The Donald Trump dove myth: why he’s actually a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton 4

By Zach Beauchamp


Hillary Clinton is, without a doubt, a hawkish Democrat. She has been consistently to the interventionist right of the party mainstream on issues like the Iraq War, the Afghanistan surge, and arming the Syrian rebels.

Donald Trump, by contrast, has criticized the Iraq War and the Libya intervention. He’s been skeptical of America’s commitments to defend traditional allies in Europe and East Asia, and said the Middle East in general is “one big, fat quagmire” that the US should stay out of.


Mussolini or Nixon? Don’t Bother Voting. Prepare to Resist Reply

A good critique of the presidential race by a left-anarchist. The Trump-Mussolini comparison is standard leftist hyperbole (see today’s other post). Trump is probably more comparable to a figure like Nelson Rockefeller, although comparing Hillary to Nixon is reasonably accurate as is a comparison of Obama and Nixon. If anything, Hillary is arguably to the right of Nixon. As leftist “anti-fascist” Matthew Lyons has said:

“Imagine a president who expands affirmative action, actively promotes school desegregation, enacts important new laws in social welfare, environmental protection, occupational health and safety, and consumer protection, supports comprehensive health insurance and a system of guaranteed income for all citizens, and whose Justice Department opposes the RICO Act on the grounds that it gives the government powers that are much too broad and sweeping for prosecuting criminals. In 2011, such a president would be considered far to left of Barack Obama and far to the left of almost everyone in Congress. Forty years ago, such a president was called Richard Nixon.”

By William Gillis

Center for a Stateless Society

The next President of the United States will be one of the worst.


I Know Fascists; Donald Trump Is No Fascist Reply

An Italian leftist who actually battled fascists in Italy in the 70s debunks the Trump/Mussolini comparison. In looking for past figures from U.S. politics to which to compare Trump, one I keep coming back to is Nelson Rockefeller, also a billionaire moderate to liberal Republican statist-authoritarian known for his love of women and his lack of regard for proprieties.

By Gianni Riotta

The Atlantic

Is Donald Trump a fascist? Several commentators in America, my adoptive country, on both the left and right, have essentially compared “The Donald” to Mussolini, the fascist strongman who destroyed my old country Italy for a time, leaving behind half a million dead and the lingering poison of civil war.


Autopsy on a Lost Referendum Reply

By Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

Though we have nearly four weeks yet of campaigning, I find it hard to believe that the European Referendum will end in other than a crushing defeat for the Leave Campaign. For many on our side, this will be the end of their hopes. They have spent twenty five years – sometimes forty – connecting everything bad in this country with membership of the European Union, and pressing for a referendum. They now have their referendum. It will be lost. Age alone will give many of them nowhere to go. Some will pass the rest of their lives complaining that the vote was rigged. Most will drift away into confused silence. My own view is that the Referendum was always a mistaken strategy, and that its loss will bring an end to one of the less valuable chapters in the history of our movement.


How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism 1

The money quote:

“Put simply, our anti-racism efforts must be refocused away from guilt and confession and towards equality and eradicating irrational judgments based on race. Some on the Left will object, saying that racism is so systemic in society it must be purged before anyone can pretend to treat of others without taking race into account. Some on the Right will object, saying that everything from IQ tests to crime statistics prove something meaningful about the capabilities of individuals based on their race. Both of these perspectives must be rejected. In their place, we must return to the goal of treating people as individuals, not as representatives of their race.”


By David Marcus

The Federalist


U.S. Holds the World Record of Killings of Innocent Civilians 2

First published by Global Research in July 2015

A world-renowned Canadian philosopher argues that the United States holds the world record of illegal killings of unarmed civilians and extrajudicial detention and torturing of prisoners who are detained without trial.

Prof. John McMurtry says that the U.S. government is a gigantic mass-murdering machine which earns profit through waging wars, and is never held accountable over its unspeakable war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also believes that the U.S. has become a police state, which treats its citizens in the most derogatory manner.


Keith Preston: Apology to Japan would mean US admits past crimes Reply

Press TV. Listen here.

Preston says “there is no evidence that it was necessary for the United States to” use those weapons against Japan.

The United States will not apologize to Japan over its 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because such an apology would mean an acknowledgment of Washington’s past crimes, says an analyst.

Keith Preston made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Monday when asked about President Barack Obama who has said Washington is not sorry for what it did to Japan in 1945.

This Friday, Obama will become the first sitting US president to ever tour the site of the world’s first nuclear bombing that killed more than 140,000 people in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The attack was followed by another US atomic bombing on the port city of Nagasaki three days later, killing about 73,000 people.

On Sunday, when Japanese national broadcaster NHK asked Obama if an apology would be included in remarks he plans to make in Hiroshima, he said, “No, because I think that it’s important to recognize that in the midst of war, leaders make all kinds of decisions.”

Preston said Obama is not the only person who has refused to offer an apology for the catastrophic incident in Japan.

“There are many Americans today that continue to claim the use of those weapons was justified in order to force surrender on the part of Japan,” he said, noting “but Japan had expressed interest in a conditional surrender.”

He went on to say that “there is no evidence that it was necessary for the United States to use those weapons in order to achieve victory.”

Preston said that “the United States sees itself as having the capability of doing the wrong and that’s why the United States rarely has ever apologized …for its past harms the American empire has inflicted on societies all over the world.”

“I do think that one of the reasons the Americans will not issue an apology is simply because the Americans continue to try to exercise hegemony over the entire world and to acknowledge the past crimes of that height would essentially undermine the ….empire’s own legitimacy,” he concluded.

Obama’s visit to the city would have enormous symbolic importance, however, it would be controversial in the US if it were seen as an apology.

What’s the Point of the Libertarian Party? Reply

By Chris Shaw

The concept of a libertarian party should be simple. A collection of multiple strands of libertarian and anarchist ideologues, thinkers and activists coming together to present multiple alternatives to the current statist world. Simple, right? Not so for the modern Libertarian Party of America. It seems, looking at its origins, it had the goal that I’ve just set out. A collection of differing viewpoints but with a core libertarian ideology at the centre of it all. But then came the low tax liberalism, and the lack of radicalism in pushing a message of political and non-political action. That was bad enough. But now it’s gone one step further in diluting more to becoming some Beltway Republican outfit for all those disaffected by Trump and Clinton.

On the surface, this may seem a good strategy. Your spreading the message of libertarianism into more mainstream outlets and individuals like Republican ex-politicians. However, many of these Republicans are only leaving because of Trump. That means that they at least tolerated the Bush era, an era of a massive expansion of state power through the Patriot Act which kickstarted the NSA surveillance program that Snowden revealed in 2013. An era of two imperialistic wars that have led to death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a large increases in homelessness and cases of PTSD among veterans. How can one tolerate this stupidity, yet can’t tolerate the differing stupidity of Trump’s policies.

Let’s look at one of these Republican turned libertarian convert, William Weld, who is now Gary Johnson’s presumptive running mate. This is a man who previously endorsed Mitt Romney and John Kasich, two candidates who have not proposed a libertarian foreign or economic policy but instead want to maintain neoliberal-neoconservative consensus that prevails in America. Again, Weld is a man who could seemingly tolerate the extremely un-libertarian years of the Bush administration, but then can’t tolerate Trump.


The Emerging Clinton/Neocon Alliance on Foreign Policy Reply

As I have previously said, Hillary is now the most right-wing candidate on foreign policy and trade, with Trump in the center, and Sanders moving the conversation to the left of the Democrats. A number of important articles have recently emerged documenting this.

Philip Giraldi at The American Conservative discusses the role that Victoria Nuland will likely play in the Clinton administration. Nuland’s husband is the uber-neocon Robert Kagan who has moved towards the Hillary camp and is currently pushing the “Trump is a fascist” line of the Left. Ross Douthat at The New York Times describes how Clinton is moving the Democrats to the right while Trump is moving the Republicans to the Left. Here’s the money quote from Douthat:

In a fully-Trumpized G.O.P., Reagan’s ideological coalition would crack up, with hawks drifting toward the Democrats, supply-siders fading into crankery, religious conservatives entering semi-permanent exile. And in its place a Trumpized Republican intelligentsia would arise, with as little interest in Reaganism as today’s conservatives have in the ideas of Nelson Rockefeller or Jacob Javits.

The recent comments from Marine Le Pen on Clinton are also interesting.


The Alternative Right – An Autopsy Reply

The article below is an interesting critique of the alleged failures of the Alternative Right from Eugene Montsalvat, who holds to an “anti-capitalist nationalist” perspective. I agree with some of this critique, and disagree with other parts, though I generally share Eugene’s view that the the alt right’s trajectory from the European New Right to Galtonite eugenicism to Howard Stern-like racial/sexual humor to Trumpism has been a negative one, though perhaps one that is inevitable.

A few years ago, I speculated that the Alt Right would have to “dumb it down” a bit in order to reach a larger audience, and suggested that an Alt Right intelligentsia that constituted the intellectual elites of a kind of Alex Jones-like right-wing populism might be the means by which the alt right could break into the mainstream, and that seems to have partially occurred with the Trump movement, although Trumpism is much more than either the Alt Right or the populist right. Instead, Trumpism has become, at least on the cosmetic level, a kind of left-right-center hybrid of the kind that I always thought would have to develop if the neoconservative/neoliberal hybrid were to ever be challenged in any meaningful way. However, the claim that Trumpism represents a “meaningful challenge” present ruling class and power elite is at least debatable, and more likely highly dubious. The alt right’s attachment to Trump seems to be a mirror image repeat of the religious right’s attachment to Reagan, i.e. the case of an insurgent, somewhat reactionary, populist movement being taken for a ride by a thoroughly pro-ruling class centrist politician motivated primarily by personal ambition.


Sanders’ Potential Foreign Policy: An Ignored Strength? Reply

Sanders voted against the Iraq War and has criticized efforts to use NATO to encircle Russia.

By Walter Ross

LA Progressive

Progressives like LA Progressive editor Dick Price have indicated many domestic reasons why progressives prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton. A recent New York Times editorial also emphasizes his domestic stances but concedes that “Mrs. Clinton outflanks him on both knowledge and practice of foreign policy.” This essay, however, will argue that we voters should pay more attention to Sanders’ dovish approach to foreign policy, as contrasted to the more hawkish and belligerent positions of Clinton and Trump. As president, he would be less likely than Clinton or Trump to involve us in foreign entanglements that would cause more human and economic pain and divert attention and resources from important domestic problems.

Before making this case, however, it must be acknowledged that as a former secretary of state, Clinton has far more foreign-policy experience and knowledge than Sanders. Moreover, such experience is significant, but it does not necessarily make her more qualified.

Where Sanders has a great advantage over her is that he is less hawkish, less inclined to pursue foolish policies that are extremely costly, both in human lives and financially. In short, he exercises better judgment. Two prime examples come readily to mind where his stances have opposed Clinton’s: his opposition to NATO expansion and his voting, as a congressman in 2002, against authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.


A Conservative Traditionalist Endorses Attack the System 1

The “troll” accusation is fair enough.

By Stuart Sudekum

One of the problems with the so called “alt right” is that it is founded on the “left/right” political paradigm and assumes an argumentative political stance as its starting point. Though conservatism as a worldview is ultimately tied to the subject of political philosophy, I would generally see the pet causes of conservative politicians and political “activists” (to use the term generously) as accidental rather than essential properties of the conservative ethos. The term conservatism—in the broadest sense of the word—can be used to encompass any social, cultural, or moral position that regards the truths which we live by as in some way fixed. If there is any unifying praxis that results from this viewpoint, it is criticism of the notion of progress, and thus modernism.

The Amish, followers of various monastic traditions, and traditional Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass could all be seen as people embodying this ideal in their religious life. People of First Nations ancestry who choose to live by their old customs in spite of the fact that modern options are now readily accessible to them would be a good example of how this ideology can extend to the way people prepare food, wear their clothes, or earn their living. In education, it might mean an adherence to a particular canon or method of teaching, a skepticism toward modern or post-modern critical approaches, and a general tendency to create an intellectual milieu that resists commenting on issues of the day in favor of perennial truths that stand outside of time.


Globalism, a tired philosophy Reply

By D.J. Webb

Libertarian Alliance

Something interesting is afoot. We appear to be witnessing the re-emergence of the nation-state. Although it is true that the Western powers have for decades followed anti-national policies, ones that have unpicked much of the cultural fabric of a historic nation-state, geopolitical realities are gradually forcing change.