid of criticizing Islam and who (according to Žižek) unjustly accuses those who do so of being Islamophobic.


Keith Preston: McCain, Graham represent most hawkish wing in US 1

Press TV. Listen here: http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/11/30/439755/Graham-McCain-most-hawkish-wing

US Senators “Graham and McCain represent the most hawkish wing or the most extremist wing of the American foreign policy establishment,” Keith Preston told Press TV on Monday.

The recent call by US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham to send 20,000 American troops to Iraq and Syria underscores that they represent the most extreme political class in Washington, a political analyst in Virginia says.

“Those two individuals are very adamant about persistently engaging in military intervention and bombing activity in the Middle East,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com.

“Graham and McCain represent the most hawkish wing or the most extremist wing of the American foreign policy establishment,” Preston told Press TV on Monday.

The two senior Republican senators called on Sunday for Washington to deploy 20,000 US troops to Iraq and Syria as part of a multinational ground force to counter the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group.

McCain and Graham told reporters during a visit to Baghdad on Sunday that US personnel could provide “logistical and intelligence support” to a proposed 100,000-member military force from regional countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

The two lawmakers also criticized President Barack Obama’s Daesh strategy, which relies on airstrikes and support for so-called moderate militants in Syria, stressing the need for greater US involvement in the Middle East conflicts.

“The only way you can destroy the caliphate (Daesh) is with a ground component,” said Graham who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination. “The aerial campaign is not turning the tide of battle.”

The claims by McCain and Graham that the Obama administration is not making a serious effort to defeat Daesh are “partially true,” Preston said.

“What the United States wants to do, as I said before, is to use ISIL as a means for toppling the regime of President Assad,” he added. “That’s the first goal that the United States has.”

“Also, the United States, in a wider geopolitical sense, wants to keep Russian influence out of the region as well,” he noted.

About 3,500 US troops are currently “advising and assisting” Iraqi forces in the fight against ISIL terrorists.

Senators McCain and Graham met with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi who they said had welcomed the idea of more US troops.

However, Iraqi government spokesman Saad Hadithi denied the claim, saying that the PM had not requested US combat troops on the ground but rather asked for more arms and advisers to increase air support for Iraqi forces.

Leading Iraqi politicians have repeatedly voiced opposition to a greater role for the remaining US forces in the country.

Something Remarkable Is Happening on the Political Left in Portugal Reply


    Commerce Square in Lisbon, Portugal. (Pinkcandy / Shutterstock.com)

After a general election left political options in Portugal a bit hazy this month, a coalition made up of the Socialist, Communist, Green and Left Bloc parties ousted a conservative government that held the reins for a mere 11 days that will go down in the books as “the shortest administration in Portuguese history.”

And that’s not all that the anti-austerity Portuguese have done in recent weeks.

The leftist coalition, which rose to power with António Costa, “the well-regarded former mayor of Lisbon and son of a communist poet from Goa,” as leader, also appointed the country’s first black female minister of justice.

From The Guardian:

The newly formed leftist alliance – the first since the birth of democratic Portugal four decades ago – seemed inconceivable just weeks earlier as the parties struggled to work out their difficulties. … Costa, the former mayor of Lisbon, has insisted his government will meet international commitments on its budget and debts, a year and a half after it exited its bailout programme.

The 54-year-old has said his government will run “a socialist programme” that allows for “a sustainable reduction in deficits and debt”. … Costa certainly faces a challenge holding together a disparate group – suitable for a man who likes to relax by doing 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzles – but he seems confident.

“I always deliver more than I promise,” he declared, pointing to his record as mayor of Lisbon, where he was elected three times, with a bigger majority each time.

Read more.

The Unmagnificent Seven: Naming ISIS Allies 1

How ISIS is being used as a tool of the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis.

By Taxi

Plato’s Guns

I-096 Anti-War

The Mainstream Media is doing all it can to avoid addressing the obvious:  naming, dissecting and damning ISIS’s major backers and supporters.  There are no such informative and sanguine reports being penned or published by the elite media; they are instead too busy gatecrashing the funerals of the fallen, wiping errant tears and taking selfies.

As usual, wilted pathos and not sound reason is what’s being fed to the public after yet another  horrific series of terrorist attacks.

But in this advanced age of the internet and its perpetually widening information highway, this will simply not do.  Consumers of news on terrorism – which is practically most of humanity – would greatly benefit from learning the identities of the wizards behind the ISIS curtain.  The MSM is not providing this vital service – this therefore leaves the burden of mass dissemination on the thin shoulders of private citizens and their blogs.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, America, France and the UK.  The Unmagnificent Seven.

This is the duplicitous, mass-murdering mafia that is in fact behind the rise and hectic spread of ISIS and its Takfiri Hydras.  Every single terrorist act committed by ISIS terrorists was made possible by the dark generosity and political perversions of the Unmagnificent Seven.  None of these conspiratorial nations are fighting terrorism, as they claim.  They are instead willfully and covertly creating terrorism to advantage their mega global power grabs – and in the case of our government, using our tax dollars to do so, no less.  In other words, we are today unknowingly paying for our own eventual slaughter by terrorists.


Is North Korea on the Brink of Reform? 1

If true, this is big news.

By Michael Bassett

Asia Observer

Swiss-educated reformer Kim Jong-un is liberating North Korea by proliferating a capitalist, knowledge-based economy, says Michael Bassett. 

When Kim Jong-il died, speculation ran awry that North Korea would either collapse or be taken over by hard-liners. Analysts watched doggedly as the young marshal, Kim Jong-un, emplaced a gang of seven in power—a gang whom his father had not recommended in the 6th Party Central Committee Plenum. Kim Jong-un’s affinity for these technocrats was temporary: That nearly all have been banished, purged or killed begs inquiry of the “method to his madness.”

As I will show, Kim Jong-un has defied all predictions and permanently changed the trajectory of North Korea.


Let us do nothing! Reply

By Keir Martland

There’s a lot of talk of the recent debates over the Cameron regime’s proposed Syrian adventure being a good thing and that we are learning from the mistakes of Iraq and Libya.

No we aren’t. The vast majority of voices we are hearing are in favour of a military solution. While the wisdom of bombing is being questioned, it is the wisdom of ‘bombing only’ that is being questioned, with even a young lady from the Adam Smith Institute calling for working “with countries all over the world” in a Grand Coalition, arguing that boots on the ground “probably is necessary”.


CBS News Investigative Journalist Explains How Mainstream Media Brainwashes The Masses 1

The news is all made up.

Did you know that only a handful of corporations, 6 to be exact, control over 90 percent of the media? That means nearly everything we hear on the radio, read in the news, and see on television (including ‘news’). I’m talking about General Electric (GE), News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS.

Ever since Operation Mockingbird, a CIA-based initiative to control mainstream media, more and more people are expressing their concern that what we see in the media is nothing short of brainwashing. This is also evident by blatant lies that continue to spam the TV screen, especially when it comes to topics such as health, food, war (“terrorism“), poverty  and more. Corporate interests always seem to get in the way.


Why Risk War With Russia? 1

Pat Buchanan on the prospects for World War Three. Right now, this is the main issue that radicals and dissident, and indeed all reasonable people, in the United State and Europe should be focused on. This is serious business, and a reminded of why our first priority radicals, revolutionaries, dissidents, whatever we are should be to dismantle the U.S. imperial system.

The American Conservative

Photo: the Russian Presidential Press and Information Office

Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian warplane was a provocative and portentous act.

That Sukhoi Su-24, which the Turks say intruded into their air space, crashed and burned — in Syria. One of the Russian pilots was executed while parachuting to safety. A Russian rescue helicopter was destroyed by rebels using a U.S. TOW missile. A Russian marine was killed.

“A stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists,” said Vladimir Putin of the first downing of a Russian warplane by a NATO nation in half a century. Putin has a point, as the Russians are bombing rebels in northwest Syria, some of which are linked to al-Qaeda.

As it is impossible to believe Turkish F-16 pilots would fire missiles at a Russian plane without authorization from President Tayyip Recep Erdogan, we must ask: Why did the Turkish autocrat do it?

Why is he risking a clash with Russia?



Why the Majority-Minority Future Might Never Come 1

By Reihan Salam

National Review

Jamelle Bouie argues that the United States might never become a “majority-minority” country, as the white majority will expand over time through intermarriage and assimilation:
It’s hard to overstate the significance of this. Whites are the mainstream of American life, with tremendous representation in every area of our society. Through intermarriage, Latinos and Asian Americans are becoming similarly mainstreamed. Indeed, in politics, business, and culture, it’s not hard to find examples of “minorities” who are indistinguishable from whites. For all intents and purposes, Texas Senator Ted Cruz—the freshman lawmaker who helped drive the GOP into confrontation with President Obama—is understood as white, despite his heritage. More important, his children will also be understood as white. While there are limits to the comparison between the Latinos and Asian Americans of today with their Irish and Italian predecessors—Latinos and Asian Americans span a wide range of nationalities—the basic point stands. These are two upwardly mobile groups that are rapidly assimilating with the white mainstream. If the pattern of the past holds, the future won’t be majority-minority; it will be a white majority, where Spanish last names are common. And if that’s the case, there’s a chance that the GOP ends up getting a new crop of voters over the next two decades: Latinos and Asian Americans who have assimilated, become “white,” and thus more conservative in their political preferences. As simply a function of time, the Republican Party will see a changing of the guard, and with it, a shift in its areas of focus. The civil libertarianism of Senator Rand Paul and the family-focused economic priorities of Utah Senator Mike Lee provide a good idea of where the GOP might go in ten years.


Debating Anarchist Tactics: Left Only, or Beyond Left and Right 5

What follows is the transcript of a debate that I had on this question with a left-anarchist/libertarian socialist on a social media forum. His comments are in italics and my response are in standard font.

A defence of anarchism as (1) libertarian socialism, and (2) an anti-hierarchical and inclusive philosophy of society.
Any set of ideas which permits hierarchies of power or exclusion of people based on nationhood, race, gender, or sexuality is categorically not anarchist – despite what they may call themselves.

This includes laughable ideologies such as “anarcho”-capitalism and national-anarchism; both promoted by effing lunatic Keith Preston of Attack the System. http://antifascistnews.net/2015/11/23/putting-it-to-rest-what-you-want-isnt-anarchism/

The full debate is linked to here if anyone is interested: https://ntna.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/antifa-vs-anarchism/

Plus this latest installment in response to a commenter on AnarchistNews dot Org. : https://attackthesystem.com/…/the-legacy-of-anarchist…/

Personally I don’t see why you even feel the need to self-identify as an anarchist. This “pan-secessionist” stuff is clearly a different thing altogether.

Anarchism is the underlying philosophy and ideological backdrop. Pan-secessionism is merely a tactical concept (like a general strike, an electoral campaign, or guerrilla insurgency).

The problem is what it seeks to create with that “tactic” isn’t anarchism (voluntary non-hierarchy), but a bunch of smaller forms of archism, with some actual forms of anarchism among them.


Anarchism and Multiculturalism Reply

The SJW-speak aside, this is actually pretty interesting. A lot of the right questions are getting asked.

By Uri Gordon


In L. Cordeiro-Rodrigues and M. Simendic, eds. 2015. Philosophies of Multiculturalism: Beyond liberalism, London: Routledge

This chapter examines anarchist approaches to ethno-cultural difference , offering three main arguments. The first is that anarchists were early and consistent opponents of racism and imperialism, both in advanced capitalist countries and in the colonial and post-colonial world, reflecting the movement’s transnational connections and internationalist outlook. While anarchists remain at the front lines of anti-racist and anti-colonial politics worldwide, the universalist terms in which their predecessors constructed their cosmopolitanism have come into question, as anarchists increasingly express intersectionalist critiques of domination with distinct post-colonial and poststructuralist resonances. The second argument is that anarchists share the wider radical Left critique of multicultural policies, which obscure systemic racial and class inequality while promoting monolithic and elite-driven representations of minorities. Anarchists may also conceptualise multiculturalism as a specific case of the state’s general manner of upholding forms of domination by ameliorating their worst excesses in response to resistance. Thirdly, I argue that in order to offer a revolutionary alternative to state multiculturalism, anarchists should further develop their engagement with radical decolonial approaches. These place systemic racism at the centre of social critique, and in the context of past and present dispossession of peoples from land through military occupation, economic dominance, slavery, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Theoretically, this approach integrates critiques of racialisation and capitalism without recourse to essentialism or class reductionism. Ethically, it places the onus on white activists to offer active solidarity to struggles against racism and colonialism, while deconstructing their own privileged identities and behaviours.


Robert Stark interviews Robert Lindsay about the Turkish attack on the Russian Plane Reply

Listen Here


Russian Plane


Topics include:

“Russian Warplane Down: NATO’s Act of War,” by Tony Cartalucci
“Russia ‘Violated’ Turkish Airspace Because Turkey “Moved” Its Border,” By Syrian Free Press
How Turkey has violated Greek Airspace 2,244 times
“Turkey Did Not Act on Its Own. Was Washington Complicit in Downing Russia’s Aircraft?” by Stephen Lendman
“Do We Really Want a ‘Pre-emptive’ World War with Russia? by F. William Engdahl
The History of conflict between Russia and Turkey
“The Dirty War on Syria: The Basics,” by Prof. Tim Anderson
US Endgame in Syria
“Understanding ISIS
One of the Biggest Lies Ever Told: Hezbollah Blew Up the Marine Base in Lebanon in 1983, Killing Over 300 US Marines
How Islamic imperialism is driven primarily by Saudi, Gulf State, and Turkish influence and how Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah serve as a counterbalance
In the Belly of the Beast of the Deep State: A Look at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Why Robert Lindsay think’s Donald Trump has fascist aspects but is still better than the establishment canddiates
Sokal on the Cultural Left
Robert Lindsay’s thoughts on Robert Stark’s recent interview with Matt Forney and why he disagrees with Matt that the Left destroyed cities
Robert Lindsay’s thoughts on Robert Stark recent interview with Charles Lincoln about Cities and why he disagrees with Charles that single family homes are the ideal and that density is inherently bad

No, Stossel. The Pilgrims Were Starved by a Corporation, Not by Communism. 1

By Kevin Carson

Center for a Stateless Society

Each year at this time somebody in the right-libertarian world, reenacting an obligatory Thanksgiving ritual, drags out the old chestnut about the Pilgrims at Plymouth almost starving from “communism” until private property rights and capitalism saved them. This year John Stossel (“We Should Be Thankful for Private Property,” Reason, Nov. 27) gets the honors.

In the received version the Puritans, motivated by a misguided idealism, initially set out to restore the primitive Christian communism of the Book of Acts, “holding all things in common.” Stossel characterizes the arrangement as sounding “like something out of Karl Marx.” When the obvious incentive problems entailed in this practice led to starvation, the settlers accommodated themselves to reality and divided up the land and worked it individually. Output skyrocketed, starvation was averted, and everybody was happy.

But that’s not the way things actually happened.

Richard Curl’s history of cooperatives in America, For All the People, fills in some missing details that change the meaning of the story entirely. Curl supplements Bradford’s history with material from J. A. Doyle’s English Colonies. According to Doyle, the agreement between the Pilgrim Separatists and the Merchant Adventurers corporation provided that

“[a]ll settlers … were to receive their necessaries out of the common stock. For seven years there was to be no individual property or trade, but the labor of the colony was to be organized according to the different capacities of the settlers. At the end of the seven years the company was to be dissolved and the whole stock divided.

Two reservations were inserted, one entitling the settlers to separate plots of land about their houses, and the other allowing them two days in the week for cultivation of such holdings. The London partners, however, refused to grant these concessions, and the agents of the emigrants withdrew them rather than give up the scheme.”

In the conventional narrative the apostolic zeal of the Pilgrims, who desire to recreate the communism of the early Church, is confronted by hard reality. But according to Curl, relations between the Puritan settlers and the Merchant Adventurers make more sense in light of an entirely different subtext — the English peasantry’s relations with the landed classes in the Old Country: “The colonists, most of them tenant farmers in the open fields of an old manorial hunting park in Nottinghamshire, considered that the investors’ demand essentially reduced them to serfdom. The settlers were asking for no more than was normal under England’s manorial system in effect since the Middle Ages. Peasants worked in the lord’s fields but also had time to work with individual plots for their household needs.” The turning point of the story is a lot less like Stossel’s “capitalist reform” than the Diggers on St. George’s Hill.

The Plymouth story is sometimes compared to that of agriculture in the last days of the Soviet Union, where most of the food consumed came from private family plots — essentially kitchen gardens with some small livestock thrown in. Had the entire Soviet population been forced to subsist on the output of State and collective farms alone, the result would have been mass starvation — exactly like in Plymouth. This parallel is entirely accurate. What the received version of the Plymouth story leaves out, however, is that the role of the “collective farm” in the little drama is played not by the naive Puritan zealots seeking to “hold all things in common” but by a private corporation chartered by the English crown.

And as Curl describes it, the system of private plots adopted after the rebellion against the Merchant Adventurers wasn’t much like modern fee simple ideas of “private property,” either. It sounds more like the furlong strips in the open-fields of Nottinghamshire: The family plots were ad hoc, to be periodically redivided, and not subject to inheritance.

So the proper analog to what almost killed off the Pilgrims is not, as Stossel says, “Karl Marx” or “today’s [presumably left-wing] politicians and opinion-makers.” It’s the lord of an English manor — or a Fortune 500 corporation.

But the story as it actually happened is still a testament to the evils of statism and the benefits of voluntary cooperation. The Merchant Adventurers, like the Fortune 500 companies of today, was a chartered corporation that depended entirely on benefits and legal privileges conferred by the state. The living arrangements it attempted to impose on the Plymouth settlers were the same as the extractive arrangements that prevailed on an English manor, enforced by the legal privileges the state conferred on the landed nobility. And the new system the Pilgrims replaced them with were the age-old open field system that peasant villages had spontaneously created for themselves, in the absence of coercive interference, since neolithic times.

The legacy of anarchist successes? 3

A commenter at AnarchistNews.Org posting as “SirEinzige” offers these observations concerning yours truly and my previous reply to a commentor on the same thread:

What Preston doesn’t seem to realize is that classical anarchist failures were to an inherent degree rooted in their organizational successes which played a role in things like the new deal. At most his focus should be tertiary with no strange bedfellows and seperate means and ends. In that regard secession could have a place in anarchist tactics but to to the point of becoming part of the machine of organization, positions and solutions.

Also, Stirner is not on the ideology scale and certainly nowhere near ancaps.

There’s a lot of substance in this short statement that is worth addressing. The first point involves an assessment of the relative successes and failures of the anarchist wing of the historic labor movement.

“classical anarchist failures were to an inherent degree rooted in their organizational successes which played a role in things like the new deal.”

This comment is actually reminiscent of something I wrote 15 years ago lamenting the drift of much of anarchism into implicit social democratic reformism.

“The reality of course is that anarchism was one of the most successful mass movements ever. Yes, the state has yet to be abolished. No nation to date has adopted the black flag as its own. Yes, the international bourgeoisie retain their power. Class rule is with us now as much as ever. However, when we look at the state of things in the industrialized world a century ago we see that history has indeed moved in our direction.

Anarchists were at the forefront of the movement for the eight-hour workday. The Haymarket martyrs gave their lives for this cause. At one point it was illegal to organize labor unions. Striking workers were regularly gunned down by government agents and private thugs. It was a federal crime in the United States to distribute information about contraception. Orphaned children were confined to slave-like conditions and used for medical experimentation along with the mentally handicapped, juvenile delinquents, homosexuals and others. Prison conditions often rivaled those of Nazi concentration camps. The death penalty was regularly imposed for burglary and grand larceny. People of African descent were regularly murdered and terrorized by gangs of racists while authorities looked the other way.

Anarchists were among the earliest and most militant opponents of all of these conditions. The eight-hour day, the right to organize unions, read sexually explicit literature, practice contraception and obtain abortions and engage in antiwar protests, prison reform and countless other rights and privileges that we take for granted today did not exist at the time of the classical anarchist movement. Roger Baldwin was inspired to found the American Civil Liberties Union after hearing a speech by the anarchist and pioneer womens’ rights advocate Emma Goldman. Anarchists were among the earliest opponents of the mistreatment of homosexuals as well. In many ways, things have advanced considerably over the past century.”

In other words, while the classical anarchist movement failed miserably to actual carry out revolutions against states and ruling classes, many of the issues and ideals championed by the movement were eventually realized to at least a partial degree.

SirEinzige appears to be arguing that the actual successes of anarchist labor organizing efforts proved to be their undoing at the end of the day, because the labor movement that the anarchists helped to organize subsequently grew to the point where A) it actually achieved comprehensive labor reforms that ironically undermined the general militancy of the labor movement and B) allowed for the cooptation of the labor movement under the New Deal compact. It could be argued a similar narrative unfolded in other industrialized nations as well during the same era.

But this observation folds into the New Left recognition that the industrial proletariat in Western capitalist countries had ceased to be a revolutionary or even oppositional force due to rising living standards, technological innovation, the growth of consumer culture, the integration of the industrial working class into the middle class, the integration of labor and social democratic parties into the state, the institutionalization of labor unions, a range of political, legal, and economic reforms, etc.

In fact, by the 1960s workers in advanced industrialized nations had largely become a conservative force. Hence, the “workerist” orientation that continues to be championed by our classical syndicalist and libertarian communist friends became obsolete.


Corbett Report: Paris Attacks Truth, ISIS is a False Flag 1

James Corbett makes the case for the “false flag” view of the Paris attacks. That’s not a perspective that I think has been effectively demonstrated, but much of the analysis Corbett provides in these commentaries is accurate concerning the geopolitical questions involved.

Listen here: https://www.corbettreport.com/paris-attacks-truth-isis-is-a-false-flag/

My own view is NOT that ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is merely a puppet of the West and its Israeli, Turkish, and Gulf State allies. Rather its an outgrowth of the Iraq War and the destruction of civil society that was a product of that war. ISIS is the Khmer Rouge of the Levant, and has emerged under similar circumstances and for similar reasons, i.e. the laying to waste of a traditional society by Western imperialism in a way that ensured the worst of the worst would be left holding the ball at the end of the game.

The Western imperialist coalition (the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis, plus their EU, Turkish, and Gulf State partners) has as its primary objective the elimination of the Assad regime, and therefore encourages the actions of ISIS against that regime. It’s the same way the U.S. imperialists, in collusion with China, sought to use the Khmer Rouge as a weapon against the Vietnamese (a Soviet ally) during the 1980s after the KR was dislodged by Vietnam in 1979.  The imperialists regard Assad as greater threat than ISIS because independent nations in the Middle East are an obstacle to the expansion of the empire in the region, the advancement of the American-Israeli co-prosperity sphere, and the expansion of hegemony over the cultivation and trade of natural resources to be found there. Therefore, it is not surprising the West would give ISIS a wink and nod in its war against Syria while simultaneously trying to contain ISIS to prevent it from spreading into Iraq (with its pro-American regime), Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the Gulf States.

The Russians, on the other hand, are motivated by a traditional Russian view of foreign policy which regards Central Asia and Eastern Europe as their legitimate sphere of influence and security interests, and do not wish to see the spread of jihadist movements given that these pose a terrorist threat to Russia. Therefore, the Russians are motivated to protect the Assad regime against ISIS.

Consequently, the heart of the conflict between the West and Russia at present is whether Assad should stay or go. The West says yay, but the Russians say nay.

ISIS has a jihadist ideology of its own that it wishes to spread, and the attack is Paris is perfectly compatible with the broader aims of ISIS. See my interview with Tasmin on this question.



As The Corbett Report community continues to track the latest updates on the Paris attack investigation, let us not forget the essential underlying truth: ISIS is a creation of the US, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States, and they are fostered, funded, equipped, armed, trained and protected by the NATO allies and the GCC, France included.


The Paris Terror Attacks: An Open Source Investigation

Episode 298 – Gladio B and the Battle for Eurasia

Episode 295 – Who is Really Behind ISIS?

Episode 279 – Who Is Really Behind the Syrian War?

Paris attacks: France to call for effective suspension of Schengen open borders

Keith Preston: Russia, Turkey confrontation could trigger major world war Reply

Press TV. Listen here: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/26/439207/Russia-jet-Syria-Turkey-NATO-Article-5-Glenn-Beck-Keith-Preston

If Russia decides to engage Turkey in a military confrontation over the downing of its plane by Ankara, it could trigger a major war between world powers, an American political analyst in Virginia says.

“If there is a military confrontation between NATO and between Russia that could indeed trigger a major World War III or something approximating that,” said Keith Preston, chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com, a website dedicated to encouraging revolt against domestic and foreign US government policies.

On Tuesday, NATO member Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer jet, claiming the aircraft had repeatedly violated its air space.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the jet had been attacked when it was 1 kilometer inside Syria. He warned of “serious consequences” and called it a “stab in the back” administered by “the accomplices of terrorists.”

In an interview with Press TV on Thursday, Preston said, according to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, if Russia decides to retaliate against Turkey, “that would be considered an act of aggression or an act of war against NATO itself,” because “an alleged attack on one particular member nation within NATO is considered an attack on all.”

Article Four of the NATO treaty calls for consultation over military matters when “the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened”

Invoking Article Four, NATO countries met Tuesday after Turkey brought down the Russian jet. However, Article Five was not invoked during that meeting.

After downing the Russian jet, which was the first such action by a NATO member since 1952, US President Barack Obama expressed his support for Ankara, saying, “Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace.”

“What the United States tried to do and what NATO has tried to do since the end of the Cold War is extending NATO right up to Russia’s borders and extend Western military bases in the Central Asia for the purpose of encircling Russia,” Preston noted.

“And this is in fact an illustration of why it was a bad idea to keep the NATO alliance intact after the end of the cold war,” he added.

“The NATO alliance was created specifically for the purpose of countering the influence of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact during the Cold War and once the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, there was no longer any rational reason to keep NATO together,” he noted.

“Russia is involved… in Syria at the request of the Syrian government and it is necessary that the Syrian government be defended because the only alternative to the regime of President Assad is the seizure of power and then complete takeover of the nation by Daesh,” he argued.

Russia has been conducting airstrikes on Daesh positions at the request of the Syrian government since September 30.

Syria has been gripped by deadly violence since March 2011. The United States and its regional allies – especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – have been supporting the militants operating inside Syria since the beginning of the crisis.

William S. Lind on Russia Reply

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

There is an old saying that Russia is never as strong as it appears to be, and Russia is never as weak as it appears to be. According to the lead story in the October 15  New York Times, “Russian Military Uses Syria as Proving Ground, and West Takes Notice,” the pendulum is swinging from focusing on Russia’s weakness to seeing her again as strong and threatening. Much of the latter is threat inflation, an old Pentagon practice during the Cold War. (After lecturing on military reform many years ago at the Air Force’s Squadron Officers’ School, an Air Force intel captain came up to me and asked, “Does military reform mean we can stop inflating the threat?”)

But it does seem the Russians have learned.


As I understand Lind’s views, his position is essentially Hobbesian in that he regrets that states around the world have become increasingly ineffective at fighting non-state fourth generation warfare agents. His wish is for the world’s states (i.e. the international capitalist elite that coalesces into the G20, international financial institutions and managed trade systems) to unite in order to defeat the fourth generation forces, thereby preserving “order,” i.e. the nation-state system itself.  He laments that this is not being done due to the rivalries among the international power elite, i.e. the division between the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis and the rest of the world (see my recent presentation at the National Policy Institute for a discussion of this.)

While I greatly value Lind’s insights in these areas, I take a polar opposite view in the sense of welcoming the rise of fourth generation forces and the breakdown of the nation-state system as a prelude to the development of more intensified anti-imperialist, anti-corporatist and ant-statist struggles. In other words, fourth generation warfare is only the beginning.

Jack Donovan on men: a masculine tribalism for the far right Reply

This is an interesting piece on Jack Donovan from anti-fascist writer Matthew N. Lyons. Read it here. Vince Rinehart of ATS gets an honorable mention as well.

Lyons did a similar piece on me a few years ago (see here) which is actually by far the best work of its kind critiquing my own work  from the Left, though I thought it veered off into a caricature of my own admittedly heterodox and complicated positions at times. I issued a lengthy reply at the time, which was also reprinted in my book. See here, here, and here.

I find the almost phobic hostility that some on the far Left have to radical decentralist politics, particularly if any rightist cultural or ideological currents are represented, to be a rather curious phenomenon. That someone would regard scattered clusters of city-states, counties, or neighborhoods reflecting the values of “Posse Comitatus, the European New Right, laissez-faire economics, and Calvinist theology” (and presumably co-existing with institutions and communities reflecting polar opposite values) to be more threatening that the slaughter carried out by the America empire, not to mention the surveillance state and corporatist economy maintained by the federal system domestically, is rather astounding.

Without necessarily attributing any of these views to Lyons personally, it seems that the anti-decentralist orientation of much of the Left is rooted in a number of factors. One is merely cultural or historical, and the common identification of ideas like “states’ rights” with past apologists for genuine systems of oppression such as slavery and Jim Crow. Another involves special pleading, or the view that particular groups or movements favored by leftists must always get what they want regardless of other considerations or other needs. Still another is opportunism, or the desire of some to utilize the state (or the corporate system) as a means of self-advancement (this is not uncommon among elites and more affluent sectors of traditional outgroups, for example). And yet another is the ideological paradigm of “totalitarian humanism” that is implicit in much of progressive thought. This involves the idea that the autonomy of civil society must be subordinated to the state in order to enforce progressive values in a wider social context, the view that the central government must impose progressive values on regions and localities, or that foreign policy should be used to impose progressive values at the international level (“military humanism” as Chomsky calls the Samantha Power approach to international relations).

The Argument from Atrocity Reply

A commenter at AnarchistNews.Org offered this response to my latest exchange with Anti-Fascist News:

I read it. I read through other things on that site. Yikes. It’s really bizarre that a large portion of Preston’s criticism of “left” anarchists (anarchists) is that they have a kind of selective amnesia for the atrocities of the left (yeah duh). However we then are treated to this gem

” In my associations with the alternative right, I’ve encountered traditional conservatives, free market libertarians, economic nationalists, populists, monarchists, anarchists, fascists, Nazis, Strasserites, distributists, right-wing Marxists, national-Bolsheviks, white nationalists, southern nationalists, black conservatives, white nationalist Jews, anti-Semites, self-proclaimed “radical centrists,” self-proclaimed “alternative leftists,” liberal racial realists,” (this goes on and on)

One certainly has to wonder why intentionally associating oneself with people who actively wish to recreate many of the past centuries atrocities is acceptable given his other arguments. If the left popular front has been disastrous for anarchists, the right popular front seems even worse.

This response certainly raises some valid points, though I think it misunderstands my arguments a bit.
The whole point of the statement from me that the commenter cites is to suggest there is no popular front among the “alternative right” due to a lack of a consistent philosophy or common goals. It’s much like the Left in the sense of being mostly a reactive (in the sense of opposing social trends such as mass immigration or the entrenchment of PC) rather than visionary set of tendencies (at least on the collective level-individuals may have their own visions). Based on my many discussions with participants in the alternative right about what kinds of government, economics, laws, cultural norms, foreign policy, organizational structures, strategic approaches, etc. they prefer I have received widely divergent responses.
But what I have found is that the “argument from atrocity” is just as prevalent on the Right as it is on the Left and vice versa.


The Paris Atrocities: The Most Probable and Bankrupt Response of Our Own Government (2015), by Sean Gabb Reply

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

Because Keir Martland has already commented with great brilliance, and even a certain nobility of tone, I will make no comment directly on the Paris Atrocities or their probable causes. I will instead deal with our own Government’s most likely response to them. This will be a new Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. It will require Internet and telephone companies to store all communication data for a year, and to make this available to the police and security agencies.

The stated reason for this will be that we are in danger, and in particular danger from Moslem terrorists. What happened yesterday in Paris was only the latest episode in a campaign of terror that began with the American Bombings in September 2001, and proceeded through the Madrid Bombings, and the London Bombings, and the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, and the Charlie Hebdo killings. How long before a coordinated terror attack in planned again for London? We are at war, and war calls for a deviation from the normal course of government.

I will not deny that the latest atrocities are shocking, both in their effect and in the careful planning that they show. I will not deny that mass-immigration from the Third World into Europe was always at least a mistake, and that the latest wave of immigration inspired by Angela Merkel is an existential threat to the civilisation of which we are a part. I will not argue against the proposition that further immigration should be prevented, and even that some of the immigration we have so far experienced might usefully be reversed.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will also agree with the general proposition that there are times when what is undesirable becomes essential.