Here’s the transcript.
I don’t personally have a dog in this fight. I sympathize with anyone who is in revolt against the U.S. federal system, left, right, or center. Other than that, it’s none of my business how Oregonians organize their own economy or approach to ecological issues.
Here’s another piece on this topic by “anti-fascist” Alexander Reid Ross.
Like I said, I don’t begrudge anyone their perspective on this topic, though I do wish these circles would show as much interest in overthrowing the U.S. empire as they do in opposing “the fascists” (whoever they are).
I don’t do a lot of current events commentary here, but there are occasions where it seems both useful and necessary. What follows is notes drawn from my responses to the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, outside Burns, OR. They range from quips to more extended analysis and draw on my family connections to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, including a stint living on refuges much like Malheur in my extreme youth. I have tried not to rely on information that is not available elsewhere online.
I’m posting the material because it has garnered interest on social media, but also because I think that the question of anarchist alternatives to the federal lands is one worth taking up. An extension of my C4SS comments on “mutual extrication” and the “gift economy of property” is already in the works.
The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and all the problems of Harney County, are fifty miles from the middle of nowhere, but the issues that are really driving the conflict are the sort of things that we can examine much closer to home. Nearly all of us have experienced uncertain climate conditions and many of us have had very recent occasions to think about floodwater management. Given the very slow acceptance of decentralized methods of flood and storm-water management, I expect most of us think of these things as a responsibility of the government, when we think of the responsibility at all. Most of us don’t have to go too far to find clear evidence of the massive public works projects that have made agriculture and grazing possible in its present forms, but we also don’t have to go far to see clear evidence of the failures and limitations of our resource-management efforts to date. Agencies like BLM and USFWS have seldom sacrificed commercial interests to environmental ones, and when they have opposed immediate commercial interests, it has almost always been in the interest of preserving them in the long term.
One of the greatest misconceptions about anarchism is that it is a exclusively or inherently Western ideology. Not so. Historically, there have been anarchist movements in Latin America and in Asia that were as large as parallel movements in Europe and the Anglosphere. Anarchism is able to travel well because it is often able to connect with the communal, federal, or local practices of many traditional societies.
The Korean anarchist movement wanted to build an independent self-governing anarchist society, a cooperative system of the masses of the Korean people. They wanted to take civilisation from the capitalist class, and return it to the popular classes. By doing so, the capitalist and colonial society that existed in Korea (as elsewhere in Africa and Asia and east Europe) would be replaced with a new society. This new society would be based on the principles of freedom and equality, that guarantee the independent self-rule of the producing classes: the working class and the peasantry.
Who was Kim Joa-Jin, Korean Anarchist Revolutionary?
by Eric Every (Tokologo African Anarchist Collective)
Kim Jao-jin was born in 1889 to a wealthy family. Like many of his generation, his life was shaped by the Japanese imperial government’s colonisation of Korea. This began formally in 1910, but key aspects of Japanese control dated to 1895. The year 1919 saw a massive wave of struggle against colonialism: the March 1st Movement. This was part of a global series of uprisings.
An interesting discussion of the many utopian colonies that appeared in the U.S. in the 19th century from the National Park Service website.
The Amana Colonies were one of many utopian colonies established on American soil during the 18th and 19th centuries. There were hundreds of communal utopian experiments in the early United States, and the Shakers alone founded around 20 settlements. While great differences existed between the various utopian communities or colonies, each society shared a common bond in a vision of communal living in a utopian society. The definition of a utopian colony, according to Robert V. Hine, author of California’s Utopian Colonies, “consists of a group of people who are attempting to establish a new social pattern based upon a vision of the ideal society and who have withdrawn themselves from the community at large to embody that vision in experimental form.” These colonies can, by definition, be composed of either religious or secular members, the former stressing (in the western tradition) a community life inspired by religion while the latter may express the idealism of a utilitarian creed expedient to establishing human happiness, with a belief in the cooperative way of life. The more familiar non-monastic religious communal movements typical in Western society have generally originated from a deliberate attempt among various Christian sects to revive the structure of the primitive Christian community of first-century Jerusalem, which “held all things in common” (Acts 2.44; 4.32). This essay explores the origins and development of the Utopian idea and its arrival in the United States before giving examples of nineteenth century utopian colonies and some organizations on their ultimate demise. The Shaker, Rappite and Amana experiments, as well as the Oneida community and Brook Farm, find their origins in the European Protestant Reformation and the later Enlightenment.
An interesting interview from Red Ice Radio. Listen here.
Vox Day is a writer, a professional game designer and a three-time Billboard top 40 recording artist. He is the author of “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police.”
We’ll discuss how Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing. Vox explains how the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality. We also anticipate the new frontier for SJW’s and talk about Salon’s piece by a self-confessed pedophile to explain his urges in sympathetic terms, “I’m a Pedophile, But Not A Monster.”
Later, Vox gives the 3 laws of a SJW and lays out their operating system: always lie, always double down and always project. He gives advice on what to do when SJW’s attack, usually hoping it will result in social ostracism and the loss of employment for the attackee. Vox provides the keys to counterattack.
Muslims and people of Middle Eastern origin are mainly targeted by a US government program to “counter terrorism,” says a political commentator from Virginia.
Keith Preston, chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com told Press TV on Saturday that there are “concerns about what in the United States is called racial profiling or ethnic profiling in the sense that Muslims or people of Middle Eastern ancestry are being verily targeted in this program.”
He made the remarks after rights group, the Brennan Center for Justice, brought a lawsuit against the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security largely over the issue of surveillance of supposed terrorism suspects from the United States.
What the rights center is concerned about is “the fact that the government is actually trying to pressure internet companies to impose a type of the fact those censorship on the internet in order to prevent communication by so-called extremist organizations, or by the individuals,” Preston said.
“They have been pressuring internet companies to collect surveillance data on individuals that are labeled extremist or might somehow be suspected of terrorism and this is something that’s been going on for a while,” he added.
The journalist further noted, “The government has been exercising a great deal of pressure, not just on internet companies but also on communications companies of different types, telephone companies and all that, to collect data of this type and they are trying to essentially form out this data collection process to the private sector, but they are doing it in a way that’s rather coercive.”
This article by Peter Beinart confirms what I’ve been saying for some years now. Beinart’s argument is consistent with just about every demographic, cultural, generational, economic, and partisan trend.
By Peter Beinart
Republicans may have a lock on Congress and the nation’s statehouses—and could well win the presidency—but the liberal era ushered in by Barack Obama is only just beginning.
ver roughly the past 18 months, the following events have transfixed the nation.
In July 2014, Eric Garner, an African American man reportedly selling loose cigarettes illegally, was choked to death by a New York City policeman.
That August, a white police officer, Darren Wilson, shot and killed an African American teenager, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri. For close to two weeks, protesters battled police clad in military gear. Missouri’s governor said the city looked like a war zone.
In December, an African American man with a criminal record avenged Garner’s and Brown’s deaths by murdering two New York City police officers. At the officers’ funerals, hundreds of police turned their backs on New York’s liberal mayor, Bill de Blasio.
Nothing like Donald Trump has ever hit a major American political party: A blow-dried celebrity gleefully smashing one modern Republican certainty after the other. As he defies his own party on tax orthodoxy, on healthcare and on bending a knee to Roger Ailes, he’s exposed the GOP establishment as virtually powerless over its own nominating process.
His rise has now created a split so deep that it’s not clear how the party is going to recover. Some conservatives are trying to crush his candidacy, others are finally embracing him, and they’re all lobbing grenades at each other. So is this the end of the GOP as we know it? And what’s next?
National Interest editor Jacob Heilbrunn sees Trump’s disruption as just the reboot the party needs; Republican strategist Rick Wilson sees a possible “murder-suicide” between Trump and Cruz that opens the door for moderates. Former Senate operative Jim Manley sees a party civil war that will sow chaos far beyond the GOP.
Here, for Politico Magazine, 12 political gurus put their minds to the most unexpectedly urgent big-picture question in American politics.
By William T. Hathaway
As the viciousness of capitalism engulfs ever more of us, our yearnings for change are approaching desperation. The system’s current leader, Barack Obama, has shown us that the only change we can believe in is what we ourselves create.
To do that, we need to know what is possible in our times and what isn’t. The bitter probability is that none of us will see a society in which we’d actually want to live. Even the youngest of us will most likely have to endure an increasingly unpleasant form of capitalism. Despite its recurring crises, this system is still too strong, too adaptable, and has too many supporters in all classes for it to be overthrown any time soon. We’re probably not going to be the ones to create a new society.
But we can now lay the groundwork for that, first by exposing the hoax that liberal reforms will lead to basic changes. People need to see that the purpose of liberalism is to defuse discontent with promises of the future and thus prevent mass opposition from coalescing. It diverts potentially revolutionary energy into superficial dead ends. Bernie Sanders’ “long game” campaign is really only a game similar to that of his reformist predecessor, Dennis Kucinich, designed to keep us in the “big tent” of the Democratic Party. Capitalism, although resilient, is willing to change only in ways that shore it up, so before anything truly different can be built, we have to bring it down.
What we are experiencing now is the long war the ruling elite is fighting to maintain its grip on the world. The current phase began with the collapse of Keynesian capitalism, which flourished from the 1950s into the ’70s, when the primary consumer market was in the capitalist headquarter countries of North America and Western Europe. Corporations were able to stimulate domestic consumption and quell worker discontent there by acceding to labor’s demands for better wages and conditions. That led to a 30-year bubble of improvement for unionized workers, predominantly male and white, that began to collapse in the ’80s as capitalism gradually became globalized.
An interesting piece by William Domhoff explaining the differences between the Left and the Right, many of which, following the insights of Vilfredo Pareto, appear to be psychological in nature.
The aim of this essay is to provide a big-picture canvas of the wider meanings of the Left-Right dimension in human thinking and personality. It’s a dimension that precedes and transcends politics, but may well explain some of the puzzles about the political Left and Right. I begin by discussing general findings on the cross-cultural differences in the thinking and attitudes of Leftists and Rightists on many different aspects of life. Then I describe how this dimension has manifested itself in language, and how it became part of politics during the French Revolution. Then I show how the left-right dimension manifests itself in personality, and that political preferences do relate to this dimension.
After showing the considerable difference between the political Left and Right in personality and social attitudes, I suggest that they nonetheless share certain essential similarities that are relatively rare in the general population, especially a high degree of moral fervor and moral anger, even while they differ completely on what they are fervent and angry about. My next step is to suggest that this shared moral fervor leads political Leftists and Rightists to have similar condescending attitudes towards their more moderate left-oriented or right-oriented compatriots, those who are merely “liberal” or only moderately “conservative.”
I conclude this document with a puzzle. Both Leftists and Rightists end up working in various hierarchical, top-down organizations. That fact seems fairly straightforward and understandable for the Rightists because they believe in hierarchy, as will be shown. But how do Leftists, who are egalitarian in their values, often end up in very hierarchal organizations? It’s at this point that we have to look to social psychology and sociology for answers.
Says supposed “anarchist” Spencer Sunshine:
“The movement’s beliefs are a grab bag of toxic politics which commonly include: opposition to any restrictions on gun ownership; anti-immigrant xenophobia and Islamophobia; unrestricted use of private and public land; legal strategies of right-wing decentralization; a commitment to completely unregulated capitalism; various conspiracy theories about how our supposedly socialist government is planning to allow the UN or China to invade; climate change denial and anti-environmentalism—and of course an implicit racism.”
And this state differs from ordinary state-centric progressivism/totalitarian humanism exactly how? Noam Chomsky and this guy are Exhibits A and B concerning why we need the new anarchist movement that ATS and friends are building.
The current Patriot Movement grows out of white-power influenced militias of the 1970s. While the current crop has attempted to distance themselves from White nationalism, it is still is made up of far-Right Islamophobes, conspiracy-theorists, anti-immigration activists, and others that straddle the fence between the Tea Party and White nationalism.
There are many things that I admire about Noam Chomsky, but this is absolute crap. That this man is considered the world’s leading exponent of left-anarchism is pathetic. If someone of his stature had spend his career promoting actual libertarian socialism and anti-state radicalism rather than Keynesian liberal garbage and, now, Blue Tribe loyalism for its own sake, the cause of anarchism might be much further along by now.
By Nolan D. McCaskill
Noam Chomsky would “absolutely” choose Hillary Clinton over the Republican nominee if he lived in a swing state, but her primary challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, “doesn’t have much of a chance,” the MIT professor and intellectual said in a recent interview.
Chomsky, who lives in the blue state of Massachusetts, said he would vote for Clinton if he lived in a swing state such as Ohio.
“Oh absolutely…my vote would be against the Republican candidate,” Chomsky told Al Jazeera English’s Mehdi Hasan in a two-part interview — part of which will air Friday on “UpFront.”
Chomsky cited “enormous differences” between the two major political parties. “Every Republican candidate is either a climate change denier or a skeptic who says we can’t do it,” Chomsky said. “What they are saying is, ‘Let’s destroy the world.’ Is that worth voting against? Yeah.”
The MIT academic, a self-described libertarian socialist, called Sanders “a New Dealer” rather than a “socialist,” and praised him overall but offered a grim view for his campaign.
In a video released the evening of his death, LaVoy Finicum, the man who was shot and killed on Tuesday in Harney County, addresses some concerns voiced by Natives regarding the occupation. In the video he voices his support for the establishment of independent, sovereign tribal nations. Finicum was a part of the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
“It is time to throw off the BIA, and become a completely sovereign independent nation without the overseer-ship of the BIA,” Finicum says. “It is time for them to stand up and throw off the federal government out of their nations.”
Full unedited version:
Please enjoy the continuation of my recent debate with Todd Lewis. Herein we discuss individual responsibility, peaceful parenting, the belief in authority, legal plunder, Child Protective Services, lack of accountability, the State perverts Free Market incentives, private armies cannot compete with the evils of the military, the State is a mass murdering entity, Aristotle definition of friendship, abortion, the moral case for Anarchy, legality is diametrically opposed to morality, everything the State does is constitutional, self ownership, intellectual property, special pleading, voluntary communities, homesteading, you are your own master, morality is associated with human beings and more!
“Intellectuals can debate. Idiots just argue.” – Dani Reynolds
Please enjoy my recent debate with Todd Lewis. Herein we discuss Mere Christianity definition, Distributism definition, Aristotle on magnanimity, Economy definition, the importance of family and close friend bonds, perverse incentives of the welfare State, ways to distribute land, calling what we have today as Crony Capitalism is like calling rape Crony Lovemaking, Capitalism definition, Corporate Fascism, Mussolini’s Fascism, Mercantilism, Karl Marx 10 planks of Communism, Roman empire collapse, property owners raising private army theory, debt based system, railroad fascism, characteristics of money vs. currency, voluntary communities, legal plunder, if your ideas require force they are worthless, punished for heroism, Pareto 80/20 principle and more!
“Intellectuals can debate. Idiots just argue.” – Dani Reynolds
Press TV. Listen here: http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/01/24/447192/Keith-Preston/
Leading US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump thrives on insulting and degrading people, which is a shameful aspect of the American political culture, a political analyst in Virginia says.
“He has a very crude, very boorish style but also ironically appeals to a lot of people,” said Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com.
Tom Woods interviews George Hawley on his new book. Listen here.
The official conservative movement has its leftist opponents, but more interesting are its critics on the right, who are contemptuous of its think-tanks, its magazines, even its ideas. We discuss plenty of these people and groups in today’s episode!
About the Guest
George Hawley is a professor of political science at the University of Alabama.
The future of anarchism must be appraised within a global context; any attempt to localize it is bound to yield a distorted outcome. The obstacles to anarchism are, in the main, global; only their specifics are determined by local circumstances.”
– Sam Mbah
“To the reactionists of today we are revolutionists, but to the revolutionists of tomorrow our acts will have been those of conservatives”
– Ricardo Flores Magon
The purpose of this paper is to help anarchist / anti-authoritarian movements active today to reconceptualize the history and theory of first-wave anarchism on the global level, and to reconsider its relevance to the continuing anarchist project. In order to truly understand the full complexity and interconnectedness of anarchism as a worldwide movement however, a specific focus on the uniqueness and agency of movements amongst the “people without history” is a deeply needed change. This is because the historiography of anarchism has focused almost entirely on these movements as they have pertained to the peoples of the West and the North, while movements amongst the peoples of the East and the South have been widely neglected. As a result, the appearance has been that anarchist movements have arisen primarily within the context of the more privileged countries. Ironically, the truth is that anarchism has primarily been a movement of the most exploited regions and peoples of the world. That most available anarchist literature does not tell this history speaks not to a necessarily malicious disregard of non-Western anarchist movements but rather to the fact that even in the context of radical publishing, centuries of engrained eurocentrism has not really been overcome. This has been changing to an extent however, as there here have been several attempts in just the past decade to re-examine this history in detail in specific non-Western countries and regions, with works such as Arif Dirlik’s Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, Sam Mbah’s African Anarchism and Frank Fernandez’ Cuban Anarchism.
This is an old article from a 1987 edition of the Detroit-based anarchist magazine Fifth Estate. Another bit of trivia is that the author of this piece was eventually elected to the Michigan state legislature as a libertarian-leaning Republican.
By Greg Kaza
The rhetoric is anti-state. “They pictured me as a threat to the nation,” Robert Miles told Metropolitan Detroit magazine (June 1987), referring to the FBI. “But let me tell you the kind of threat I am: I publish a newsletter. I don’t harm or threaten anyone. Granted, I don’t like the government – I’m an anarchist, in fact. But these Ollie Norths see sedition in the five cows I have out in my pasture.”
On April 24, Miles and nine other white supremacists were indicted by a Fort Smith, Arkansas federal grand jury for sedition, a rarely-used charge not employed since World War II. Miles and the others are charged with conspiring between mid-1983 and early 1985 to overthrow the U.S. government and establish an Aryan Nation.
The prosecutions underscore what has been a resurgence of violence by the racial right in this country. During the last three years, Ku Klux Klansmen and neo-Nazis have committed more violence than they had in the preceding 20 years. The government holds Miles, the nation’s top white supremacist, responsible.
Some have described Miles, ex-grand dragon of the Michigan United Klans of America (UKA), as a “Klanarchist.” Miles calls sedition “the charge of the tyrants.” He describes FBI agents as “unwashed dogs” and refers to Washington as “Le Cesspool Grande.”
Since late 1985, Miles has positioned himself as a sucessionist. He has emerged as the leading proponent nationwide promoting the idea of a Rocky Mountain Republic encompassing the states of [jump to page 28] Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.
Miles calls the plan the “10 percent solution,” referring to the Americans living in the region. The scheme has not attracted any coverage from the Detroit news media. In the Northwest, however, Miles and his plan have received extensive coverage, and opposition from residents less than thrilled about an invasion of white supremacists.
Whoa! I wasn’t previously aware of this. This is some obscure history.
By Mina Graur
In 1930 the FAUD [the anarcho-syndicalist Free Workers’ Union of Germany] accepted an invitation from Otto Strasser, an activist in the National Socialist Party [e.g., the Nazi party], to a series of debates. It was an interesting challenge for the syndicalists, and Fritz Kater suggested that Rocker should represent their camp. (fn90) Otto Strasser belonged to a faction within the National Socialist Party that differed in many respects from Hitler’s mainstream. Indeed, Strasser’s disagreements with Hitler led to his expulsion from the party in June 1930. After his expulsion, he founded the “Revolutionary National Socialists” organization, later known as the “Black Front.” (fn91) The debate was conducted, therefore, just before Strasser was driven out of the Nazi party.
Three meetings were arranged, each dedicated to a different topic. At the first, Rocker debated Strasser on the issue of nationalism and race, and the role they play in the shaping of history. Rocker claimed that since nationality is not known to be an inherited trait, it follows that the idea of nationality is enforced on men by their surroundings. (fn92) The second session was dedicated to the meaning of socialism. Since Strasser could not attend the meeting due to illness, his place was taken by Dr. Herbert Blank. Blank argued that the historical importance of the National Socialist Party was that it had discovered the true foundations of socialism, since what passed until then as socialism was only the Marxist interpretation. Rocker ridiculed the argument, pointing to the obvious fact that the Nazis had probably never heard of libertarian socialism and its many thinkers, who were in no way connected to Marx and his followers, and who rejected Marxism altogether. At the third debate, Rocker was replaced by Erich Mühsam at the request of Strasser, who felt threatened by Rocker’s rhetorical tactics. Rocker, however, was asked to deliver the closing remarks. Although both camps knew that the differences between them were too wide to be bridged over, and that no side was going to win new converts, the series of debates constituted an interesting experience. The debates were the only time that the anarchists aired their opinions freely in front of a Nazi audience. After the National Socialists came to power, the anarchist movement was extinguished, its members exiled, imprisoned, or sent to concentration camps.
Great interview with Augustus by Lana Lokteff. Listen here.
Augustus Invictus is an attorney and community leader in Orlando, Florida who is a candidate in the 2016 US Senate election. Best known as a radical philosopher and infamous social critic, he is Managing Partner of Imperium, P.A., the law firm he founded in 2013. As an attorney, Augustus has worked to defend those who have become collateral damage of America’s two longest-running wars: the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
Augustus begins with an explanation of the name he has chosen to identify with, along with the mystical path that led him to study law and eventually pursue politics. He talks about his affiliation with the Libertarian Party (LP) and the problems he sees with its watered down, mainstream message. Augustus describes the main issues he aspires to tackle as Senator: the drug war, foreign policy, and the financial crisis. We get into the customary LP stances on open borders, immigration and equality, and we look at how these key concerns have been muddled with leftist contention. Augustus shares his view on the problems that will ensue for Libertarian ideals if non-Westerners continue to flood into America, and he also speaks to the Marxist degeneracy that has infected pop culture and the educational system. Then, we discuss the absence of natural law and hierarchy in the current US government system, along with the tyrannical forces pushing oppressive mandatory regulations, censorship and hate speech laws. At the end, Augustus sums up the actions he is taking to tackle the looney left’s war on White men and inspire a resurrection of the American front.