More Scary Movies for Anarchists to Watch in the Dark Reply

By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit

Exile in Happy Valley

It has been one supremely horrific year since I wrote the virgin instillation of this list last October, what with apocalyptic plagues, dystopian police death squads, and collapsing empires. In many ways life has come to resemble many of the movies on it. Some might argue that horror movies are gratuitous at this point, I mean, haven’t we had enough? No, dearest motherfuckers, not by a longshot. The fact that everyday life has come to resemble a George Romero flick is just proof of his unsung brilliance. No genre in cinema gets dumped on like horror movies. Yet no genre of cinema is more stunningly prophetic. That’s because horror movies, good horror movies anyway, are perfect vehicles for social commentary. They seek to illuminate that which makes us uncomfortable and force us to actually fucking deal with it. And that is what 2020 needs now more than ever. We realize that we’re living in a goddamn zombie apocalypse, but how do we deal with it? That is the ultimate question that anarchists wrestle with. How do we create a new society amidst the collapse of the old? And that’s also what great horror movies strive to figure out.

So I made another goddamn list. A dozen more scary movies for anarchists to watch in the dark, and it’s as eccentric and idiosyncratic as the last. I have a love for both foreign arthouse shockers and overlooked grindhouse pulp. They both take the necessary measures to punish the audience into thinking about shit that scares them. Like last time, many movies on the list are not horror movies in the traditional sense, but they are all movies that seek to terrify their audience into challenging authoritarian institutions. Spoiler alerts abound. Read at your own risk.

READ MORE

America Does Not Tolerate Losers Reply

This is one of the best critiques of American culture I’ve seen to date. The problem with ruling classes that adopt a “Let them eat cake” attitude is that they tend to not come to a happy ending. Ask the Bourbons and the Romanovs.

By Alex Bash

(academiccomposition@gmail.com), www.academiccomposition.com

America Does not Tolerate Losers!

As General George Patton prepared the Third Army for the invasion of Sicily, he famously observed “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser!”. While Patton’s speech was well-regarded by the troops, some of his colleagues judged him to be vulgar and unprofessional.

Love him or hate him, you cannot deny that Patton was a uniquely American character. America was founded by people who were courageous enough to leave the comfort of their old life in Europe. To do this, they had to abandon the aristocracy, tradition, and order of their European country of origin. Upon arriving in the colonies, Americans not only claimed their independence but also pursued a relentless Westward expansion, which forms a key component of America’s core identity: manifest destiny. Galvanized by this belief, Americans aggressively pursued an expansionary foreign policy, as they continue to do so today. Questions about whether this is right or wrong aside, an aggressive foreign policy is a core component of the American identity: that cannot be changed, nor should it be.

The liberals may deride Jackson’s “trail of tears” and “manifest destiny”, but what they fail to understand is that the nation’s core identity cannot be changed. In the “Significance of the Frontier in American History”, Fredrick Jackson Turner showed how the frontier mentality fostered the character of American rugged individualism

More…

An Assessment of It’s Going Down’s Assessment 9

It’s Going Down throws in their two cents worth. Listen to their original podcast here. My assessment follows.

By Keith Preston

As for my assessment of the IGD podcast, I agree that if the election is close, what mainstream political scientists call a “constitutional crisis” is likely to result. I suspect there will be violence associated with the election regardless of who wins. The losing side will likely claim the winner cheated their way to victory. Because of the pandemic circumstances, it is more likely that instead of having an “election day” there will be an “election month” where the drama involving vote counting, premature claims of victory, and legal maneuvering are involved. It will probably be similar to the Bush/Gore election only more intense because the circumstances are more complicated and because the level of political polarization is now higher.
A limitation of the IDG analysis is they’re looking at things from a very narrow ideological lens and are just concerned about the interests of their own side. Fair enough. But they also miss certain things as a result. First, like liberal and left opinion generally, they exaggerate Trump’s uniqueness as a supposed authoritarian in a way that is contextually shallow. I discussed that in this assessment of Trump. I see the same thing coming from conservative/right opinion all the time where folks are claiming Bernie and AOC are puppet mastering the entire Democratic Party, or that the Bidenists are crypto-Bolsheviks.

More…

My Assessment of Trump: Law and Order Liberalism Reply

He’s Tricky Dicky, redux. Only less Tricky.
By Keith Preston
I don’t spend a lot of time on Trump-bashing because TrumpHate, Inc. is a Fortune 500 corporation at this point. But my assessment of Trump is and always has been that Trump is a neo-Nixonian, a liberal Republican with a right-wing populist flavor. Only today, the culture has shifted far enough leftward that yesterday’s “silent majority” is now the “deplorable” culturally conservative minority. These Proud Boy-types are the present-day version of groups like the Hardhats from the Nixon era. As was the case with Nixon, Trump’s ego is his own worst enemy.
Trump is, at worst, Nixon redux. Though he’s not nearly as tied into the “deep state” as Tricky Dicky. Nixon had been Ike’s VP and associated with the Dulles brothers. Trump is more like Ross Perot is the sense of being a somewhat wacky loose cannon within the upper class.
In fact, Trump and Perot had similar politics. Semi-isolationist, protectionist, law and order, pro-military, patriotic, quasi-populist, etc. but comparatively socially liberal when compared to the “normal” Republicans in the sense of not being as fixated on religion, abortion, homosexuals, 2nd amendment absolutism, etc. The main difference is that Perot was a staunch fiscal conservative and Trump appears to be at least a closet believer in Modern Monetary Theory.

More…

100+ nights of Portland protests – Attack the System podcast 3

Keith interviews Attack The System co-editor Vince about Portland Oregon’s 100 plus nights of protest. Vince lives in Portland and provides first hand accounts and context for the uprising

Discussion includes:

  • 100 nights of protests in Portland
  • Scope of the protests and effect on the city
  • Targets of the protest
  • Trump’s switch to a “Law & Order” re-election campaign
  • Trump’s fixation on Portland and the presence of Federal Police
  • Shooting of Portlanders with “less than lethal” munitions and use of Geneva Convention banned weapons
  • Participation of the Lumpenproletariat in the uprising
  • Effect of the pandemic on the uprising
  • “Disappearing” protesters by the police
  • Conflict between right-wing groups and anti-fascists
  • Shooting of Aaron Danielson by self proclaimed anti-fascist Michael Reinoehl, who was killed by police
  • Failure of Democrats and progressives to address police brutality in liberal cities
  • More…

Ian M. Returns, Minneapolis Experience, & Voluntaryist Silver Linings 5

Listen here.

Episode 368 welcomes back Ian Mayes to have a chat with Skyler on the following topics: working in the neighborhood where George Floyd was killed; his experience with the Minneapolis protests and riots; Kyle Rittenhouse; lockdown created tinderbox across the country and world; Minneapolis “defund the police” campaign; lack of real anti-authoritarian sentiment; political coalition building and guilt by association; civil wars and anarchists; Portland neighborhood “wake up” protests (Reason interview); voluntaryist welfare actions, ie. silver linings; restorative justice systems (Kibbe interview); and more.

Founder and editor of Everything-Voluntary.com and UnschoolingDads.com, Skyler is a husband and unschooling father of three beautiful children. His writings include the column series “One Voluntaryist’s Perspective” and “One Improved Unit,” and blog series “Two Cents“. Skyler also wrote the books No Hitting! and Toward a Free Society, and edited the books Everything Voluntary and Unschooling Dads. You can hear Skyler chatting away on his podcasts, Everything Voluntary and Thinking & Doing.

Why the left, including left anarchists like Chomsky/Carson, will never abolish the state Reply

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why the Left will never, in all likelihood, abolish the state. This is a continuation of an earlier episode we did with Keith Preston on “Does the left advocate a police state” but this time we state our own views. The left, compared to the right, has a very unconstrained vision in Thomas Sowell’s term such as: defeating climate change (if it exists) or public health crises, mass education, and mass healthcare, or an inequality which can only really likely be “defeated” with a state. The Mindcrime Liberty Show outlines three or four different types of the left including the social democrats, the Marxist-Leninist, and the anarcho et al or classical anarchist.

One could include primitivists but considering the fact that indigenous societies according to the myth of the ecological Indians weren’t that nice to the environment and according to mainstream natural historians might have hunted large mammals to extinction including on the process to hunting the buffalo to extinction as well. Also, considering that for the most part, indigenous societies are rather functionally “traditional” or reactionary (ranging from the Amish/Hutterites to maybe uncontacted isolated groups), most left-wing people aren’t going to become primitivists anytime soon. The social democrats are not that radical as identified by both Jeff Riggenbach as well as Jonah Goldberg (although they place them differently on the political spectrum) and are not that much different then normie conservatives, rather, just want to spend money on healthcare or public works projects instead of the military. Although considering the fact that public works projects tend to be military in intent, we at the Mindcrime Liberty Show tend to think this distinction doesn’t even exist.

The Marxist-Leninists are quite obviously “statist.” The Marxist-Leninists have always historically had a state and actually a larger, more deadly police state than either the Romanovs or the Bourbons. The hardest case for us libertarians at the Mindcrime Liberty Show to diagnose is the anarchical et al groups. We already discussed the primitivists but the more advanced anarchists must first show why they can’t defend themselves from the Marxist-Leninists? Why did the classical anarchists lose to them in both the Russian and Spanish civil war? Right libertarians might have a defense problem but so do left-classical anarchists (as well as mutualists and the other et al groups).

Finally, how do classical anarchists/mutualists deal with climate change or a major public health crisis if they of course think it’s a problem? We at the Mindcrime liberty show are agnostic or even “deniers” who tend to hold an Alex Epstein view or a Knut Wittkowski view respectively on the issues but if you listen to those “infallible” “most high and mighty” statist “experts” how are they solved under classical anarchism/mutualism considering people like us exist? Bismarckian social democrats, what functionally Chomsky is and who Carson has no problem in supporting, might be able to “solve the crisis” but as discussed that requires cops, mass education and propaganda system with authoritarian teachers, and of course a military to defend it from outsiders who would “contaminate” the system. If you believe that the world will end in 12 years such as AOC/Chomsky (more or less) then explain to me how social distancing or elimination of carbon would ever occur without a huge amount of coercion. Would carbon burners or people who want to have public gatherings be physically removed? Thus, considering all that we at the Mindcrime Liberty Show thinks the left will never or rather unlikely to abolish the state and all its apparatuses for a variety of theoretical and pragmatic reasons if anything the left considering its view on equality, the environment, and positive rights would strengthen/require a centralized state.

Political Correctness Is Destroying America! (Just Not How You Think.) Reply

A critique of right-wing PC from a leftist writer at The Intercept. When it comes to the question of ideological dominance in American institutions, this is how I think it breaks down (more or less).

What is commonly called “conservatism” (the points of view described in this article) dominates the Republican Party, the right-wing of the corporate class (.e.g. fossil fuels), sectors of the military/intelligence services, traditionalist or fundamentalist religious sectors, FOX News, talk-radio, religious TV, and a minority of the print media. Its main constituents are older people in the South, Midwest, rural areas, middle-class sectors concerned about taxes, small to medium-sized business interests, and working-class social conservatives.

The dominant sectors of the ruling class are “centrist” neoliberals that typically fit the stereotype of being “economically conservative” but “socially liberal.” They are a “liberal” on abortion, gay marriage, environmentalism, gun control, religion, and most contentious “social issues.” But they favor neoliberal economic policies and a technocratic managerial state that is pro-military, pro-imperialist, pro-police, pro-corporate, and pro-bankster. Culturally, they embrace a pragmatic cosmopolitanism as a matter of economic and political necessity, convenience, and personal taste. But they fear actual socialism, lower-class crime, and oppose genuine radicalism or extremism whether left or right. Nearly all “moderate” Republicans and centrist Democrats are in this category.

There is a comparatively further “left” sector that believes in “wokeness” as a matter of quasi-religious conviction, not merely convenience, taste, or ulterior motives. This tendency is found in sectors of academia, the media and entertainment, mainline religion, the ideas industries, the furthest left-wing of the corporate class, a subset of organized labor, the margins of the Democratic Party, left-liberal political interest groups, and some NGO-types. The most cultic SJW types are a subset of these.

Actual left-wing “extremists” are small in number and fairly marginal culturally and socially. The same is true of right-wing “extremists.” Actual neo-Nazis and white supremacists are a relatively small subset of right-wing extremists (who are more likely to be “Americanists,” constitutionalists, patriots, right-wing libertarians, gun enthusiasts, Christian fundamentalists, generic conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens, militiamen, three percenters, etc. than actual racist terrorists or ideological fascists).  Both the ruling class proper and the technocratic managerial class fears these elements and considers them to be dangerous. Taken in sum total, right-wing extremists are probably a larger group than left-wing extremists like literal communists, anarchists, serious socialists, Antifa, eco-terrorists, black separatists, etc. But left-wing extremists are probably closer to the social and cultural values of the dominant sectors of the ruling class though not the economic ones. For example, left-wing extremists and technocrats would share a common concern about climate change and a general moral opposition to racism and sexism (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) but would part ways on the nationalization of the means of production or a general strike. The ruling/managerial classes would share the far right’s opposition to socialism but are horrified by the rest of their views.

By Jon Schwarz

America today faces a terrifying danger: political correctness. It is an existential threat not just to the United States, but all of human civilization.

By this, obviously, I mean right-wing political correctness.

Maybe you’re surprised to hear this. In the U.S. media, there’s no shortage of lamentations about political correctness and how it chills debate — but they’re almost always about the threat of left-wing PC.

More…

Trump Supporter Pulls Gun On Group Of Pro-Biden Teen Girls During Heated Confrontation Reply

By Adrian Garcia, The Daily Grind

A man wearing a “Trump: Keep America Great” hat was caught on camera Saturday pulling a gun on a group of teen girls showing their support for former Vice President Joe Biden after the man claims he was splashed by an unknown liquid, which witnesses claim was just water that was thrown by a man unaffiliated with either demonstration.

The video, which witnesses say was filmed at an unofficial pro-Trump rally in Woodinville, WA, shows the man waving his gun at the group of female demonstrators as members of the pro-Trump rally attempt to hold him back.

READ MORE

Millennials all over the world have lost faith in democracy Reply

Wonderful. But the big question is what comes next?

By Rhys Blakely, The Times

Millennials in democracies throughout the world are more disillusioned with their system of government than any young generation in living memory, a study has found.

A survey of nearly five million people showed that those in their 20s and 30s, born between 1981 and 1996, had less faith in democratic institutions than their parents or grandparents did at the same stage of life.

READ MORE

HALF say WORST is YET TO COME regarding coronavirus 2

On today’s What America’s Thinking, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds half of voters believe cases will continue to rise. Featuring Rising’s Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti. This survey was conducted online within the United States from October 19-22 among 2,822 registered voters by HarrisX. The sampling margin of error of this poll is plus or minus 1.85 percentage points. The results reflect a nationally representative sample of registered voters. Results were weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, income, political party, and education where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population.

Labor Prepares for Last-Minute General Strike If Trump Tries to Steal Election 1

The labor aristocracy threatens a tantrum if their favorite Tweedledee doesn’t win. Why aren’t these fuckfaces organizing a general strike REGARDLESS of who wins the idiotic election?

By Candice Bernd, Truthout

The 100,000-member MLK Labor Council, an AFL-CIO regional body of labor groups representing more than 150 unions in the Seattle, Washington, area, passed a resolution Wednesday that calls for a general strike if President Donald Trump does not respect the outcome of the November 3 election.

“MLK Labor will call on to City and County governments to pledge to protect the protesters defending democracy and commit to not using police action or curfews to curtail these activities and to use all available resources to stand up against any effort by the Trump administration to steal the election,” the resolution states.

“MLK Labor, in collaboration with other labor and progressive forces, will take whatever nonviolent actions are necessary up to and including a general strike to protect our democracy, the Constitution, the law and our nation’s democratic traditions.”

READ MORE

Election 2020: The Up Side of Undivided Government Reply

I’m of two minds on this question. Divided government is wonderful. My voting advice would be to not vote at all. If you must vote, vote third party. If you must vote major party, vote for whatever will fuel division. If you live in a red zone, vote blue. If you live in a blue zone, vote red. But having a one-party state would mean that true anti-systemists are only fighting a one-front war as opposed to a two-front war (or a multi-front war).

By Thomas L. Knapp, The Garrison Center

As of late October, the political modelers at FiveThirtyEight gave Democrats a 72% chance of pulling off the trifecta — winning the White House and majorities in both Houses of Congress — on November 3.

My visceral response to that possibility is negative. Excluding outlier possibilities like a Libertarian landslide, I’ve always considered divided government the best outcome.

Gridlock, in theory, is good. If an opposition party controls either the White House or one house of Congress, that theory goes, it can thwart the other party’s worst ideas through presidential veto or the opposition-controlled house refusing to pass legislation.

But in the 21st century, that theory hasn’t proven out very well. Instead of one party resisting the other party’s worst ideas, it tends to trade its acquiescence to those ideas for getting some of its own worst ideas implemented as well.

READ MORE

The Case for Trump? Reply

This is a pretty good overview of what Trump’s serious fans like about him. Most of this is stuff I don’t agree with, don’t care about, and think lacks context or is rooted in ulterior motives. But it’s pretty thorough. The point is that I can’t see how this is any less informed or one-dimensional than the arguments that are made for “the other side.” Is any of this any more foolish, or is it considerably less foolish, than the Left’s leading intellectual, Noam Chomsky, claiming that Trump is worse than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot? Interestingly, the fellow who wrote this is a Trumpist with alt-lite leanings who is also friendly to the ideas of ATS and other similar tendencies. I know people who are ATS-friendly who have similar views from the Democratic side as well (for example, progressives who think the Red Tribe is so awful their side would be better off without them). A big tent is a big tent is a big tent.

More…

Trump Unbound: Visions for a Second Term Reply

Thomas Sowell once said that a problem with intellectuals is because they are experts in certain very narrow areas, they think they are automatically qualified to give expert opinions on everything else. This article is a good example. As brilliant a military theorist as Bill Lind, this article is delusional nonsense. Trump jettisoned the Russia rapprochement people around him very early on and has governed as a normal Republican on virtually every issue since then.

By William S. Lind, The American Conservative

I expect President Trump to win re-election and win big. In a game of cops and robbers, most people side with the cops. A triumphant Trump will be Trump Unbound, Promethean in his defiance of the establishment. The result should be more fun than a barrel of Menckens.

More…

Republicans and Democrats Will Never Deliver Peace Reply

Nothing like stating the obvious.

By Jo Jorgensen, The American Conservative

The 2016 Republican presidential primary debates revealed a sea change. From 2008 to 2012, then-congressman Ron Paul was routinely booed for his criticism of America’s foreign policy. It was even common to hear Republican office holders, commentators, and activists say they “agreed with Ron Paul on everything but foreign policy.” Yet in 2016, candidate Donald Trump was cheered for calling the Iraq war the biggest blunder in American history.

One would have thought Trump’s victory would have resulted in a major reduction of America’s military presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan. However, three years and 10 months after President Trump was sworn into office, at least 3,000 troops will remain in Iraq at the end of the year if Trump’s troop reductions go into effect. How many troops will remain in Afghanistan depends on how successful the military-industrial complex, and their allies on Capitol Hill and in the media, are at undermining Trump.

READ MORE

The Coming Biden-Harris Law and Order Regime Reply

Prediction:
A Biden/Harris regime will crack down harder on BLM, Antifa, left-wing protestors, and their right-wing counterparts than a Trump-Pence-Barr regime. The “Biden administration” will merely be a euphemism for a ruling class unity regime without the distraction of the Orange Man daily freak show. A certain amount of disorder is in Trump’s interests, so he can promote himself as a law and order man as opposed to the incompetent Democrats who allegedly coddle rioters and criminals.
The Democrats want the protestors to vote for them. But a change of administrations will be a whole new ballgame. The new administration will be trying to demonstrate its competence when compared to its predecessor and will want to brag about how it allegedly restored order, curbed civil unrest, reduced crime, reformed the police, and cracked down on hate groups, along with left-wing wing extremists.

Is Trump the Second Coming? Reply

An anarchist fellow on social media has a pretty good assessment of the evangelical/pro-life Trump-worshipers.

“Pro-Life Republicans – stop crowing about that Barret woman. She is NEVER going to overturn Roe v. Wade. None of the GOP will EVER do that, because none of them actually care about Fetuses. They don’t care about most living breathing people and they definitely don’t care about possible people still in the womb. Abortion is infinitely more useful to them as a means to rally their base of hooting morons than as a win.

More…

The Neocon-Maoist Axis Reply

From a social media post. This may be the first time Trotskyists and Maoists have ever manage to get along.

“The coalition behind Biden is ridiculous – Lincoln Project “Never Trumper” Republicans and most of the leadership of the Democratic Socialists of America, Silicon Valley tech giants and Black Lives Matter, Wall Street megadonors and the remnants of Occupy Wall Street, etc., even the inappropriately-named Revolutionary Communist Party (Refuse Fascism). It is a totally phony ideological configuration.”