Cathy Newman’s full interview with Philosopher Noam Chomsky. From Trump and Clinton, to climate change, Brexit and TPP, America’s foremost intellectuals presents his views on who rules the world today.
On June 28th 2016, by Keith Preston (moderator), Walter Block (affirmative) and Todd Lewis (negative) debate whether the NAP and Self-Ownership principles are intellectually defensible.
By Sean Gabb
Europe: The Age of Globalism, 1989-2016 (?)
by Sean Gabb
(26th June 2016)
I spoke earlier with a friend who lives in Bath. He told me how, in 1989, he sat on the Berlin Wall as it was being torn down, and how, last Thursday, he went and voted to leave the European Union. Writing history before it has happened is particularly unwise. We have not left the European Union. We have not even notified our intention to leave, and no one knows what settlement will eventually be reached, or if other member states will decide to leave as well. This being said, it may be that future historians will regard the time bounded by these two events as forming a distinct epoch, different in its tone and assumptions from what went before and what came after.
The fall of the Soviet Empire was the opportunity for a return to an order of civilised nation states in Europe, each respecting the others’ borders and particular ways of life – but at peace with each other and trading and cooperating as they thought convenient. Instead, that opportunity was wasted. Instead, we got a vast expansion of American power via NATO, and a growth of the European Union and other global institutions. I grant – indeed, I have argued – that the European Union has been to some extent a counterweight to American power. But both have worked along similar lines, which are to undermine the cohesiveness of every European nation state in favour of a single territory, culturally levelled and made safe for multinational corporations.
Is the realignment happening already?
By Keir Martland
(26th June 2016)
At about midnight, the globalists in the Parliamentary Labour Party began their coup. Blairite Hilary Benn told socialist anti-interventionist Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn that he had no confidence in his leadership and the latter had no option but to give him the sack. Today we have seen a string of resignations, with half the Shadow Cabinet allegedly ready to resign to remove Corbyn. At the moment, Corbyn seems ready to put his own name forward to fight off the leadership challenge, but this may change if it becomes apparent that he doesn’t have the confidence of his Parliamentary Party. You do need the support of your MPs if you are to lead your Party.
The challenge to Corbyn is very interesting. What may be happening is a long overdue realignment in British politics. Of course, all of this is taking place following a vote from the British people to leave the European Union, and following Jeremy Corbyn’s own insistence that this vote should be respected. Since roughly 90 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party are determined to keep Britain in the European Union, this cannot have been taken well by people like Hilary Benn. More…
Robert Stark and co-host Rabbit talk to Zoltan Istvan. Zoltan is a trans-humanist and futurist writer, philosopher, and journalist. He has written for Vice, Newsweek the Huffington Post, and Psychology Today, and was a reporter for the National Geographic Channel, and is the author of The Transhumanist Wager.
Visit his official campaign site Zoltan Istvan for US President 2016
Why Zoltan is running primarily to raise awareness about Trans-humanism
The importance of investing in science and technology
Addressing the ethical reservations about Trans-humanism and whether it could lead to dangerous outcomes
The Trans-humanist goal of life extension
The Trans-humanist goal to eliminate human flaws and whether that could lead to a boring existence
Trans-humanist breackthroughs in healthcare
How to make Trans-humanism affordable and accessible to the public
Psychologist Timothy Leary as a precursor to Trans-humanism and his work to expand human consciousness
Zoltan’s support for a basic income, how it will become necessary due to automation, and how to implement it
The ideological divides within the Trans-humanist movement and how Zoltan considers himself fairly Centrist
The Transhumanist Bill of Rights
By Keith Preston
Last month, I wrote about how many of the predictions that I have been making over the past decade or so have come true during the course of recent events. In particular, the current U.S. presidential election represents the fulfillment of some of these predictions. Hillary Clinton is an almost perfect manifestation of the totalitarian humanist convergence I predicted nearly a decade ago, i.e. the combination of militarism, plutocracy, and police statism with ostensibly liberal and progressive values as an ideological cover (with these enforced by means of an ever more intrusive nanny state). Bill Lind describes the implications of this ideological framework very thoroughly. Jack Ross explains the present day political alignments that have emerged because of the rise of totalitarian humanism. And Vanity Fair describes how a new left-wing of the ruling class has emerged that comes from outside the ranks of the traditional WASP elites and is rooted in newer high-tech industries. I’ve been saying all of these things for years.
Six years ago, I wrote about the ten core demographics that a radical or revolutionary movement in North America would likely need to organize in order to achieve the popular base needed for effective political action. Current events represent the stirring of many of these demographics and in a way that signifies that these cleavages are developing at a much more rapid pace than I thought they would when I wrote that original piece.
The Donald Trump phenomena represents a stirring of the populist right and the sinking middle. The antiwar, civil libertarian, and labor-oriented sections of the Left have become increasingly alienated from both the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment even to the point that some on the antiwar left now favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.
An old United Press International Article from 1982. Did the Shining Path show the way 34 years ago? Black Lives Matter, take note.
By Carlos Milano
LIMA, Peru — Some 150 masked guerrillas attacked a Peruvian prison high in the Andes and freed 255 inmates by dynamiting a prison wall during a bloody five-hour gunbattle Wednesday that left 16 dead and 12 wounded, authorities said.
They said two columns of guerrillas struck just before midnight Tuesday, launching simultaneous attacks on police stations before assaulting the prison in the southeastern city of Ayacucho, 220 miles southeast of Lima.
President Fernando Belaunde Terry immediately declared a state of emergency and a 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew in the Andean province of Ayacucho and sent the army into the city to restore order after the attack.
Authorities said 255 inmates — nearly half of the prison’s population — escaped after the guerrillas set off 60 charges of dynamite, toppling a wall of the Ayacucho prison.
The 150 guerrillas, who were said to be masked, opened fire with submachine guns on the prison as the inmates made their escape through the breach in the wall, the officials said. The fugitives included 80 jailed members of a Maoist guerrilla group.
By Tom Slater
“Brexit is a fake revolt’, writes Paul Mason in the Guardian this week: ‘Working-class culture is being hijacked to help the elite.’ A withering article in Vice agrees. ‘Brexit is the upper classes in revolt’, writes Sam Kriss. ‘They see an undemocratic and unaccountable EU elite ruling by diktat and an unfounded sense of their own superiority, and they think: hey, that’s our job.’ Among nominally metropolitan, left-wing Remainers – or, in Mason’s case, Abstainers – this has become the overriding narrative: that Brexit is the establishment.
It’s also utter balls. Let’s run through the list of those who back Remain: there’s the prime minister; all the major political parties; every major world leader; the IMF; the Bank of England… Oh and, after this morning, we can add to that the entire British capitalist class. In a letter in The Times, 1,700 of the UK’s leading business leaders back Remain, and prominent among them are the CEOs of JP Morgan, HSBC and Goldman Sachs. You know, those fatcat bankers we hear so much about.
By Tom Slater
he Leave campaign is negative. It is anti-immigration, anti-modernity, anti-Europe. Throughout the EU referendum debate, this has been the deadening refrain of the Remain campaign. Despite the fearmongering on both sides, despite the fact that post-Brexit economic catastrophe has been talked up at least as much as EU migrants clogging up NHS waiting lists, Brexiteers are still seen as having the premium on pessimism.
The official Leave campaign has done little to help matters. The dodgy figures emblazoned on battle buses, the appeals to the image of a besieged, overridden island – trampled on by Brussels and bled dry by European peoples on the move – have all too often given ammunition to the critics of leaving. But, more profoundly, the Leave campaign has failed to move beyond being simply anti-EU. It has failed to articulate what it is for.
Neither Remain nor Leave is required to offer a roadmap for the future, a manifesto for life after we vote In or Out. Talk of Australian-style points systems, Tory leadership battles or the future of workers’ rights after 23 June are, to borrow a favourite phrase from this campaign, for the birds. This is not an election; it’s far more important than that. This is a referendum on that most fundamental principle: democracy. And it is for the sake of democracy that spiked wants British voters to reject the EU.
These poor folks keeping falling for one scam artist after another.
By Nick Gass
Former Republican presidential candidate and Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann leads an alphabetical list of names announced by Donald Trump’s campaign on Tuesday as the presumptive Republican nominee’s evangelical executive advisory board.
Along with Bachmann, the campaign announced the additions radio host and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr, Faith and Freedom Coalition founder Ralph Reed, among more than two dozen names.
“I have such tremendous respect and admiration for this group and I look forward to continuing to talk about the issues important to Evangelicals, and all Americans, and the common sense solutions I will implement when I am President,” Trump said in a statement.
Bachmann is the only member of Congress, past or present, named to the board.
According to the statement, the board will “convene on a regular basis,” with some of them responsible for organizing Trump’s meeting with Christian leaders Tuesday in New York City.
Hmm. Rumsfeld endorses Trump while Cheney has implicitly endorsed Hillary. It looks like the imperialists are trying to cover all their bases.
- Rumsfeld tells DailyMail.com that he will vote for the Republicans’ presumptive nominee because he’s a ‘known unknown’ and Hillary Clinton is a ‘known known’
- 9/11-era defense secretary is one of the most senior Republican figures to come out publicly for Trump
- He says Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to sit in the Oval Office, and ‘would probably be indicted’ over her emails if she were a junior military grunt
- Trump launched an all-out attack on Hillary Clinton on Wednesday at a speech in New York in which he lambasted her as a ‘world-class liar’
- Rumsfeld spoke in an interview while promoting his Android ‘Churchill Solitaire’ app, which recreates Winston Churchill’s favorite card game
Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday that he will support Donald Trump with his vote in November.
The declaration, which Rumsfeld made in an interview with DailyMail.com, makes him the highest-ranking member of the George W. Bush administration to back the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee.
It’s ‘not a close call,’ he said in a 25-minute phone interview.
Rumsfeld said he agrees in principle with Trump’s position on reforming the NATO alliance, keeping Syrian refugees at bay over fears of terrorist infiltration, and other issues.
And besides, he added, ‘I’m a Republican, and there’s not any doubt in my mind how I’ll vote,’ and ‘I don’t believe Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President of the United States.’
The Hillary campaign represents the totalitarian humanist convergence of imperialists, plutocrats, police statists, and the politically correct that I predicted in this article for LewRockwell.Com nearly 10 years ago. Also notice that the 1% that controls the Democratic party comes not from the traditional WASP elite but from left-wing of the capitalist class, i.e. the rising upper middle class of the “newly rich” that I described in this piece.
By Thomas Frank
And what about Donald Trump? Will rich people suffer if he is elected president? Well, yes. Yes, they will. Because we all will. But that’s a pat answer, because Trump and Trumpism are different things. Trump is an erratic candidate who brings chaos to everything. Trumpism, on the other hand, is the doctrine of a different Republican Party, one that would cater not to the donor class, but rather to the white working class. Rich people do not like that idea.
Yesterday’s primary handed victories to Trump and Clinton, and, if Michael Lind is right, Trumpism and Clintonism are America’s future. Lind’s point, which he made last Sunday in The New York Times, is that Trumpism—friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration—will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism—friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism—will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class. Which might be fair enough, but Lind didn’t mention rich people. Where will they go?
A big split seems to be emerging between between center-liberalism and the Left.
By Ben Wolfgang and S.A. Miller
Progressive leaders are still hoping to force likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to the left, but a party insider said Thursday she’s rapidly losing interest in accommodating any more demands from Sen. Bernard Sanders and his followers.
The insider, who requested anonymity, said the struggles of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump give Mrs. Clinton far more room to maneuver, leaving her less beholden to the liberal voters who backed Mr. Sanders.
That could leave her on a collision course with progressives, who are still pressing for Mrs. Clinton to drift further toward Mr. Sanders‘ positions on everything from a national $15 minimum wage to stiffer action on climate change.
“The real issues are finally on the table. Expanding Social Security. A $15 minimum wage. Single-payer health care, tuition- and debt-free public college, and reining in Wall Street. Dozens of other common sense ideas, on everything from racial justice and ending mass incarceration to ending fossil fuel subsidies to combat climate change, to 12 weeks of paid family leave, to pursuing diplomacy over war,” Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn. Org Political Action, said this week.
I’d like to go to Cleveland and rent a hotel room with a balcony overlooking the convention center. I’m hoping the GOP convention degenerates into a fistfight between neocons and Trumpians on the convention floor, and a full blown street fight between Trumpians, leftists, BLM and cops in Cleveland.
Author and activist Michael Eric Dyson is calling for a march on Cleveland for the Republican National Convention, saying that only massive protests next month can confront what he called the “monster” that is Donald Trump.
Dyson told ABC News Political Director Rick Klein and Congressional Correspondent Mary Bruce on ABC’s “Powerhouse Politics” podcast that he has spoken with black church groups and civil rights organizations, among other groups, which are “steadily coming together” to organize a presence at the convention.
Dyson, who published a piece in this week’s New Republic titled “We Must March on Cleveland,” told Klein and Bruce that “those of us of good conscience must descend upon Cleveland.”
Dyson said on the podcast that his call to action reflects his belief that the presidential race is “a watershed moment in American politics. And not just in American politics, but in terms of how we choose to be a nation together.”
Dyson added that there are elements of the race that are “extra-political,” saying “Donald Trump is appealing to the base instincts of American society, the lowest common denominator of bigotry and prejudice.”
This would be an astounding accomplishment for the minor parties.
The System is crumbling and the power elite is getting worried.
By Jonathan Rauch
t’s 2020, four years from now. The campaign is under way to succeed the president, who is retiring after a single wretched term. Voters are angrier than ever—at politicians, at compromisers, at the establishment. Congress and the White House seem incapable of working together on anything, even when their interests align. With lawmaking at a standstill, the president’s use of executive orders and regulatory discretion has reached a level that Congress views as dictatorial—not that Congress can do anything about it, except file lawsuits that the divided Supreme Court, its three vacancies unfilled, has been unable to resolve.
The neocons are pissed now that they’re getting a taste of their own medicine.
This is important news because it signifies a genuine tension between the seriously anti-imperialist Left and the center-Left. These cleavages are becoming every more pronounced all the time whether the issue is foreign policy, labor policy, trade, civil liberties, criminal justice, the environment, the war on drugs, police brutality, racism, and a variety of other things.
By John Walsh
Until recently the progressive mind has been resolutely closed and stubbornly frozen in place against all things Trump.
But cracks are appearing in the ice. With increasing frequency over the last few months, some of the most thoughtful left and progressive figures have begun to speak favorably of aspects of Trump’s foreign policy. Let us hear from these heretics, among them William Greider, Glen Ford, John Pilger, Jean Bricmont, Stephen F. Cohen and William Blum. Their words are not to be construed as “endorsements,” but rather an acknowledgment of Trump’s anti-interventionist views, the impact those views are having and the alternative he poses to Hillary Clinton in the current electoral contest.
Adam Kokesh is considering running for President in 2020 on a program of abolishing the US federal system. Maybe Adam is the Man.
It looks like ATS ideas are becoming increasingly closer to the mainstream. I am seeing more and more writing like this all the time.
The Last American Vagabond
Anyone paying even the slightest attention to the 2016 Presidential Election can see that this election cycle has been marred and corrupted up on a variety of fronts. On one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, a notorious insider and lifelong crook that is currently under criminal investigation by the FBI, and on the other hand you have Donald Trump, a reality TV character that says whatever’s on his mind, making it hard to pinpoint any real fundamentals to his policies, as well as creating polarizing political theatre for the public to eat up. These are the choices we’re given; you really can’t make this stuff up.
For those who have been awake for years, the ridiculousness of this year’s election is not all that shocking, as it has been on display for decades for those who cared to look behind the scenes. However, for a large majority of the population, this year’s election seems to be a major catalyst in waking them up to the obvious illusion that the United States of America is still a free and democratic society, the two supposed cornerstones of the “greatest country in the world.”
On Monday the US Supreme Court ruled to uphold evidence gathered during an illegal investigatory stop in Utah. The case, Utah vs. Strieff, has wide implications for the 4th Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
The Supreme Court decided that even if the stop of Edward Strieff by narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell was illegal, the evidence gathered during that stop is admissible in court for Strieff’s prosecution. Strieff was stopped by detective Fackrell after he was observed leaving a suspected drug house. Fackrell found drug contraband on Strieff only minutes after the stop, and then discovered an outstanding warrant for Strieff’s arrest. The Supreme Court ruled that the discovery of a valid, pre-existing warrant unconnected to the investigation was enough to make the search and evidence legal and that “Officer Fackrell’s purpose was not to conduct a suspicionless fishing expedition but was to gather information about activity inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs.”