Down With the Dictator Reply

Article by Lew Rockwell.
Governments and their intellectual front men believe that nothing unites a population like a war. Actually, that’s not quite true. What happens is that during war, governments strike fear into their domestic opponents and silence them through intimidation. The appearance of unity is wholly illusory.

If you truly want to unite a population, here is a key: drive the dictator out of the country. The fleeing of a despot always leads to unparalleled and authentic celebration because the people perceive a new-found freedom. In the street celebrations, dancing, enthusiasm, and optimism, we gain a glimpse of what freedom is all about. It is about removing the boot from the neck.

This is precisely what we see in Yemen today, as President Ali Abdullah Saleh was escorted out of the country by henchmen hired by his protector state of Saudi Arabia. There he is undergoing medical treatment for wounds suffered in a successful hit on his presidential compound. There is no way that this guy can come back and rule his country again.

This deeply ignorant thug, who grabbed and held power in the same way they did in the old days of the Soviet thugocracy – murder, mayhem, slavish loyalty to powerful sponsors – has been a persistent violator of individual liberties since 1978. All these years he held power through sheer brutality and lies, though the people themselves never believed a word of it.

This year’s uprising throughout the Arab world swept through Yemen as in many other countries, and he held on through violence, bloodshed, and by promising reforms, elections, and departure – though he failed to carry out any of his promises.

His departure leaves the vice president in charge, but he is seriously weakened because in Yemen, as in so many other Arab states, the people have a new sense of their own empowerment. Aided by technology and motivated by Enlightenment-style ideals, the people are telling thugs of all types to take a hike.

The Yemen case is the closest we’ve come to seeing an effective use of direct, defensive force by the people against a government leader. Of course it is always better for the tyrant to leave once popular consent is withdrawn. This preserves the peace. But if regimes refuse to relent and begin “a long train of abuses” against the rights and liberties of the people, they have every right to fight back, as Thomas Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence. (The prudence of such action is always a separate question, of course.)

What a tragedy, then, that it is Jefferson’s own country that ends up being the main imposer and backer of tyrants in the Arab world. Saleh has been an on-again-off-again US puppet, just like Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi – permitted to rule on the condition that US foreign policy priorities are wholly embraced, and US enemies are jailed, tortured, and killed.

In this case, Saleh was an ally in the “war on terror” – which is something of a joke given that terrorism means nothing if not the willingness to inflict massive violence on the innocent. That pretty much sums up his 33 years in power.

But the United States doesn’t see it that way, and already the US is working to shore up the power of Saleh’s temporary replacement. And why? In order to prevent the great bugaboo: the ascendence of….(ominous music, please)…al Qaeda.

When will our elites grant the obvious reality? These uprisings, despite the involvement of the CIA, are not about Islamic fundamentalism. They are, for most people, about freedom, opportunity, and the desperate desire to embrace the modern world and stop being used as pawns by an alien superpower.

To know this, you need only look at the pictures and see the joy. This is the joy that the prospect of freedom inspires.

Punk And National-Bolshevism 1

Article by Edward Limonov.
Mark Ames asked me to write about National-Bolsheviks’ Party and punks movement. So I am forced to take a look at my past, despite the fact that I am very much involved in the present time, because Mark.

I have arrived to New York City from Soviet Union in February, 1975. That was exactly the year punk movement was born. The first what I see of punks in 1976 was fanzine called “Punk.” It was sort of samizdat publication, black and white, formatted A4 size, made on Xerox machine. One of the editors had a strange name — Legs McNeil. That name “Legs” have shocked me. It was a lot of comics inside and caricatures. I remember one where a girl denied some guy his invitation to dance. She said, “Sorry but no, I only dance with faggots.”

Russian immigrants didn’t understand my excitement with “Punk” magazine (I showed it to everybody), they thought that was a piece of trash. So it was, but new movement was intentionally acclaiming trash as its ideology. Year later punk shops were prospering in Lower East Side, amongst them was a shop called “Trash and Vaudeville,” they sold clothes.

Punk magazine have advertised new music. “Hottest groups in town” they said. I went to check it out at CBGB, the black hole at Bowery and Bleeker streets. In 1975 it wasn’t a much crowded in it. Two years later CBGB was the hottest place in the United States.

Then I met Julia Carpenter, she was 21, daughter of FBI officer. She worked as housekeeper at Peter Sprague’s house at 6 Sutton Square, Manhattan of course. Julie’s best girlfriend Marianne Flint was a girlfriend of Mark Bell. Julie introduced us to each other. Mark bell was a drummer for Richard Hell. O Brothers, Richard Hell was a key figure of punk’s musical scene. Actually he was a father of punk with his album “Blank Generation.” Mark gave to me that vinyl, as a present. He also critically despised my simple, black T-shirt, and brought me Richard Hell’s T-shirt instead — white with a map of the subway lines on it. He said that Richard Hell gave many interviews wearing that T-shirt. T-shirt was slashed here and there.

At that time neither I, nor Mark Bell, have understood all the importance of Richard Hell. Not only “Blank Generation” was first album of totally new music of young protest, but Richard Hell influenced Malcolm MacLaren, who invented Sex Pistols later, when he came back from New York to London. It is known now that MacLaren was very much impressed with music played by Richard Hell, so he wanted Sex Pistols to play similar music.

Looking back to myself, sporting in those years that “IRT Lines” T-shirt, I am thinking it was a sort of symbolical T-shirt, as sacred object, what tied me to punk. Both my books written in New York, “It’s Me, Eddie” in 1976 and “Diary of a Loser” (1978), are written in aesthetics of punk. “No doubt about that I fuck all of you, fucken into mouth beaches, go all to cocks!” — the very end of “It’s Me, Eddie.” If it is not punk, what is it?

Then Mark Bell was invited to join Ramones. I met Ramones many times, but my destiny forced me to move to Paris. When Ramones touring Europe went through Paris I went to hotel “Meridian” to greet them. Couple of times visiting New York I would each time to see Marianne and Mark Bell, or “Markie Ramone” as he was rechristened by Ramones.

My interests have switched from literature towards politics in the end of the 1980s. But, when founding National-Bolsheviks Party in 1993 I contacted Egor Letov, biggest Russian punk idol of all times. National-Bolsheviks flag was first showed to public at concert of Egor Letov at club of “Armed Forces” at Moscow. It was choking: four meters, red, white, and black monster, hanging above stage. Certainly it was irritating, provocative, outrageous punk, our flag. It is even still irritating, provocative, outrageous now. Egor Letov was given National Bolsheviks Party membership card number 4. I believe that such card could be given to Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten (the Johnny Rotten of 1977) and such membership would be accepted.


Our Economic Future: From Best to Worst Case Reply

By Doug Casey, Casey Research

There is a great deal of uncertainty among investors about what the future of the U.S. economy may look like – so I decided to take a stab at what’s likely to happen over the next 20 years. That’s enough time for a child to grow up and mature, and it’s long enough for major trends to develop and make themselves felt.

I’ll confine myself to areas that are, as the benighted Rumsfeld might have observed, “known unknowns.” I don’t want to deal with possibilities of the deus ex machina sort. So we’ll rule out natural events like a super-volcano eruption, an asteroid strike, a new ice age, global warming, and the like. Although all these things absolutely will occur sometime in the future, the timing is very uncertain – at least from the perspective of one human lifespan. It’s pointless dealing with geological time and astronomical probability here. And, more important, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about such things.

So let’s limit ourselves to the possibilities presented by human action. They’re plenty weird and scary, and unpredictable enough.


People are all ears for predictions, whether from psychics or from “experts,” despite the repeated experience that they’re almost always worthless, often misleading and more than rarely the exact opposite of what happens.

Most often, the predictors go afoul by underrating human ingenuity or extrapolating current trends too far. Let me give you a rundown of the state of things during the last century, at 20-year intervals. If you didn’t know it’s what actually happened, you’d find it hard to believe.

1911— The entire world is at peace. Stability, freedom and prosperity prevail almost everywhere. Almost every country in Europe is ruled by a king or queen. Western civilization has spread to nearly every corner of the world and is received with appreciation. Stunning breakthroughs are being made in science and technology. There’s no sign of a gigantic world war about to come out of nowhere to rip apart the political and cultural map of Europe and bankrupt everybody. Who imagined that a dictatorial communist regime would arise in Russia?

1931— It’s early in a disastrous worldwide depression. Attention is on economic troubles, not on the virtually unthought-of possibility that in less than 10 years a new world war would be under way against Nazism and a resurgent Germany.

1951— Except for Vietnam, all that remains of the colonies the West had established in the 19th century are quiescent. Nobody guessed almost all would either be independent, or on their way, in 10 years. China has joined Russia – and many other countries – as totally collectivist. Who imagined that Germany and Japan, although literally leveled, would be perhaps the best investments of the century? Who guessed that the U.S. was already at its peak relative to the rest of the world?

1971— Communist and overtly socialist countries all over the world seem to be in ascendance, soon to be buoyed further by a decade of rising commodity prices. The U.S. and the West are entering a deep malaise. Little significance is attached to rumblings from the Islamic world.

1991— Communism has collapsed as an ideology, the USSR has disappeared, and China has radically reformed. Islam is increasingly in the news.

2011—The world financial/economic crisis is four years old, but things are still holding together. Islamic terrorism and collapse of old regimes in the Arab world dominate the news. China is viewed as the world’s new powerhouse.


Regrettably, I’m not much of a linguist. But I do pick up interesting semantic trivia. In Spanish they don’t say “in the future,” as we do in English, which implies a definite outcome. Instead they say “en un futuro” – in a future – which implies many possible outcomes. It’s a better way of assessing reality, I think.

Here are three 20-year futures to consider. There are, obviously, many, many more – but I think these encompass the three most realistic broad possibilities.


Realizing what a disaster the complete destruction of their currencies would be, most governments decide to endure the pain of allowing interest rates to rise and limiting increases in the money supply. Poorly run corporations and banks are left to fail. Talk of abolishing the Federal Reserve, and using a commodity for money, becomes serious and widespread.


Vote No-Confidence . . . In the State! Reply

Article by David D’Amato.

Last week (Thursday, June 2), reports CNN, “Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan survived a no-confidence vote in parliament.” The no-confidence motion was lodged by the opposition party in response to the Prime Minister’s “handling of the March 11 earthquake, tsunami and ensuing nuclear crisis.”

If the political process has seemed to the Japanese to be incapable of solving the country’s many problems, then they have begun to see through the state’s veneer of sensibility and order. Anarchists, contrary to our reputation as agents of chaos, urge only that we extend the no-confidence vote to the state itself.

Whereas we are quite comfortable subjecting particular administrations and policy decisions to scrutiny, the political paradigm itself is conspicuously exempt from probes regarding its efficacy. Given the state’s miserable record concerning the social issues it is supposedly designed to address, we might wonder why it continues to enjoy the public confidence.

On the whole — across geographic boundaries and time — has the state’s record of murder, theft and exploitation really shown it more worthy of our confidence than that of Prime Minister Kan’s government? As a specific example of the state, is present day Japan really unique in its failures, or is there something fundamentally wrong with politics itself?

Market anarchists recognize that the fundamental nature of the state makes it impossible for it to serve society in any positive way. Although, as Frank Chodorov observed, scholars have “turned tribute into ‘fiscal policy’ and clothed it with social good,” this merely reflects our “adjustment to conquest.” The state, with violence as its foundational tool, has always been an origin of social problems — at least for the laboring masses. For the ruling class, on the other hand, these problems have proved very profitable.

To abrade the foundations of authority and hierarchy, we too must file a no-confidence motion, one entered simply by our abstention from the political process. Once we withdraw in large enough numbers, implementing our vision of change through peaceful counter-institutions, the state will be forced to compete with the versatility of true free market society.

The state depends for its existence, and that of its economic system, on tractable, “civic-minded” subjects, pietistic sheep who will accept without thought “the way things are.” That the state has dominated society so completely and for so long leads most to believe that it ought to exist, that it has won out on the practicality and strength of what it does for us.

Nothing, however, can be accomplished through arbitrary force and compulsion that cannot be achieved through voluntary agreement, trade and cooperation. The important difference between a market anarchist society set free from the state and society as it is today is in the initiation of aggression against the peaceful person.

In the latter social system, every facet of an individual’s life is defined by the use of coercion against non-aggressors, forcing them into an economic and social (or rather anti-social) arrangement that they did not choose. It would be a mistake to conceive of a hypothetical, genuine free market economy in the narrow terms of the formal economy as it exists today, denominated in dollars and excluding black and grey markets.

The free market is rather a construction used to represent all of those voluntary and consensual happenings in economic life, not only quid pro quo exchanges, but also, for example, charity and gift. The free market, then, is not merely a strictly economic imperative demanded by efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but an ethical one too.

It is distinguished by the cost principle, whereby each individual internalizes her own costs, but it is also defined by the noncompulsory nature of the relationships that comprise it. The economic crises inherent in statism are thus tied inextricably to the broader, moral wrong that it rests on: Confidence in the state is confidence in crime, the belief that forceful engineering for the few can have benefits for the many.

Like Japan’s government, all governments everywhere are crying out for a popular vote of no-confidence. To cast that vote, you have merely to withdraw your consent from the state and invest in the kinds of harmonious social organization that actually do help real people.

Bitcoin: With Enemies Like Schumer, Who Needs Friends? Reply

Article by Kevin Carson.
Charles Schumer, a charter member (along with Lieberman, Hatch and Feinstein) of the US Senate’s authoritarian moral scold caucus, is at it again. Schumer, for those who don’t recall, exemplifies the managerialist heart of darkness of 20th century liberalism. That ideology might be personified, in the colorful phrase of libertarian commentator Joe Stromberg, as “the body of Leviathan and the head of a social worker.” Schumer’s ideal government is a giant nanny that stomps around, like Godzilla in a gas mask and kevlar vest, saying “Momma don’t allow. Momma don’t allow.”

This time, his primary vendetta is against the online black market site Silk Road — but he has plenty of ire to spare for the encrypted e-currency Bitcoin as well, for facilitating such anonymous transactions. Silk Road — whose URL (http://ianxz6zefk72ulzz.onion/index.php) is accessible only through the Tor anonymizer — became a center of media attention after a story at on June 1 revealed that the anonymous marketplace hosts such goods for sale as hashish, weed, ecstasy, heroin and LSD.

Silk Road is a classic example of the kinds of rating and reputational mechanisms that emerge in a free market, absent the regulatory state. Although sellers’ real identities are unknown, their history of quality and reliability is tracked on the same user feedback model as Amazon and Ebay.

Schumer, naturally, is outraged. Besides suggesting legislation to prohibit unauthorized encrypted currencies, he’s called on the Justice Department to shut down Silk Road and seize the website. This last is a favorite strategy of his. In the past he’s co-sponsored legislation authorizing the AG to take the same action against sites engaged in “intellectual property piracy” [sic], and has been foremost among those cheering on the government’s seizure of the Wikileaks domain name.

But his experience with Wikileaks should have taught him this strategy has outlived its usefulness. Wikileaks has a number of domain names, including country-level domains, and is hosted by servers in countries all around the world — many of them beyond the reach of American law. And it continues to be accessible at its numeric IP addresses, which thousands of supporters around the world have defiantly posted and linked to online. Wikileaks is, as Schumer found out — or would have found out if he had more intelligence than an artichoke — simply impossible to shut down without shutting down the Internet.

As for Silk Road, its domain name can’t be seized — there is no domain name. It’s got a .onion URL, for which there is no registry. And what’s the point of outlawing encrypted e-currencies when you don’t know who’s using them and you can’t catch them doing it?

Actually, Schumer’s Barney Fife act could be the best thing that ever happened to Bitcoin. Back in March, an earlier target of Schumer’s grandstanding was Fuzz Alert, a smartphone application that alerts drivers to speed traps, speeding and red light cameras, and sobriety checkpoints. After Schumer drew attention to the app, its sales doubled.

Maybe he can do a similar favor for the darknet economy. The more he vents his impotent rage, the more public attention he draws to the fact that government attempts to suppress Silk Road and Bitcoin are, well, impotent.

A lot of people out there would like to engage in peaceful trade — even in violation of government commands to “touch not, taste not, handle not” — without the state’s permission, surveillance or taxation, who may not yet be aware things like Bitcoin and Silk Road exist. The more and more loudly you protest, Senator Schumer, the more economic activity will move beyond the reach of the corporate state. So by all means, bluster on! Command the waves to advance no further. Show people everywhere, beyond the shadow of a doubt, just how contemptible your so-called laws really are.

We don’t care what Momma don’t allow.

Miami Police Beat, Threaten, Point Guns At, Arrest Citizen Videographer Reply

From The Agitator.

Carlos Miller has the details.

Miami Beach police did their best to destroy a citizen video that shows them shooting a man to death in a hail of bullets Memorial Day.

First, police pointed their guns at the man who shot the video, according to a Miami Herald interview with the videographer.

Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling “you want to be fucking paparazzi?”

Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer’s back pocket as he was laying down on the ground.

And finally, they took him to a mobile command center where they snapped his photo and demanded the phone again, then took him to police headquarters where they conducted a recorded interview with him before releasing him.

But what they didn’t know was that Narces Benoit had removed the SIM card and hid it in his mouth, which means the video survived.

Good for Benoit. Hiding the SIM card in his mouth was a ballsy move. More here from the Miami Herald.

A Choice Between Extremes or a False Choice? Reply

Article by David D’Amato.
A controversial and “polarizing” election in Peru that, according to CNN, “pit the county’s left and right against each other,” has apparently ended in a victory for “leftist military man Ollanta Humala.” When Humala ran for president unsuccessfully in 2006, his campaign identified closely with the policy approach of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

This time around, though, Humala has distanced himself from Chavez in favor of what onlookers are calling a turn away from “radical rhetoric.” Taking the characterizations of the mainstream media at face value, the Chavez brand of politics represents a vision of “social revolution” that stands in sharp contrast to the “free-market economic policies” supposedly championed by Humala’s opponent, Keiko Fujimori.

That Chavez’s apparently “radical” socialist prescriptions are, in themselves, not so very radical, and that Fujimori’s “free market” is nothing of the sort are details curiously left out of the media’s tale of a “triumph of extremes.” Far more remarkable than their overhyped dissimilarities is the fact that neither candidate stands for any real departure from statist orthodoxy.

Ironically, for all the media’s accentuation of the divide between Fujimori’s ostensible wish to privatize everything and “fears [that] Humala will nationalize industries and expropriate private property,” the two look more alike than not. Within the coercive strictures of statism, handovers to corporate favorites (dubbed “privatization”) and full-blown government ownership are both forms of violent monopolization against the free market. As the elections in Peru show, the mainstream political spectrum’s gulf between “left” and “right” is all too often a distinction without a difference.

Contrary to the tepid, empty rhetoric of politicians, market anarchism represents a truly radical alternative to politics itself. Although Fujimori and Humala may have real disagreements regarding how best the state’s power elite ought to “take care” of the populace, neither challenges the assumption that it ought to do so.

Market anarchists propose that individuals are fully competent to take care of themselves — that the law ought to be composed of accepted customs and centered on consent and nonaggression. Politicians are incapable of creating any positive change for society because, even if they wanted to, the state’s very definition prevents it. If human beings really do have fundamental rights that precede social systems, then force and control can never be justified by any set of goals.

Moreover, even if those goals are worthy, the nature of economic reality is such that planning is not practically desirable or possible. As the work of Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek taught, economic information is in “the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all separate individuals possess.”

Attempts to capture or collect that knowledge in a single mind or even a number of them in a government bureaucracy are foredoomed from the start. As a practical matter, casting unqualified individual rights aside in favor of the state’s coercion and hierarchy will mean simply that only those in charge have any rights at all.

The argument that market anarchists are “too absolutist” with regard to individual rights is thus shown to be absurd: No conception of rights could be more extreme than one that gives a small group the right to control — that is, to own — others, that entitles that group to direct the property of all.

Upon consideration, statists are very extreme indeed where individual rights are concerned. They just insist that only the ruling class ought to enjoy those rights and define them far more expansively than any libertarian would. Compare that framework for rights — exemplified by the kinds of “privatization” someone like Fujimori might authorize — with that of conscientious market anarchists, and all of the sudden a genuine free market doesn’t look as scary as the “moderate” media suggests.

Peruvians should not wait for the “social revolution” or believe the lie that it could come from an election (or one hundred of them). The revolution is already underway, already immanent in every form of voluntary interaction between free, autonomous individuals. Recognizing that fact is a first step in the right direction — the direction away from parasites like Fujimori and Humala.

Scots Splitting From the State? Reply

Article by David D’Amato.
According to MSNBC, “an astonishing victory for nationalists in the Scottish parliamentary elections” presages a referendum on whether the country should secede from the United Kingdom.

For more than three centuries, the Treaty of Union between England (subsuming Wales) and Scotland has yoked together the two British countries, with political power residing predominantly in London.

Needless to say, even if most Scots found the union politically expedient in its day, the civic considerations of the present are far removed from those of the dawn of the eighteenth century. While there’s no perfect analogy to this political interconnection, it slightly resembles the relationship between the federal government of the United States and the governments of the states.

The Scottish legislature has competence to attend to many areas of public policy, but under the Scotland Act of 1998 the United Kingdom “retains ultimate power to legislate for Scotland on all matters.” Though Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom’s political edifice has endured for generations, it has never completely ossified for many Scots, who see full political autonomy as impossible so long as the link survives.

Since market anarchism is a social philosophy based on self-ownership — insisting on independence and self-rule for every human being — peaceful secession is an idea at its very heart. The Scottish nationalists’ arguments for independence are based on the claim that weighty ideological differences make rule from the outside unacceptable.

The people of Scotland, they argue, part ways with those of England on enough important issues that there cannot be complete justice for the former under the political domination of the latter. The two groups have different preferences, so — it is argued — they ought to have separate and distinct governing bodies.

For market anarchists, the nationalists’ invocations of sovereignty and independence are somewhat spurious insofar as they would not carry these principles to their logical ends and extinguish the state altogether. Nevertheless, their rationale for proposing a divide from the United Kingdom is compelling, highlighting the fundamental moral and economic problems with statism.

Consider the problems that would undoubtedly arise if you were charged with making decisions about your neighbor’s life, from the sort of car she ought to drive to the kinds of groceries she ought to buy. Beyond just the ethical unconscionability of taking these decisions away from her, you would soon realize that, lacking her particularized understanding of her own living situation, you were unable to manage efficiently her daily life.

This is the intrinsic problem in all foreign domination and therefore all of statism; it delegates to a small, ruling class responsibility for governing our lives and livelihoods, foolishly assuming not only that the elite can govern us, but that they will do so without rigging the game to exploit us.

If London, for example, is allowed to make significant policy judgments for Scotland, every incentive pulls in the direction of London robbing Scotland of its resources and taking advantage of its people. The relationship between any state and its subjects is no different, breeding all of the same incentive problems and exploitative relationships.

Market anarchists do not claim that individuals should be able to do whatever they please, just that they should be able to do, in the words of Leonard E. Read, “anything that’s peaceful.”

Unqualified political independence, if taken seriously, would not stop at an independent Scotland or even an independent Edinburgh. It would mean no less than independence and self-determination for each individual, a society without the state where true community could develop freely to solve the problems of human life.

Dealing with the anti-sex brigade 2

Article by Alex Knepper.
Jeremiah Headen likely lost the vice presidency of the Student Government over a hyperbolic Facebook note. Its contents — a blast of old-school masculinity — slammed men for not realizing that being manly had nothing to do with what is between one’s legs, but rather is about values, stoic resolve and hard work. It ended with a silly, all-caps call to raid booty and women from neighboring villages.

The comments on The Eagle’s Web site, mostly by Gay Party activists and feminists, condemned Headen for being an “anti-queer misogynist” and for undermining American University’s commitment to being “safe space” for the “gay community.” He was also rebuked for using the term “hermaphrodite” instead of “intersex.”

What a sniveling bunch of emotional cripples! I have never encountered a more insular, solipsistic view of human sexuality than at this college. The rigidity of Pat Robertson has nothing on feminism.

Feminist religious dogma, long ago disposed of by neuroscientists and psychologists, states that men are essentially born as eunuchs, only to have wicked masculinity imposed on them by an evil society. This is usually presented as “social construction theory.”

Like the other great religions of the world, though, the goal of contemporary feminism and Gay Party activism is not to explain sex, but to abolish its passion. The yin and yang of masculinity and femininity is what makes sexual exploration exciting. Sex isn’t about contract-signing. It’s about spontaneity, raw energy and control (or its counterpart, surrender). Feminism envisions a bedroom scene in which two amorphous, gender-neutral blobs ask each other “Is this OK with you?” before daring to move their lips any lower on the other’s body. Worse yet: a gender-neutral sexuality can have no conception of the inherently gendered thrills of fetishism, sadomasochism, kink or cross-dressing. How blasé!

For my pro-sex views, I am variously called a misogynist, a rape apologist and — my personal favorite — a “pro-date rape protofascist.”

Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.

“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry. If that bothers you, then stick with Pat Robertson and his brigade of anti-sex cavemen! Don’t jump into the sexual arena if you can’t handle the volatility of its practice!

Feminists don’t understand history, psychology, biology or sexuality. To repair this desperate situation, I have altruistically prepared a list of five favored books about sex and gender: “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrell, “The Sexual Spectrum” by Olive Skene Johnson, “Vamps and Tramps” by Camille Paglia, “Philosophy In the Bedroom” by the divine Marquis de Sade, and “Who Stole Feminism?” by Christina Hoff Sommers. Put down the Andrea Dworkin and embrace the fires of sexuality!

Prominent Swiss Politician Calls For Arrest of Kissinger at Bilderberg Reply

Yes! This asshole has evaded justice for 40 years. Leave it to the Swiss to show some balls.

Dominique Baettig calls on federal authorities to apprehend former US Secretary of State

Prominent Swiss Politician Calls For Arrest of Kissinger at Bilderberg 060611top
Image: Wikipedia Commons

Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, June 6, 2011

A prominent member of Switzerland’s largest political party has called upon federal authorities to arrest Henry Kissinger as a war criminal if he attends the 2011 Bilderberg conference of global power brokers which is set to begin on Thursday at the Hotel Suvretta House in St. Moritz.

Swiss People’s Party representative Dominique Baettig wrote a letter to the General Prosecutor of the Swiss Federation in which he asked, “In the name of Cantonal Sovereignty and independence, but especially of the Justice’s independence from executive power – may it be Federal or Cantonal – I ask you to check abroad for Arrest Warrants delivered by various Courts, Judges and also for all valid criminal complaints against the persons who were, amongst others, cited as mere examples in my (enclosed) letters to Mrs. Simonetta Sommaruga, Federal Counselor and Mrs. Barbara Janom Steiner, Cantonal Counselor and of course, to arrest them before diligent extraditions.”

Baettig is no fringe figure, he’s the equivalent of a US Congressman, representing the Canton of Jura on the National Council of Switzerland. His party, the Swiss People’s Party, is the largest party in the Federal Assembly, with 58 members of the National Council and 6 of the Council of States.

Baettig’s letter also calls for the apprehension of George W. Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but neither are likely to be attending the conference. However, Kissinger is a regular Bilderberg attendee and is almost certain to be present in St. Moritz.

Kissinger, National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State for President Nixon and President Ford, has been accused of being complicit in a number of war crimes in Indochina, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor. Numerous activists have attempted to arrest him over the years under the Geneva Conventions Act.

In The Trial of Henry Kissinger, author Christopher Hitchens documents how Kissinger personally approved bombing campaigns that resulted in thousands of civilian casualties as well as signing off on the use of the deadly chemical Agent Orange. United States General Telford Taylor, the former chief prosecuting officer at the Nuremberg trials, stated that Kissinger committed war crimes by giving the nod to bomb Vietnamese villages during the war.



Mr. Spock: Logical As Always Reply

Leonard Nimoy gives his two cents worth on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jewish-American actor Leonard Nimony, noted for his portrayal of Mr. Spock in the TV classic Star Trek, has urged Israelis and Palestinians to reach a peace agreement based on the two-state solution, warning Americans against the continued and direct effect recent Mideast turmoil could have on their daily lives.

In an open letter published by U.S. left-leaning NGO Americans for Peace Now, Nimoy reaches out to prospective APN donors, assuring them that while some may see “the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians continue apparently without an end in sight,” there was, in fact, “an end in sight.”

“It’s known as the two-state solution–a secure, democratic Israel as the Jewish State alongside an independent Palestinian state,” the noted American actor said, adding that even Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whom he calls “nationalistic,” has come “to see this as the shape of the future.”

In his support of the two-state solution, Nimoy also addresses Israel’s refusal to negotiate with a Palestinian unity cabinet that would include Hamas, saying: “We cannot know yet what this unification of Hamas with Fatah means and we have to wait and see what emerges.”

“Regardless, the principle of establishing two independent states, one Jewish and the other Palestinian, is still critical in this region for both Israel and the Palestinian people. That is the goal, to support the rational and moderate course,” he added.

Referring to a peace push by a group of several leading former Israeli security establishment officials, Nimoy describes the plan as including “a Palestinian state alongside Israel with agreed-upon land swaps.”

“The Palestinian-populated areas of Jerusalem would become the capital of Palestine; the Jewish-populated areas the capital of Israel,” the Jewish-American actor added.

Nimoy also warned of the effects growing Mideast unrest could have on ordinary Americans, saying that the region’s upheavals “show that what happens in the Middle East can’t help but affect us in the United States.”

“This year, we’ve seen oil prices rise sharply and America become involved militarily in Libya. The cost to American lives and our economy continues to rise at a time when unemployment and deficits are sapping our country’s strength,” he added.

To stem what he saw as escalating violence both in the Middle East at large and between Israel and the Palestinians in particular, Nimony urged a “strong American leadership” to “pivot from the zero-sum mentality of violence to an attitude that focuses on the parties shared interests: security and prosperity.”

“All Of His People Are White On The Right Side”

The former Star Trek icon even went as far as linking the TV classic with the need to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, citing an “episode in the original Star Trek series called, ‘Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.'”

“Two men, half black, half white, are the last survivors of their peoples who have been at war with each other for thousands of years, yet the Enterprise crew could find no differences separating these two raging men,” Nimoy added, saying: “But the antagonists were keenly aware of their differences–one man was white on the right side, the other was black on the right side. And they were prepared to battle to the death to defend the memory of their people who died from the atrocities committed by the other.”

“The story was a myth, of course, and by invoking it I don’t mean to belittle the very real issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. What I do mean to suggest is that the time for recriminations is over,” the former TV star said, concluding that “assigning blame over all other priorities is self-defeating. Myth can be a snare. The two sides need our help to evade the snare and search for a way to compromise. ”

It is because of this predicament, Nimoy said, that he supported the message put out by Americans for Peace Now, saying: “I’m a strong supporter of APN and the work it does. It is a leading voice for Americans who support Israel and know that a negotiated peace will ensure Israel’s security, prosperity and continued viability as a Jewish and democratic state.”

Committed to Hatred

Russia Warns American Police State Now Rivals That Of Nazi SS Reply

Article by Sorcha Faal.

A grim report prepared by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for President Medvedev warns that the ‘Deep State’ intelligence and security organizations in the United States have now grown larger than those same forces established under the fascist dictatorship of Nazi Germany in the 1920’s.

According to this report, the Nazi Schutzstaffel (otherwise known as the SS) reached their pinnacle during World War II when over 1 million Germans joined its ranks to become one of the most dreaded, and feared forces in all of Europe, especially after 1934 when they were given control over the Concentration Camps said to have killed nearly 10 million.

In what can only be described as a stunning historical reversal, the United States today has become more than Nazi Germany’s equal having some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies working on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence that a recent Washington Post investigation warned had become “so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it, or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”

Russian security experts, however, estimate these ‘Deep State’ forces in the US to now be over 5 million when including all Local, State and Federal forces available to the Obama regime in their continued assault upon the American people in a crackdown called unprecedented among First World democracies that shows no signs of abating as their economy nears total collapse.

And in what can only be called an example of arrogant hubris, US State Department deputy spokesperson Mark C. Toner this past week reminded the Kremlin that “freedom of assembly is a fundamental right all members of the OSCE are committed to” after Moscow police arrested a number of protesters, from both sides, of a homosexual rights rally that turned violent.

This warning coming from the world’s second largest police state (Communist China is the largest) stands in sharp contrast to this past weekend’s brutal and violent arrest of US war veteran and Russia Today reporter Adam Kokesh and his supporters by US Federal Police Forces for the crime of ‘terroristic dancing’ at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. [see videos at left]

The arrest of these ‘terrorist dancers’ by US Federal Forces at the Jefferson Memorial stands in ironic contrast to the American Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), it is was built to honor and who once said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

To the reason America needs these police state forces, and again ironically, was further warned about by Jefferson when he told his fellow citizens, “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”

Jefferson’s warning about banks has become especially relevant since the US launched its latest war on Libya, whose government became enraged after discovering that Obama’s personal bank,Goldman Sachs, had looted their Sovereign Wealth Fund of over $1 Billion, and which only the killing of Muammar Gaddafi could keep it hidden.

The American people have, likewise, seen the wholesale looting of their economy by these Obama regime banksters intent upon nothing less than the destruction of the United States in order to turn it into a nation of debt-slaves ruled by a corporate-government elite class who care nothing at all for freedom and justice.

Even worse, and as we reported on in our May 18th report “US Prepares New Declaration Of “Worldwide War Without End”, the fate of these new American debt-slaves will be determined upon the battlefields of the world where they are slated to die so that their new elite masters can continue enriching themselves upon the alter of greed they are prepared to anoint with blood of millions.

For those Americans believing they can escape the brutal tyranny their new police state continues to unleash upon them, they couldn’t be more mistaken!  In fact, just this past week the US Department of Homeland Security began deployment of a new technology they call ‘Malintent Detection’ designed to alert them to any of these people they deem a ‘terrorist threat’.

The English author and journalist George Orwell (1903-1950) in his 1948 dystopian novel 1984 once wrote about what the US police state is now doing by warning: “It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself–anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face…; was itself a punishable offense.”

To what the future holds for these once free American people Orwell, also, gave them this….“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

Decline and fall of the American empire Reply

Article by Larry Elliot.


Two men walking along a dusty depression-era road, USA 

Dust-bowl refugees walk towards Los Angeles during the Great Depression. House prices have now fallen further than in the 1930s. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

America clocked up a record last week. The latest drop in house prices meant that the cost of real estate has fallen by 33% since the peak – even bigger than the 31% slide seen when John Steinbeck was writing The Grapes of Wrath.

Unemployment has not returned to Great Depression levels but at 9.1% of the workforce it is still at levels that will have nerves jangling in the White House. The last president to be re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The US is a country with serious problems. Getting on for one in six depend on government food stamps to ensure they have enough to eat. The budget, which was in surplus little more than a decade ago, now has a deficit of Greek-style proportions. There is policy paralysis in Washington.

The assumption is that the problems can be easily solved because the US is the biggest economy on the planet, the only country with global military reach, the lucky possessor of the world’s reserve currency, and a nation with a proud record of re-inventing itself once in every generation or so.

All this is true and more. US universities are superb, attracting the best brains from around the world. It is a country that pushes the frontiers of technology. So, it may be that the US is about to emerge stronger than ever from the long nightmare of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The strong financial position of American companies could unleash a wave of new investment over the next couple of years.

Let me put an alternative hypothesis. America in 2011 is Rome in 200AD or Britain on the eve of the first world war: an empire at the zenith of its power but with cracks beginning to show.

The experience of both Rome and Britain suggests that it is hard to stop the rot once it has set in, so here are the a few of the warning signs of trouble ahead: military overstretch, a widening gulf between rich and poor, a hollowed-out economy, citizens using debt to live beyond their means, and once-effective policies no longer working. The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence.

Empires decline for many different reasons but certain factors recur. There is an initial reluctance to admit that there is much to fret about, and there is the arrival of a challenger (or several challengers) to the settled international order. In Spain’s case, the rival was Britain. In Britain’s case, it was America. In America’s case, the threat comes from China.

Britain’s decline was extremely rapid after 1914. By 1945, the UK was a bit player in the bipolar world dominated by the US and the Soviet Union, and sterling – the heart of the 19th-century gold standard – was rapidly losing its lustre as a reserve currency. There had been concerns, voiced as far back as the 1851 Great Exhibition, that the hungrier, more efficient producers in Germany and the US threatened Britain’s industrial hegemony. But no serious policy action was taken. In the second half of the 19th century there was a subtle shift in the economy, from the north of England to the south, from manufacturing to finance, from making things to living off investment income. By 1914, the writing was on the wall.

In two important respects, the US today differs from Britain a century ago. It is much bigger, which means that it benefits from continent-wide economies of scale, and it has a presence in the industries that will be strategically important in the first half of the 21st century. Britain in 1914 was over-reliant on coal and shipbuilding, industries that struggled between the world wars, and had failed to grasp early enough the importance of emerging new technologies.

Even so, there are parallels. There has been a long-term shift of emphasis in the US economy away from manufacturing and towards finance. There is a growing challenge from producers in other parts of the world.

Apocalypse Now? Reply

Article by Justin Raimondo.


The Republican congressional leadership was in a panic: their covering for the Obama administration’s unconstitutional and unnecessary war in Libya was rapidly unraveling as a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for an end to it gained momentum – among Republicans. Kucinich’s bill gave the administration 15 days to withdraw all US forces and support from NATO’s war, which had never been authorized by Congress.

At the last minute, House Speaker John “Crybaby” Boehner cobbled together a non-binding resolution giving the President an extension of the 60 days provided by the War Powers Resolution, asking for documents detailing our political and strategic goals, and slamming the administration for not providing “a compelling rationale” for military action. The resolution passed, 268-145, with 45 Democrats crossing the aisle and voting with the Republicans. More significantly, however, the Kucinich resolution – which would have cut off appropriations for the Libyan intervention – garnered more Republican votes (87) than Democratic “ayes” (61).

What’s going on here?

As The Hill reported, “one Democrat called it ‘the sign of the apocalypse.’” And while that may be overstating the case just a bit, the vote was indeed a sign of Something Big in the making.

It was more than mere partisan opportunism, although there’s no doubt some of that was a factor: this vote represents a sea change in the way Republicans, and conservatives generally, view the conduct of US foreign policy. For the first time since the Kosovo war, a significant faction within the GOP congressional caucus is challenging our bipartisan foreign policy of global intervention – of which the Libyan war is an exemplar.

Context is everything, and the economic crisis that has gripped the nation in recent months – underscored by an unemployment rate over 9 percent and a disastrous housing market – has driven home the point anti-interventionists have been making for years: we’re “nation-building” abroad while our own country is falling to pieces. This is something that everyone – even a Republican – can readily understand, and the freshman “tea party” class of 2010 is learning very quickly the lesson their elders refused to absorb during the Bush era: we can’t afford to police the world.

As for the Democrats, it’s not only party loyalty – and the threat of political retaliation – that’s keeping them in line. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor pleading with members of her own party to stay the course:

“As I have said before, the NATO-led efforts in Libya will be strengthened by continued consultation with the Congress. The resolutions by Speaker Boehner and Congressman Kucinich, as currently drafted, do not advance our efforts in the region and send the wrong message to our NATO partners.”

Pelosi was answered by Rep. Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican whose district encompasses more military bases than any in the country:

“NATO’s feelings. NATO’s feelings. Well, how about the feelings of the American people? Isn’t it time that their feelings come first?”

That the American people overwhelmingly oppose US intervention in Libya matters not at all to the Pelosi-crats, and their Republican allies like Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois), who inexplicably declared: “This war, this action in Libya, I believe sells itself.”

The reality is that the public isn’t buying this bill of goods and the Pelosi-Kinzinger alliance of knaves and fools knows it.

Pentagon Using Drug Wars as Excuse to Build Bases in Latin America Reply

Article by John Lindsay Poland.


Under the auspices of the drug war, the United States is returning to its historical pattern of using Central America and the Caribbean for its own military and strategic purposes.

Even as a growing chorus of voices throughout Latin America argue that military responses to drug trafficking are ineffective against the narcotics trade and exacerbate existing human rights abuses and official corruption, the U.S. military presence in the region is growing.

U.S. military construction in Central and South America has more than doubled in the last two years, while a U.S. buildup on military bases in Colombia continues, despite a Colombian court ruling last summer that struck down an agreement for U.S. use of the bases.

Construction of military facilities is slated for this summer in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Belize, funded from an account for “counter-narco-terrorism” operated by the U.S. Southern Command (SouthCom), the Pentagon’s operations arm for Latin America, according to the Army Corps on Engineers plans. But the biggest Pentagon investments are in Panama and at the U.S. air base in Soto Cano, Honduras. [see interactive map for details]

The surge in U.S. military investment in the region parallels statements by SouthCom commanderDouglas Fraser that the triangle formed by Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala “is possibly the most violent place on Earth today.”

Congress approved a $25 million expansion of barracks for enlisted troops at the U.S. base in Soto Cano, Honduras, located 50 miles north of the capital in Tegucigalpa. The base houses about 500 U.S. troops, as well as support personnel, and served as a way-station for the aircraft that whisked President Manuel Zelaya out of Honduras during the June 2009 military coup,according to Zelaya and a leaked State Department cable. Zelaya had proposed making the base intro a commercial airport in 2008. Now, a new operating center for U.S. Special Forces troops is being built on the base.

The U.S. has also funded military base construction at Caratasca on the Atlantic Coast, which is described in Pentagon contracts as a “forward operating location,” and in April disclosed another base that is being built on Guanaja Island, on Honduras’ Caribbean coast, which will be a counter-narco-terrorism operations center and barracks. The amount of Pentagon contracts for activities in Honduras signed in the six months after the coup ($19.2 million) was more than double the amount from the same period two years earlier.

War Fatigue in America Reply

Article by Paul Pillar.


Signs are increasing that the American people are growing tired enough over fighting two and a half (or whatever the right number is, depending on how you count what’s going on in Libya) wars for their fatigue to affect policy, especially through the actions of their elected representatives in Congress. The war in Afghanistan, now the largest and most expensive in terms of ongoing operations, and now in its tenth year of U.S. involvement, has been the subject of several expressions of impatience. Less than two weeks ago a resolution in the House of Representatives calling on the administration to accelerate a withdrawal from Afghanistan came very close to passing (the vote was 204 to 215). Now Norm Dicks (D-WA), an influential Democrat on national security matters who is the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee on defense, has become an outspoken critic of the war. “I just think that there’s a war fatigue setting in up here,” says Dicks, “and I think the president is going to have to take that into account.” Skepticism about the war is increasingly being voiced by Republicans as well. Even Sarah Palin is expressing unease.

On Libya—on which Congressional dissent is fueled in part by the administration’s blatant violation of the War Powers Resolution—two resolutions of protest were put to a vote in the House of Representatives on Friday. One that was introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and called directly for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Libyan conflict was defeated but attracted 148 votes, including 87 Republicans. The other, which was proposed by Speaker John Boehner as an alternative to the Kucinich resolution and passed, called on the administration to provide a more detailed explanation of the costs and objectives of the U.S. involvement in the war.

Then, of course, there is the Iraq War. It is still by far the most expensive of the expeditions in terms of cumulative costs, with the bill now exceeding $800 billion in direct costs and with all the eventual indirect costs making it more like a three trillion dollar war. But simply adhering to existing policy and agreements will mean that an end to this nightmare is just seven months away. There is no need for new action by Congress.

In general, bowing to popular fatigue is not necessarily a very careful and effective way of formulating national security policy. And throwing into the same hopper three wars that have been fought for different reasons (whether looking at the original rationales or at objectives that later emerged, which in each case were different from the original rationales) doesn’t necessarily represent careful policy-making either. But when drawing down or terminating each of these expeditions is in the national interest—which it is—then the national war fatigue is a force for good. It can and should be harnessed to effect a change of course in Afghanistan and Libya and to resist any diversion from the course toward the exit in Iraq.

There are multiple reasons that drawing out rather than drawing down these expeditions would be contrary to U.S. interests; most have to do with the counterproductive nature of military activity that generates or stimulates more of the very kinds of extremism that some of the expeditions supposedly are intended to defeat. But monetary cost is another important reason. It is part of what underlies the unease on Capitol Hill. Amid all the concern about debt and deficits, the monetary cost of the wars should be a major shaper of policy. The cost of the war in Afghanistan in the current fiscal year is $118 billion. One can do all sorts of comparisons with the non-defense federal expenditures that House Republicans are determined to cut (and are using extortion regarding the debt ceiling to try to get their way) to appreciate how much that is and how important a reduction in that part of the federal budget is to addressing the deficit issue.

As for Iraq—where the continuing problems of creeping authoritarianism and festering ethnic and sectarian distrust would not be solved by extending the U.S. troop presence—the appropriate question is how much more of what already is an enormous burden, fiscal and otherwise, it is reasonable to ask Americans to bear. Maybe we should recall the part of the war-promoters’ sales pitch that concerned expenses. Iraq is flush in oil, they said. This war could be fought on the cheap, they said. Paul Wolfowitz declared, “There is a lot of money there,” which could be put to “a good use instead of building Saddam’s palaces.” Surely there is a limit to how much more a nation that was duped into such a misadventure should be expected to endure.

Chuck Schumer is a Piece of Shit 4

From Liberale Et Libertaire.


New York Senator Chuck Schumer probably occupies a top place in the libertarian axis of evil. A bigot, a religious fanatic, a nanny-state totalitarian and a crook, Schumer epitomizes the libertarian critique against political authority. This is a man who is accustomed to barking orders at a servile populace, a man who counts intimidation and threats to be among his preferred methods of executing governance. So this video and story of Schumer’s outrage over Silk Road and Bitcoin, likely facilitated by a recent Gawker article, is vintage Chuck. Conjure moral outrage, summon the TV cameras, bark orders…

But, unfortunately for Chuck, this ain’t Four Loco. Ordering the Feds to shutdown the website and “seize the domain” was comedic display of Mussolini buffoonery. I suppose it’s sad that no one in the press corp had the technical wherewithal to challenge Schumer’s stupidity, but it’s amusing that Schumer’s aide, the one that set up the TOR client to access the site, didn’t have the cojones to prevent Chuck from looking like a moron. But then again, I suppose it’s probably career suicide to stand between Schumer’s moral outrage and a TV camera.

Silk Road is running as a TOR hidden service on the TOR P2P tunneling network. This means it’s being run from someone’s anonymous box that generally can’t be identified. It can be anywhere in the world. Anyone who downloads the TOR software can setup a hidden service. There’s no “domain name” to seize here and the only way to stop this sort of thing (at least until the “Internet Kill Switch Bill” is enacted) is to ban the TOR protocol outright, which would counter the government’s interests because: (i) it would cast the US in a bad authoritarian light (ii) more importantly, it’s used by US intelligence organs as a secure communications tunneling network with international assets. After all, it was the US government that originally developed it, and it was released into the wild because it’s useless, like any other P2P network, without a robust number of nodes. In particular, here, a TOR network of nodes consisting of just the spies, informants and US bureaucrats would be “stick out like a sore thumb” tunnel; these tunnels need lots of “noise,” that is, lots and lots of other tunnels to be effective. Also, of course, if the software was “classified,” there would be an obvious distribution problem of getting the software into the hands of the intelligence assets, a vulnerability(which could be exploited, because the acquisition method of the software could be compromised and tracked) that, combined with the “stick out like a sore thumb” intelligence-only tunnels, would make TOR useless. And this is why the US government released TOR into the wild.


Political versus Apolitical Strategies Reply

Article by Anna Morgenstern.


The problem with any sort of “political” ideology is that they are largely made up of a “laundry list” of specific issue proposals. This is true whether there is an underlying consistent idea behind them or not.

Let’s first examine the favorite whipping boy of many people, “libertarianism”. The problem, as some of the more clever leftoids have argued, is that the ruling class will look through this laundry list and throw their weight behind the parts of it that strengthen their position, and discard the rest, thus making libertarianism into a less aggressively socially conservative form of conservatism.

“Lower taxes?”
Sure, let’s lower taxes for the rich.

“Less regulation?”
Well, let’s remove the regulations that counteract corporate power, but not the other ones (see: Enron).

“Legalize drugs?”
No friggin’ way, chief.

But what’s not clearly understood is that this is also true for “liberalism” and so-called “social democracy” or “democratic socialism” or what have you. Modern American “liberalism” is simply Mass Corporatism on steroids. It’s pure bureaucratism. You play nice and obey the rules and if you’re a very excellent drone you get to make money, but not too much, unless you become an insider. In some ways, it’s a bit less harsh than the conservative version of Corporatism but it’s also much harder to evade or escape. The conservatives give you more of a chance to do your own thing, but they also leave you utterly fucked if you fail.

There is no political ideology that can escape this co-optive process carried out by the ruling class. This has led to a principle called the Iron Law of Oligarchy which states that every form of political organization ends up becoming an oligarchy. I think this is true of any political structure, but not necessarily every social structure.

Being a renegade, an anarchist, an agorist or a syndicalist is a zebra of a different stripe. These are what I’d call “anti-political” or “apolitical” ideologies. In these schemes, the non-ruling class takes it upon themselves to create their own sub-society that functions outside the political-economic superstructure, rather than trying to influence that superstructure. This of course leads to conflict at the margins, which, until a certain critical mass is reached, requires stealth and evasion from the authoritarian structure.

As the superstructure grows more advanced and integrated, direct conflict becomes less and less effective as a strategy over time. So in a sense, all of the “political” ideologies are the bulwark, the front line forces, of the ruling class oligarchy. The age of the mass strike came to an end after WWI, for the most part, in the US, and in the 60s in Europe. But there are forms of direct action that have subtly replaced this, in which workers and freelancers take back their surplus value from the oligarchy.

The response has been the warfare-outsourcing project, in which the ruling class devastates the peripheral states and then ruthlessly exploits the surviving working class there. This is what the “cold war” and now, the “war on terror”, were designed to accomplish. Orwell predicted this aspect of things in his book 1984 pretty well. Then for the core states, bread and circuses or soma, keep the population from drifting into the grey zones and keep them supporting the oligarchy. Huxley predicted this aspect of things in his book Brave New World pretty well.

The problem for the ruling class is that they can’t really keep it up forever. We’re bleeding them, and they’re eating their own raw materials trying to maintain an inefficient oligarchic economy. This is the reason why “green” ideology has become popular lately. The ruling class hopes to use fear of environmental destruction in order to suppress consumption by the working class, allowing them to “sustain” corporate hegemony. The fear of environmental destruction is a real fear, but it is the state-corporate oligarchy itself which is causing the destruction. They use the conservatives as a red herring to provide a comical, irresponsible “anti-environmentalist” position that will help drive the more reasonable portion of the population into the “pro-environmentalist” camp.

The mask of political liberty and/or justice is beginning to show too many cracks. The ruling class is forced to act more and more openly and directly to keep the game of spinning plates going, as the inefficiencies and crises inherent in large hierarchic systems start to occur more frequently. This drives more people into the grey zone, into various renegade ideologies (including simple “I don’t give a fuck”ism). This creates more crises for the ruling class — lather, rinse and repeat. The question that lies before us is whether they will be able to re-establish themselves after the collapse.

Whether they can pull a Russia and liquidate, and let the collapse act as a “blow off valve” for their structural inefficiency and come back in a slightly less totalitarian, but no less authoritarian form… or perhaps a China, where they gradually balance economic freedom for some with cultural hegemony over all. These two nations are, perhaps, experiments for the ruling class.

We renegades must find each other and strengthen our own non-political societies, despite our differences in opinion, if we hope to provide a better alternative than these experiments.

Should the State Decide What Clothes Children Are Allowed to Wear? Reply

Article by Dr. Sean Gabb.
In the past few days, I have made six appearances in the British media. Each one has been to argue against a proposal by the British Government to make an Act of Parliament to control the alleged sexualisation of children. This will involve trying to regulate the type of clothes worn by children, and trying to stop them from watching possibly indecent music videos. I have not been able to upload all the recordings of these media appearances. But you can – or will soon be able to – find them here.

The argument I have been putting is fairly simple, and I have not deviated from it in my various appearances. I argue as follows:

1. It is reasonable to assume that anyone who uses the “protecting the kiddies” argument is really interested in controlling adults. Indeed, one of the organisations most active in pushing for controls is Media Watch UK, which used to be called the National Viewers and Listeners Association, and which, led by Mary Whitehouse, spent most of the 1960s, 70, and 80s arguing for censorship of the media.

2. Ratings on music videos will have no effect, as many of these things are now downloaded from the Internet. As for controls on clothing, children will wear what they want to wear, and it will be hard in practice to do anything about it.

3. How children dress and behave is a matter for their parents to control, not the authorities. Doubtless, there are some rotten parents about. But any law of the kind proposed will not be used against a small minority, but against parents in general. It will be one more weapon in the armoury of social control that has already reduced parents to the status of regulated childminders.

4. Authoritarian conservatives deceive themselves when they think the authorities are fundamentally on their side. The moment you ask for a control to be imposed, you put your trust in people you have never seen, who are not accountable to you, who probably do not share your own values, and who will, sooner or later, use the control you have demanded in ways that you find surprising or shocking. The attempted control of clothing, for example, will certainly be made an excuse for the police to drag little girls out of family picnics to photograph the clothes they are wearing, or to measure their heels to see if they are a quarter of an inch too long. Anyone who dismisses this as an absurd claim has not been reading the newspapers. That is how the authorities behave. Even when it is not an abuse in itself, any law will be abused by them.

As said, I have been six times on the radio in three days, and I expect to be called several times yet to repeat my case.

Now, rather than develop the points made above, I will try to explain what is actually happening. The idea that millions of parents, disgusted by what they see on the television or in the clothing shops, have called out spontaneously and in unison for something to be done is too absurd to discuss. The truth is that there is a continuing dialogue between authoritarian pressure groups and Home Office officials. There are jobs and there is power and status to be had from the sort of controls now proposed. There are these things, or there is simply the joy of telling everyone else how to live. The people at large have no say in the matter. The politicians who go through the motions of arguing for the laws that emerge from these closed discussions are members of two or three parties which are themselves projections of the State. The media people who are supposed to hold the politicians to account simply read out the Home Office and pressure group news releases. They never question the false dichotomy set up in these releases. For example, I have repeatedly been set into a spectrum of opinion that ranges between support for a new Act of Parliament and belief that it is a fine thing to dress your daughters like tarts and let them watch morally corrupt music videos. There is no room for the alternative claim that this is a matter for parents to decide, not the authorities. Short of mass-demonstrations, there is nothing that ordinary people can do except hope that the new law, as it finally emerges, will not be as demented as appears to be promised.


Will Washington Foment War Between China and India? Reply

Article by Paul Craig Roberts. It looks like Roberts is developing a Duginite approach to international geopolitics.
What is Washington’s solution for the rising power of China?

The answer might be to involve China in a nuclear war with India.

The staging of the fake death of bin Laden in a commando raid that violated Pakistan’s sovereignty was sold to President Obama by the military/security complex as a way to boost Obama’s standing in the polls.

The raid succeeded in raising Obama’s approval ratings. But its real purpose was to target Pakistan and to show Pakistan that the US was contemplating invading Pakistan in order to make Pakistan pay for allegedly hiding bin Laden next door to Pakistan’s military academy. The neocon, and increasingly the US military position, is that the Taliban can’t be conquered unless NATO widens the war theater to Pakistan, where the Taliban allegedly has sanctuaries protected by the Pakistan government, which takes American money but doesn’t do Washington’s bidding.

Pakistan got the threat message and ran to China. On May 17 Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, as he departed for China declared China to be Pakistan’s “best and most trusted friend.” China has built a port for Pakistan at Gwadar, which is close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. The port might become a Chinese naval base on the Arabian Sea.

Raza Rumi reported in the Pakistan Tribune (June 4) that at a recent lecture at Pakistan’s National Defense University, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, asked the military officers whether the biggest threat to Pakistan came from within, from India, or from the US. A majority of the officers said that the US was the biggest threat to Pakistan.

China, concerned with India, the other Asian giant that is rising, is willing to ally with Pakistan. Moreover, China doesn’t want Americans on its border, which is where they would be should Pakistan become another American battleground.

Therefore, China showed its displeasure with the US threat to Pakistan, and advised Washington to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, adding that any attack on Pakistan would be considered an attack on China.

I do not think China’s ultimatum was reported in the US press, but it was widely reported in India’s press. India is concerned that China has stepped up to Pakistan’s defense.

The Chinese ultimatum is important, because it is a WWI or WWII level of ultimatum. With this level of commitment of China to Pakistan, Washington will now seek a way to maneuver itself out of the confrontation and to substitute India.

The US has been fawning all over India, cultivating India in the most shameful ways, including the sacrifice of Americans’ jobs. Recently, there have been massive US weapons sales to India, US-India military cooperation agreements, and joint military exercises.

Washington figures that the Indians, who were gullible for centuries about the British, will be gullible about the “shining city on the hill” that is “bringing freedom and democracy to the world” by smashing, killing, and destroying. Like the British and France’s Sarkozy, Indian political leaders will find themselves doing Washington’s will. By the time India and China realize that they have been maneuvered into mutual destruction by the Americans, it will be too late for either to back down.

With China and India eliminated, that only leaves Russia, which is already ringed by US missile bases and isolated from Europe by NATO, which now includes former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire. A large percentage of gullible Russian youth admires the US for its “freedom” (little do they know) and hates the “authoritarian” Russian state, which they regard as a continuation of the old Soviet state. These “internationalized Russians” will side with Washington, more of less forcing Moscow into surrender.

As the rest of the world, with the exception of parts of South America, is already part of the American Empire, Russia’s surrender will let the US focus its military might on South America. Chavez will be overthrown, and if others do not fall into line, more examples will be made.

The only way the American Empire can be stopped is for China and Russia to realize their danger and to form an unbreakable alliance that reassures India, breaks off Germany from NATO and defends Iran.

Otherwise, the American Empire will prevail over the entire world. The US dollar will become the only currency, and therefore be spared exchange rate depreciation from debt monetization.

Gold and silver will become forbidden possessions, as will guns and a number of books, including the US Constitution.

In South Africa's black townships, being gay can be fatal Reply

From the Los Angeles Times. So much for the theory of the solidarity of the downtrodden.

Noxolo Nogwaza died because she dressed like a man and wasn’t afraid of anyone, friends and backers in Kwa-Thema say, one of the latest of a series of brutal rapes and killings of black lesbian women.

A predominantly gay tavern in S. AfricaIn South Africa, patrons visit a predominantly gay tavern in Kwa-Thema, east of Johannesburg. The township was known as a haven for black gays and lesbians, but activists say that the death there in late April of Noxolo Nogwaza highlights an alarming rise of homophobic violence in some of the country’s most impoverished communities. (Denis Farrell / Associated Press / May 6, 2011)
By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times

May 27, 2011, 7:35 p.m.

Reporting from Kwa-Them—

A feather of acrid smoke drifts across an open drain choked with bulrushes and plastic bottles beside a muddy lane. It’s a forlorn place that will always belong to Noxolo Nogwaza. This is her murder scene.

The thick smoke, from a fire kindled by a traditional healer, covers the faces of those who have come to grieve, bringing new tears. Noxolo’s aunt, Nonyaniso Nogwaza, knows that she is here, somewhere, beyond the smoke that will bleach out the evil that still lurks.

Noxolo died because she dressed like a man and wasn’t afraid of anyone, friends and supporters in this township say, one of the latest of a series of brutal rapes and killings of black lesbian women that has stunned this country. South Africa, an avowedly tolerant “rainbow nation,” is one of the few in the world allowing gay marriage.

In one particularly appalling case this month, a 13-year-old girl was gang-raped because of her sexual orientation, according to South Africa‘s Justice Department.

Noxolo’s name means peace. She loved soccer and Kwaito music, a kind of hip-hop, and grew up hanging around boys and behaving like one. The 24-year-old lived with her grandmother and her closest confidant was her aunt, Nonyaniso. The two never spoke about Noxolo’s sexuality; it wasn’t necessary.

“I knew about it, the way she was acting. She didn’t tell me exactly, but I saw. The way she dressed and the way she liked to associate with guys. She dressed like a guy.”

Noxolo left the Bar Lounge in this township east of Johannesburg in the early hours of Easter, April 24. She was attacked in a lane behind a supermarket, about 50 yards from a group of houses. She was raped with a broken bottle, repeatedly stabbed with broken glass and battered with bricks. Her teeth were knocked out and her head partially crushed by a cinder block.

“I don’t want to cry. I’m not going to cry,” Nonyaniso says, remembering her niece’s body, stripped of dignity. But the tears escape. “They killed her like a dog, like an animal. She was so wonderful. I lost a friend. I lost a sister.”

Nonyaniso used to buy her niece men’s clothing. Now she is taking care Noxolo’s two children, Lindiwe, a 4-year-old girl, and Sipho, a 7-year-old boy.

South Africa has a liberal constitution promising equal rights for all, and cosmopolitan Cape Town has a thriving gay scene. But for black lesbians living in urban townships, it’s little better than in many other countries on a homophobic continent.

In a society that is deeply religious, traditional and highly patriarchal, lesbians and gay men contradict the dominant view of African manhood.

Across Africa, gay people are threatened, humiliated, raped, beaten, killed, jailed, outed in front-page newspaper stories, condemned by preachers as un-Christian and by politicians and traditional leaders as un-African. In Uganda, a measure setting forth the death penalty for homosexuality was proposed, but recently that penalty was dropped from the bill, which is yet to go to the parliament.

In South African townships there’s a crime dubbed “corrective rape,” rape to “cure” lesbians, and sometimes gay men and transsexuals. They are told they are being taught a lesson: how to be a real woman or man, survivors say.