Why Hate Speech Laws, Gun Control, and Vigilantism Will Not Prevent Fascism 1

On the free speech question, it’s interesting to consider that the Weimar Republic actually had hate speech laws, along with stricter laws against obscenity and libel than what is the norm in most Western countries today. Weimar also had gun control laws, along with anti-fascist vigilantes that were regularly engaged in not only brawls but also gangland-like shootouts with the NSDAP-affiliated groups. Both the KPD and the SPD had their own private military armies just like the brownshirts, and the KPD was receiving support from the Soviet Union. None of that prevented the Nazi coup. As the CATO Institute explains:

“In my research, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic and found that, contrary to what most people think, Germany did have hate-speech laws that were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis, including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher, were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. And rather than deterring them, the many court cases served as effective pubicrelations machinery for the Nazis, affording them a level of attention that they never would have received in a climate of a free and open debate.

In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. The more charges Streicher faced, the more the admiration of his supporters grew. In fact, the courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews.

Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti-Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933. “Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law,” he writes. “Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech… As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

The maintenance of civil society, the vigorous defense of all civil liberties across the board (the ones outlined in the Bill of Rights and beyond), maintenance of a social and cultural consensus in favor of at least some bare minimum of democratic, libertarian, or egalitarian values, sanctioning those who engage in political violence (whatever their ideology) is the best way to prevent totalitarian/authoritarian groups (right, left, religious) from gaining genuine political power.

Why the war hawks are wrong. Defending Gabbard against neo-con slander. Reply

This video is a response to Kevin Castley of “Liberal Hawk Memes for Moral Universality teens” and “Superpower broadcasting” video against Tulsi Gabbard. His video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uEJU… As promised, all of my sources which I sight in the video are verified in the link below, read and learn for yourself. Eisenhower’s meeting with Khrushchev https://www.history.com/this-day-in-h… American support for Turkish atrocities. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turk… https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/researc… American support for operation ajax and the Shah https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqrHQ… Khomeini’s opposition to WMD, and Saddam’s use of chemical weapons during Iran Iraq war. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/… https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/… https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-c… https://www.cia.gov/library/readingro… https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo… Saudi human rights abuses and American support for them https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/09/03/s… https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/…. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl… https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle… https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv… https://www.politico.com/story/2015/0… https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-ga… Syrian minorities support for Bashar Assad. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/wo… https://theintercept.com/2019/10/26/s… https://www.theatlantic.com/internati… Threats of thermo-nuclear war. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buz… https://www.tulsi2020.com/issues/end-…

Will Anarchism Always Fail? 12

Styx/Tarl is an excellent commentator on many levels but he gets a lot of stuff wrong in this. Although many anarchists portray anarchism in the worst possible light, so it’s not surprising there are so many misconceptions about the philosophy.

As everyone probably knows, I’m anarchist, although I have my own approach and generally distance myself from the “mainstream” anarchist movement. For instance, I reject much of the standard left/right paradigm and I certainly reject the blue tribe/red tribe dichotomy that defines much of US politics.

I reject both the conservative/right-libertarian plutocratic approach as well as the leftist/socialist/progressive statist approach. I’m more about individual liberty, voluntary association, decentralization, bottom-up organization, confederalism, voluntary federalism, localism, cooperativism, autonomism, mutual aid, direct action, self-organization, self-management, direct democracy (contextually), etc.

In a historical context, I am obviously far left, although tactically I would consider myself a radical centrist (or revolutionary centrist) as opposed to establishment centrism (the neoliberal/neocon duopoly). I would distance myself from much of what passes as “left” nowadays. I embrace the full range of anarchist, libertarian, decentralist, anti-state, or anti-authoritarian thinking, with the emphasis being on decentralized, voluntary, pluralism. I see different political and cultural groups as the modern equivalent of religious sects and ethno-cultural tribes (which is what people used to fight over in the past). My main emphasis would be on self-determination for all to the greatest degree possible.

I see my political outlook as basically the same one I would have taken if I were a Native American or African tribesman during the period of colonialism, where you had hundreds or thousands of tribes fighting each other with all of these eventually being overrun by the colonial empires. “Hey, we gotta forget about this petty shit and look at who is coming over the mountain and from the ocean!”

I think the main thing that would set me apart from the mainstream anarchist movement is that I reject the progressive/reactionary dichotomy as being the essence of political conflict. The kinds of social conflicts that leftists emphasize are real (class, race, gender, “culture war,” global North/South, etc) are real but they’re not all that there is. Also, what “constitutes” progress is often debatable. Eugenics and Prohibition were considered progressive in their time. I’m more about power vs anti-power. The problem with most leftist thinking is that it is simply about replacing one ruling class with another. I generally agree with Burke’s critique of the French Revolution, Bakunin’s critique of Marxism, and the left-communist/anarchist critique of Leninism on all that. I think that kind of approach has failed too many times in the past. I’m also opposed to reductionism (for example, the idea that everything can be explained by race or class). I hold to an analysis of power relations that is more like that of Max Weber or the elite theorists.

Anarchist hero Murray Bookchin was a Zionist who whitewashed Israeli colonialism and war crimes 2


Murray Bookchin is something of a saint in the anarchist community. His ideas on social ecology and what he termed “libertarian municipalism” and “communalism” have influenced generations of self-declared leftists, and he was frequently cited as an ideological force behind the anti-globalization and Occupy Wall Street movements.

Bookchin became especially influential in Kurdish circles after Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), adopted his ideas to advance a vision of “democratic confederalism,” a vision his followers later attempted to implement in northeast Syria — with the help of the US military.

What is not often mentioned, however, is that — like many of his anarchists and “libertarian socialist” peers — Bookchin was very soft on imperialism, and in some cases downright apologetic.

Specifically, Bookchin was a Zionist who publicly whitewashed and even rationalized Israel’s crimes against humanity. He also frequently demonized independent post-colonial governments in the Global South, echoing imperialist propaganda and chauvinistic myths about countries targeted by the United States for regime change.


Not on Our Side: On Bernie Sanders and Imperialism Reply

By Doug Enaa Greene

Left Voice

n February 19, 2019, Vermont Senator and “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders announced his plans to run for the Democratic Party nomination for President. The announcement was met with cheers from large swaths of the American left who identify with his support for expanded labor rights, Medicare for All, free college, and a litany of other  progressive issues. Those appear to be very compelling reasons to back the Sanders’ campaign. However, when it comes to American imperialism and war, Sanders may offer slightly different rhetoric than other Democratic candidates or Donald Trump, but his record proves him to be no alternative at all.


Voting- Right or Privilege? Reply

By Libertarian Heathen

There is no right to vote, universal sufferage was the fatal blow to the Republic, and its elimination the quickest way to save America.

The United States of America is a Republic, and it was founded by men who hated Democracy with a passion, recognizing it for what it is, the tyranny of the majority. In contrast, a Republic the rule of law, and protects the rights of the smallest and most important minority, the individual.

“It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

-Alexander Hamilton,

Speech to Congress, June 21, 1788

The Constitution provided a house of the people they could elect congressmen to. It had a Senate the state legislatures appointed through various processes to prevent the circus we watch every election. Laws had to pass both the House and the Senate, so people had veto power but the mob could not get its way by ballot alone. The electoral college was also designed as a barrier to Democracy and the madness we see now in directly elected presidential campaigning.


Precious Metals Dealer, Sound Money Group Rank the 50 States’ Gold and Silver Policies Reply

Charlotte, NC (December 2, 2019) –Is Your State Destroying Your Money?” asks the Sound Money Defense League and Money Metals Exchange with the release of the 2019 Sound Money Index.

The Sound Money Index is the first index of its kind, ranking all 50 states using twelve different criteria to determine which states maintain the most pro- and anti-sound money policies in the country.

The Sound Money Index evaluates each state’s sales and income tax policies involving precious metals, whether a state recognizes the monetary role of gold and silver under the U.S. Constitution, whether a state holds pension, reserves, or debt denominated in gold or silver, whether a state has imposed precious metal dealer/investor harassment laws, and other criteria.

Wyoming, Texas, and Utah emerged as the best states on sound money in the nation, and South Dakota, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Washington are not far behind.

Maine, Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky joined Vermont, Arkansas, and New Jersey as the worst states on this issue.

Money Metals Exchange, a national precious metals dealer recently ranked “Best in the USA,” and the Sound Money Defense League, a national, non-partisan sound money advocacy group joined together to produce the authoritative ranking

“Federal policy and the privately owned banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve System are the root causes of inflation, instability, and currency devaluation,” noted Jp Cortez, Policy Director at the Sound Money Defense League.

“However, there are steps states can take to protect their citizens from the ill effects of America’s unbacked paper money system, and many of them are taking those steps,” Cortez noted.


Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and the Slow Death of the Democratic Delusion 2

By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit

Exile in Happy Valley

As a practice, I despise both major parties with a passion usually reserved for religious zealotry. But I’m not ashamed, even as a lifelong leftist, to admit that I hate the Democrats most of all. In fact, it’s precisely because I’m a leftist that I hate the Democrats most of all. The only thing worse than a racist horde of war hungry zillionaires is a racist horde of war hungry zillionaires who try to pass them selves off as the high handed voice of egalitarianism. It’s like having Strom Thurmond throw on a Rasta wig and wax poetic about how he understands why the n*ggers feel cold and the slum’s got so much soul (compliments to Jello Biafra). It doesn’t exactly make me feel better that I use to be a member of that limp-wristed blackface fraternity.

But it was 2008, the scoundrels of the Bush junta were on their way out the revolving door to cushy no-show jobs in the defense industry and there was one candidate left in that party that I still believed in, and I’m not talking about Joe Lieberman’s designated black dauphin. Dennis Kucinich was the last of a dying breed. He seemed to have stepped out from a different era, like the long lost munchkin lovechild of George McGovern and Joan Baez. He didn’t just want peace, he wanted revenge against the war machine; 50% cuts in defense spending, shuttering all foreign bases, Nuremberg Tribunals for the retreating Bush junta. He didn’t have a chance in hell and I didn’t give a shit. He was on a crusade that was bigger than any election, and I was willing to swallow my vomit and leave the Green Party to join him.

I look at the ten clown car pileup that is the 2020 Democratic primaries and there is no Dennis Kucinich to be found. Just a multicultural graveyard of hyper-statist partisan corpses. For five fucking minutes we had Mike Gravel’s beautiful crusty old ass, but the glorified carnies who rig the debates quickly erased all signs of his existence until his shallow well ran dry. What we have now is a contest largely between two separate but equally deceptive cliques of creeps. The “Moderates” or, as I call them, the Obama Revivalists, and the “Revolutionaries” who are really little more than blood and butter social democrats (to quote the late Dr. Thompson, “You people voted for Humphrey… and you killed Jesus!)

The Obama Revivalists have to be the most comically delusional conglomeration of convoluted cunts since Obama himself sold half my generation on an 8 year extension of the Bush regime with Hopelandic gobbledygook lifted straight from a Chicken Noodle Soup paperback he found at the airport. The basic pitch of these neoliberal imbeciles, who only the Clinton News Network would have the gal to call “Realists”, can be summed up by Cher’s tattooed ass on a battleship, ‘If we could just turn back time. If we could just find a way…’ They seem to all suffer under the grand-mal delusion that all of America’s woes began in February 2017, and just 8 more years of Obama (or 24 of Bush) can cure the American Empire of an authoritarian collapse that has been a longtime coming. Donald Trump is not the problem, he is the symptom. Voting for one of these mass media approved Obama Revivalists would be the equivalent of treating a brain tumor with a shotgun blow to the head.


Attack the Source: The Establishment Loyalist's Favorite Online Tactic Reply

By Caitlin Johnstone

Consortium News

If you’re skeptical of western power structures and you’ve ever engaged in online political debate for any length of time, the following has definitely happened to you.

You find yourself going back and forth with one of those high-confidence, low-information establishment types who’s promulgating a dubious mainstream narrative, whether that be about politics, war, Julian Assange, or whatever. At some point they make an assertion which you know to be false–publicly available information invalidates the claim they’re making.

“I’ve got them now!” you think to yourself, if you’re new to this sort of thing. Then you share a link to an article or video which makes a well-sourced, independently verifiable case for the point you are trying to make.

Then, the inevitable happens.

“LMAO! That outlet!” they scoff in response. “That outlet is propaganda/fake news/conspiracy theory trash!”

Or something to that effect. You’ll encounter this tactic over and over and over again if you continually engage in online political discourse with people who don’t agree with you. It doesn’t matter if you’re literally just linking to an interview featuring some public figure saying a thing you’d claimed they said. It doesn’t matter if you’re linking to a WikiLeaks publication of a verified authentic document. Unless you’re linking to CNN/Fox News (whichever fits the preferred ideology of the establishment loyalist you’re debating), they’ll bleat “fake news!” or “propaganda!” or “Russia!” as though that in and of itself magically invalidates the point you’re trying to make.

And of course it doesn’t. What they are doing is called attacking the source, also known as an ad hominem, and it’s a very basic logical fallacy.


Thanksgiving Should Be America’s Day of the Dead Reply

By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit

Exile in Happy Valley

Once upon a time, in a land far far away, There lived a group of magical white Christians called the Pilgrims. After growing weary of their King’s discrimination against witch trials and buckle-hats, they climbed aboard a magic ship called the Mayflower and sailed the deadly Atlantic on a quest for religious freedom and laissez-faire capitalism. They found a wild, mysterious and sparsely populated New World and quickly busied themselves building the foundation of the exceptional American Dream. When they came face to face with pestilence, they graciously excepted agricultural advice from an unwashed horde of noble savages, who were intern thanked with an invite to a grand feast of Thanksgiving.

Well, there’s the official national fairy tale, here’s the open handed bitch slap of reality. The sainted Pilgrims were a clan of puritanical Christian wack jobs sent by King James as a sort of glorified death squad to wipe out the Native Peoples of Turtle Island. There was no multicultural feast. That was another Christian tradition scalped from the Pilgrims original pagan victims back in the old country, where a successful fall harvest was celebrated with a tribal village feast. The first Thanksgiving was a work of fiction propagated to pacify the citizens of this country during times of great social upheaval, first during the Civil War, then revamped in it’s current form during the Great Depression. It’s a fable designed to unify an empire, not around family and community, but around the state that robs us of both and fucks us until we bleed. The very same state that systematically butchered the native peoples of this continent, only to use their distorted memory as token props for the pageantry of American Exceptionalism.

But history ain’t a straight line, my dearest motherfuckers. It’s a circle and that circle is coming back around again. After the “savages” coexisted relatively peacefully on this continent for thousands of years without the modern perversion of the state, the righteous, enlightened, Europeans have managed to burn out after just a little over two centuries of rabid over expansion. America and Western Civilization as we know it stand on the brink of collapse. It turns out all that raping and pillaging isn’t a particularly sustainable model for economic solvency after all. With bases on every fucking continent and a bloated military apparatus that would make Darth Vader wet with envy, the American giant is coming apart at the seams. A morbidly obese, blood spattered glutton, drowning in debt, endless war and staggering economic inequality. To many this fate is terrifying, after all, the fall of Rome was followed by a Dark Age. But as a bluntly anti-American anarchist, I see this coming upheaval with a devilish glint of hope. The Dark Ages came about when Europe fell into denial over their failure to control the world. If America can boldly face the truth that the empire is not only dead but deserved to die, this could be a new beginning. An opportunity for hope.


US ‘constantly’ destabilizing other countries across the world 3

Press TV. Listen here.

The United States has been “constantly” involved in destabilizing other countries across the world and there is “overwhelming” evidence attesting to this destructive role, says an American analyst.

Keith Preston, chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com, made the remark in a phone interview with Press TV on Sunday while commenting on China’s denunciation of Washington’s one-sided approach to world politics and its adversarial attitude towards Beijing.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on the sidelines of a Group of 20 ministerial meeting in the city of Nagoya in southern Japan on Saturday that the US is the “world’s biggest source of instability.”

Wang detailed how Washington’s policies were making waves across the international stage, saying, “The United States is broadly engaged in unilateralism and protectionism, and is damaging multilateralism and the multilateral trading system.”

China: US ‘world’s biggest source of instability’

China: US ‘world’s biggest source of instability’China’s foreign minister lashes out at the US over Washington’s one-sided approach to world politics.

“There is no question that the Chinese foreign minister is correct when he says that the United States is the world’s greatest source of international instability. The evidence for that is overwhelming,” Preston told Press TV on Sunday.

“If you look at the foreign policy objectives of the United States as they have been pursued over the last 20 years or so, and even when you go back much further than that, we see that the United States has constantly created instability throughout the world by a wide range of measures. The most obvious examples would be the outright of invasion of various nations by the United States as well as these efforts towards regime change that the United States has carried out around the world or through direct military action by the United States itself or whether through the arming of insurgents and rebels in various nations,” he added.

The American analyst went on to say that, “The United States has used all of these tactics as a means of destabilizing foreign nations.”

Preston pointed to the coup in Bolivia, US-backed militants in Syria, support for the aggression of Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and increasing hostility against Iran as obvious examples of Washington’s role in plunging world countries into chaos.

“The United States has certainly created a great deal of instability in different levels, political, military and economic instability and that’s going on as well,” he noted.

Last year, US President Donald Trump began imposing tariffs and other trade barriers on China after accusing it of “unfair trade practices.” So far, the United States has imposed tariffs on about $112 billion of Chinese imports, which makes for more than two-thirds of the consumer goods it receives from China.

The punitive action has resulted in a trade war, which even domestic American politicians have come to call bleak and damaging to the countries and the global economic flow.

China wants US trade deal but

China wants US trade deal butChina says it wants to do trade with US, but if necessary it is

Washington has also mounted pressure on China’s Huawei — the world’s leading supplier of telecoms networking equipment and the number-two global smartphone vendor — under the pretext that its equipment could contain security loopholes that allow China to spy on global communications traffic.

It has also tried to force its allies to reject Chinese superfast 5G communication technology, especially from Huawei.

Though the company has repeatedly denied the accusation, Washington said in May that it would blacklist Huawei from the US market and from buying crucial US components.

The United States and China appear keen to de-escalate their conflict, at least temporarily, to avert a recession and boost growth in 2020.

Overcoming “Anarcho-Sectarianism” 3

A reader writes:

“I was wondering why you promote and publish National-Anarchism? NAM is just white supremacist and false anarchism”

I would disagree with that characterization of National-Anarchism. As National-Anarchist Movement explains:

“National-Anarchists do not support Trump, Putin, Assad or Le Pen; National-Anarchists do not endorse racist behaviour or misogyny; National-Anarchists are opposed to fascism and neo-Nazism; National-Anarchists do not defend imperialism and colonialism; and National-Anarchists are not anti-communist to the extent that they forget about the capitalist ruling class or ignore the fact that the historical roots of our struggle can be found among those who have always fought against injustice and oppression. The list goes on. Ironically, there are people on the Left who seek to demonise us by associating us with the Far Right, something which can then lead to members of the Far-Right gravitating towards National-Anarchism itself in the mistaken belief that we are simply ‘playing’ at being Anarchists or using Anarchism as a convenient means of advancing fascist objectives in a more covert and surreptitious manner.”

As free-thinkers who adopt a decidedly non-coercive attitude, however, we also welcome people of various races, cultures, religions and sexual orientation and remain strongly anti-fascist in the sense that we completely reject both the overt fascism of the Right and the violent Left-wing hypocrites who gather under the counter-productive banners of Antifa. So, remember, if you wish to become involved with the National-Anarchist Movement then you must (a) learn what it means to be an Anarchist, and (b) discard the remaining vestiges of those bankrupt ideologies which have already resulted in the death of millions of innocent people all over the world.”


The core aspects of my viewpoint are decentralism, voluntarism, pluralism, and panarchism.

I consider myself to be “pan-anarchist” or “anarcho-pluralist” is the sense of embracing all forms of anarchism, libertarianism, decentralism, anti-authoritarianism, and anti-statism, within a wider pan-decentralist, pan-voluntarist, pan-secessionist paradigm. I certainly consider national-anarchism to be a legitimate form of anarchism (and a very interesting and relevant one), and I am definitely a fellow traveler to national-anarchism. I also consider leftist, socialist, ancap, primitivist, transhumanist, technophile, religious, and anticlerical versions of anarchism to be legitimate as well. The “unity of opposites” idea is one of the things I find interesting about anarchism as a philosophical or meta-political paradigm.

I regard political ideologies in the same way I regard religious sects or ethnocultural tribes. None of them are “true” in the same sense that the laws of physics are true. They’re simply social constructs that people use to order their own psyche or create common meaning or community.

For instance, there was recently an article on the Mises Institute website claiming the Left is “uniquely evil.” That’s nonsense. The Left is not “uniquely evil.” The Left vs Right thing is merely modernity’s version of Protestant vs Catholic, Shia vs Sunni, pagan vs Christian, or Jew vs Gentile, i.e. warring tribes with their own mythologies, mysticism, archetypes, apocalyptic visions, traditions, taboos, totems, etc.

I am generally in favor of “peace among tribes” in the sense of not wanting any single “tribe” to have a monopoly or excessive concentration of power, or to rule tyrannically over any other tribe.
On the economic questions, I’m an “anarchist without adjectives” which initially signified a hybrid of the classical schools of anarchist economic thought (mutualism, individualism, collectivism, communism, syndicalism, and geoism). However, I am not a universalist, which means I accept the legitimacy of other kinds of anarchism (including anarchist economics) as well, including those which were originally not under the AWA umbrella, ranging from Rothbardianism and “anarcho-objectivism” to the range of schools of libertarian socialism and left-libertarianism.

The main weaknesses I have seen in anarchism at the present time are these:

1. Failure to have a plan concerning how to accommodate the contending schools of anarchism following the decline of the state and global capitalism.

2. Failure to have a plan for the peaceful co-existence of anarchists and non-anarchists to the greatest degree possible following the decline.

3. Failure to have a strategy to get “from here to there.” I actually don’t favor a single monolithic strategy as a much as a full spectrum of strategies (“Let a thousand flowers bloom”) but I do think there needs to be some kind of meta-strategy that is focusing on destroying the global system, irrespective of what the most localized or sectionalized strategies may be.

4. Failure to establish a “hierarchy of priorities” that ranks targets of action in a rational way. I’d argue anti-imperialism should come first (particularly for those of us in the US, the world’s leading imperialist power), followed by the struggle against the state itself, followed by economic struggles, followed by social and cultural questions, with their being room for disagreement on many of these things as well. Many anarchists seem to have the order of priorities largely in reverse of what I would recommend.

About 20 years ago I came to the position that the anti-state left in the US should focus primarily on overthrowing the US imperial system i.e. revolution in the “belly of the beast” (Che Guevara) or the “mother country of the empire” (Black Panthers). The natural allies of such an effort would be haters of the USG from across the political and cultural spectrum, from sovereign citizens, militiamen, and survivalists, to urban street gangs, to rebellious privileged class youth (from what are now called “incels” to goth to gamers to whatever). In a scenario like that, the Left would have the upper hand because the Left is dominant in large cities and heavily populated areas (with a slight cultural majority at well).

I’ve “courted” the full range of anti-USG right-wing sectors, viewing them all the same way I view, for example, the Church of Scientology, i.e. all of them are small enough to be individually irrelevant and non-threatening, but collectively large enough to boost the ranks of the anti-state movement considerably while remaining individually containable (I’d say the same thing about the full range of “cults” that I would say about the full range of the fringe right-wing or the M-L or M-L-M fringe left).

The fight against the USG is paramount, IMO, because the USG is not only the government of American but of much of the world, and also the world’s leading killer. We Americans are the new Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia in the realm of foreign policy (though I don’t think that’s true in domestic policy). That’s why anti-imperialism should be our first concern, IMO, along with standard anarchist concerns about the concentration of power.

National Anarchism: An Explanation Reply

An summary of the political philosophy of national anarchism (developed by writers such as Troy Southgate and Keith Preston), its fundamentals, along with its association with panarchy and pan-secessionism. To clarify, national anarchism isn’t just a white person’s thing. National anarchist communities can be made up of any ethnic and racial composition they want. People of all races, ancestral types, should embrace national anarchism for their tribes.


PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON: SELF-GOVERNMENT AND THE CITIZEN-STATE http://library.libertarian-labyrinth…. Why Pan-Secessionism? https://attackthesystem.com/2008/06/0… Etymological origins of the term “nation” https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation Multiple definitions of a nation https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict… National-Anarchist Movement Conference 2017: A Summary https://attackthesystem.com/2017/07/1… National-Anarchist Manifesto. PART 4: COMMUNITY AGAINST THE STATE http://www.national-anarchist.net/201… PART 5: RACIAL SEPARATISM OR MIXED TRIBES? http://www.national-anarchist.net/201… Panarchy | Paul-Emile de Puydt (1860) https://www.panarchy.org/depuydt/1860… Definition of Hierarchism https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic… Introduction to national anarchism (in French) http://national-anarchisme.hautetfort…

Communism, Open Borders, and Natural Law Reply

By Libertarian Heathen

Libertarianism is Natural Law Enshrined In Politics

I have a variety of people on the social media pages associated with this website. I generally do not ban contrarians as they provide fodder for good debate.

Most Libertarians/Conservatives have encountered a common fallacy offerred by Marxists who still cling to the idea “Communism would work if it was only done right” or “There was never actual Communism”. The argument is made in varying forms, but this is the essential premise.

Here is a recent example from Facebook:


The Conservative Anarchist Solution 3

This is the transcript of a talk I gave to the H.L. Mencken Club on November 9, 2019.

By Keith Preston

When it comes to questions of strategy, it is important to base one’s approach on a reasonable estimation of the probable circumstances one will be facing in the future.

I constantly hear claims that there will be a civil war at some point, or an apocalyptic revolution, or a coup, or the election of a populist leader that will set everything straight.

But the probable future of the United States will be something more like what is actually happening on the West Coast at present. In the future, the United States will increasingly start to resemble a Latin American nation in terms of demographics, socioeconomic class structures, and political characteristics.

Many people on the Right tend to focus on the demographic angle, and it is certainly true that the US is experiencing a demographic transformation in the sense that in the future there will be no ethnic majority, but merely a collection of minorities.

However, just as important is the fact that class divisions continue to widen in the US. The gap between rich and poor is the widest it has been since the 1920s, and there is no evidence this will change in the foreseeable future. I would argue that the widening class divisions probably have dozens of causes rather than any singular cause, but it is an issue that is just as important as the demographic issue.

At present, California is starting to look like what a traditional so-called “Third World” model society looks like. In Third World societies, and traditional societies generally, class structures are such that the very rich live in opulent luxury, with a relatively small middle class of ruling class functionaries, and masses of workers and poor people. That is the picture that is emerging in California.

Certain areas of California are among the wealthiest in the nation. There is also a middle class and upper middle class of professionals, tech workers, public sector workers, bureaucrats, and corporate managerial personnel, but what Americans traditionally think of as the conventional working to middle class is shrinking in size, and the ranks of the poor, including those experiencing Third World or Fourth World levels of poverty, are growing. For example, some areas of California have poverty levels that approximate those of the Congo. California cities have a massive homeless population of the kind normally associated with Latin America or South Asia. Certain medieval diseases like typhus and leprosy are making a comeback among the poor in California as well.

It has been said in the past that California is the bellwether of the nation, and I suspect that will prove to be true in this scenario as well. Increasingly, US politics is starting to resemble Third World politics with openly demagogic figures on both the left and right beginning to appear. In Third World politics, it is not uncommon for open socialists and communists as well as right-wing extremists to get elected to parliaments. Corruption, nepotism, ethnic spoils systems, institutionalized bribery, and flagrant incompetence are not exceptions but the expected norm.  We see plenty of examples of this happening in the United States as well.


Only Queers Can Save the Flaming Refugees of Love: Time to Decriminalize Polygamy 1

By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit

Exile in Happy Valley

Massacres aren’t exactly unusual in the failed narco-state of Mexico, especially since the US pushed its beleaguered southern neighbor to declare all out war on the cartels a couple of decades back. More blood irrigates the Sonora Desert than acid rain. Barely a week goes by without some horrendous Bataille-esque crime of absurdly grotesque proportions popping up on the CNN news ticker, – 16 heads found in Juarez Chucky Cheese ball-pit, no tongues or eyes – But it’s rarely enough to steal Anderson Cooper’s attention from the latest minute kink in the Ukrainegate circus. This month was different though. This month, in early November, the cartels crossed the ultimate Rubicon of corporate news hysteria. They killed a bunch of pretty white people. 9 to be exact. 3 mothers and 6 children, savagely slaughtered in what appears to be a tragic case of mistaken identity.

But as the usual yammering heads blathered on about the proven necessity for endless drug wars, and Donald Trump used the garish details to further his border jihad while he and his brown counterpart AMLO compared dick sizes, there was one detail to this story that seemed to come to no one’s attention but mine. Oh, there was plenty of coverage of the fact that these innocent victims of American drug policy were Mormon Fundamentalists, usually in the form of some off-hand detail on the way to some other asinine point. But nobody seemed to do the math, to acknowledge the very basic fact that in an age when people are so desperate to get the hell out of Mexico that they’re willing to risk losing their children to one of Trump’s immigration zoos, there are still American citizens, dual citizens to be exact, who are living in exile in this hellhole, seeking refuge from 19th Century American puritanical persecution. The cartel put the bullets in those bodies, but those bodies where put in cartel country by the American government’s ongoing war on polygamy.

The families who were shot and roasted alive in their SUV’s were part of the Mormon Fundamentalist community of La Mora. While most of this community no longer practices plural marriage, they are all descendants of polygamist families forced to flee Utah after the federal government strong armed the Church of Latter-day Saints into banning a lifestyle among consenting adults which had long been a cornerstone of their religion. To this day, all fifty states maintain bans of varying degrees of severity against polygamy and the federal government has continued to make a point of persecuting polygamist communities, often on severely flimsy evidence of child abuse, separating and, in the case of Waco, even murdering whole families in the process. Our government has made it crystal clear that they don’t approve of the way these people choose to worship and raise their families and the result has been historically devastating. Thousands live in exile. Others have been forced to seek refuge in the shadows of demented false prophets like Warren Jeffs. All because of what? People finding love in unconventional places? Where the fuck have I heard that before? And why am I the only one outside of this community who seems to care?


Trump repeatedly broke pledge to withdraw US troops from Mideast Reply

Press TV. Listen here.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly broken his pledge to withdraw American troops from the costly wars in the Middle East, and is instead moving them to other parts of the region, says a political analyst in Virginia.

Trump is “trying to make it appear as though he’s winding down the war in Syria. One of the things that Trump ran for president for back in 2016 was he claimed that he was going to wind down America’s involvement in all of these various wars in the Middle East,” said Keith Preston, chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.

“[But] since then, he’s been dragging his feet to a large degree when it comes to doing some of that,” Preston told Press TV on Saturday. “For example, he’s been very slow to withdraw from Afghanistan.” 

US Army chief of staff, General Mark Milley, said Sunday that American troop levels in Syria are expected to stabilize at around 600 and the presence of US military forces in the Arab country is for American national interests.

The US Army general also claimed that it was important for US troops to remain in Syria so long as the Daesh (ISIS) terrorist group has a presence there.

PressTV-Top US general says 600 troops to remain in Syria

PressTV-Top US general says 600 troops to remain in SyriaA top US army general says American troop levels in Syria are expected to stabilize at around 600.

Although Trump recently ordered the withdrawal of a small number of US troops from northern Syria, he is still planning to keep a military presence in that same region to “secure” the oil fields in the border area.

Getting American troops out of costly wars in the Middle East has long been a promise of Trump, but his latest decisions in Syria and other countries in the region may not be achieving much of that promise.

And a large number of US forces that are being withdrawn from Syria are not to be sent back to the United States, but the plan has been to move them to neighboring Iraq and keep them in the region.

Experts say American military presence in the Middle East is not really decreasing and argue that there are many chances for the US to get entangled in further conflict in the region.

Trump has also repeatedly advocated for bringing US troops back from Afghanistan. American forces have remained bogged down in Afghanistan since 2001 through the presidencies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now, Trump.