“However unwilling a person who has a strong opinion may be to admit that his opinion might be false, he ought to be moved by this thought: however true it may be, if it isn’t fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma rather than as a living truth. ”
John Stuart Mill
The First Amendment guarantees that the “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble”. This provision clarifies the point that the government cannot pass a law criminalizing the act of free expression. However, certain spoken statements could constitute an act of violence, provided they can be regarded as a root cause of violence against others.
Author’s note: This is not an attempt to debunk a Harvard professor’s 800 page book with a 900 word article from an underground WordPress Blog. The decline in violence is obvious, and it is over centuries, but the causes of violence are still with us.
Most research shows that we live in a far more peaceful time than previous periods in human history. It’s a complicated topic with a lot of incomplete data for a massively huge period of examination, but the current conventional wisdom follows from Dr. Pinker’s study of the long decline in violence, “The Better Angels of Our Nature.” I agree with Pinker’s specific argument that violence has declined generally, and Pinker does save for a break from the typical 10 o’clock news run about how you might get stabbed to death by some Sureños while walking to your car at night.
Kudos to Chris Hedges. This is as good an analysis as I would ever expect from someone on the Left. This is a fairly straightforward Marxist analysis within a social democratic ideological framework. But he knows who the real enemy is.
By Chris Hedges
This is both good and bad news. Bad in the sense that the US empire, the leading killer in the world today, certainly needs to be abolished. Good in the sense that it would probably be best if the US empire was abolished in a way similar to the abolition of the British empire than the Roman empire. A full scale civilizational collapse like what Rome experienced in the Western region of the empire normally leads to terrible conditions, such as poverty, illiteracy, disease, and civil war. When the Soviet empire collapsed the average life expectancy in Russia was reduced by 20 years. However, the British empire was abolished with the British society remaining in tact and continuing as an advanced industrial state.
By Paul Ratner
We look to history to figure out if the past is either a prologue or a lesson to the present. In terms of political history, the comparison between the United States and the Roman Empire is attractive because not only do these two represent the most powerful nations of their time, the U.S. actually modeled some of its institutions and thinking after the Roman example. The recent political strife plaguing the U.S. seems to be getting worse by the day and invites the question whether America, like its ancient predecessor, is headed for a downfall. Certainly, from the historical perspective, no empire has lasted forever (so far) and the U.S. is due for a challenge.
A recent interview. Listen here.
My prediction is that in the not so distant future there will no longer be a distinctive “American” national identity other than pop culture, fast food, and speaking English with a North American accent. I’m quite sure that present efforts to remove monuments to figures like the Confederate leaders and Christopher Columbus will be followed by calls to eliminate monuments to figures like Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. The Right is correct when they express concern about this, and the far Left will sometimes state explicit intentions of these kinds. I always predicted that as demographic change continued to take place and the general culture moved leftward, white nationalism would, for better or worse, grow as a movement as well.
I would predict that even the Fourth of July will eventually be attacked as a holiday celebrating white male slaveholders. While the historian in me laments such occurrences, these can actually help to serve the anarchist cause by delegitimizing the existing state. Eventually, there will simply be no “America” at all even if the government continues to exist as an instrument of rule. Instead, the USA will simply be an agglomeration of corporations, arms merchants, bankers, and politicians ruling over a society that is fractured into cultural, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic tribes seeking a greater share of the spoils. Such a society would barely cohere as a nation, and would probably more closely resemble present day India. This could only serve to weaken the existing state, but what comes next matters, and that’s why anarchists need to do a much better job than at present in terms of growing their own movements.
By William S. Lind
One reason Donald Trump won last year’s election was that he was widely perceived as the white candidate. This marked something more important than his election: the rise of white political consciousness. As other racial and ethnic groups have done for some time (“La Raza” means “The Race”), whites are increasingly defining themselves by race rather than class. Like other groups, they perceive they have group interests as whites and they are willing to work and vote for those interests. This is entirely legitimate.
Some excellent commentary.
Published on Aug 14, 2017
If you don’t call out the fringe left with the same fervor that you do the fringe right, they will both grow rapidly and begin cannibalizing those they most easily absorb.
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Styxhexenhamm…
Or Hatreon: https://hatreon.us/Styxhexenhammer666/
Second video channel on vidme: https://vid.me/Styxhexenhammer666
By Keith Preston
The State exists for the purpose of maintaining a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence within a particular geographical territory in order to more effectively control resources, exploit subjects, protect an artificially privileged ruling class, and expand its own power both internally and externally. The State does this while maintaining a self-legitimating ideological superstructure, and buying the loyalty of the middle class by suppressing the lower/underclass. The State is what you would get if the Mafia managed to eliminate all of its competitors, including the State itself, and consequently become a state of its own.
At times, the State will seek to maintain total control over every aspect of social life (e.g. the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, present day North Korea or Islamist regimes like ISIS, the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia, or Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories). However, most modern states allow for a fairly robust civil society to exist that may actually have the effect of affording the average person a fair amount of comfort. States of these kinds, so-called “liberal democracies,” may even encourage intense political debate within certain narrow parameters (or even fairly broad parameters). Some states will allow or even encourage a fair amount crime and disorder in order to legitimize the expansion of state power to an even greater degree (what the late paleconservative writer Samuel Francis called “anarcho-tyranny’‘). For example, isn’t it interesting that in spite of the massive police and prison systems that now exist in the United States, one third of all murders go unsolved?
However, no state can allow disorder to spiral too far out of control, or it will lose its legitimacy in the process. A state of this kind is a protection racket that continues to engage in extortion and exploitation, but can no longer offer actual protection. Hence, states tend to be very sensitive to perceived threats to their own legitimacy. At present, the violence that is taking place between the Antifa, Alt-Right, and their various allies certainly poses no threat to the state. America in 2017 is light years away from Weimar Germany in 1932. But the important question involves the issue of to what degree the State will continue allow such violence to persist, if indeed it does persist, which it may not. That remains to be seen.
Right now is an ideal time for the promotion and cultivation of ATS ideas. Thanks to the bizarre nature of the US electoral system, a perceived “fascist” party is the ruling party, with control over the entire federal government and most of the states, and in opposition to the centrist to center-left cultural and political majority. Meanwhile, the “liberal” opposition party is increasingly being recognized as a band of incompetent crooks even as the wider culture continues to move leftward. The left continues to become more radical, and alienated from the liberal establishment, while the right is moving further rightward after having kicked the neocons and GOP country clubbers to the curb. Probably the ideal future would be for the GOP to maintain control of the state while the culture continues to move leftward and the left becomes more extreme, thereby creating a polarization between the political majority and the state. Hopefully, Trump will be a disappointed to the radical right as well, having the effect of pushing the right in an even more radical direction as well.
By Shaun King
New York Daily News
A troubling new poll was just released showing that the Democratic Party is significantly less popular than both Donald Trump and Mike Pence. My gut tells me that Democrats will ignore this poll, or blame it on bad polling, and continue down the same course they are currently on: being funded by lobbyists and the 1%, straddling the fence or outright ignoring many of most inspirational issues of the time, and blaming Bernie Sanders for why they aren’t in power right now.
As a general rule the Democratic Party doesn’t listen well and struggles to hear the truth about itself.
In case you’ve been living under a rock, Republicans now control the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the overwhelming majority of state legislatures and governorships. This new poll from Suffolk University illustrates just how that’s possible. Here are the base results of the poll with favorable/unfavorable ratings.
A number of people have for my views on the so-called “Muslim travel ban” imposed by the Trump administration. Here goes:
Statistically, the evidence shows that right-wing terrorists have been slightly more violent in the years since 9-11 than Islamists, at least in the US obviously. But the meaning I take from this data is that the neocons and other hawks are blowing the Islamic terrorism threat way out of proportion, while liberals and the Left blow the right-wing terrorism threat out of proportion. Both groups need these false narratives to be true for ideological reasons.
The neocons and other hawks want a permanent war against Islam and the Left wants a permanent war against whitey, so there always has to be some looming threat on the horizon. The real violence is the US comes mostly from inner city gangs that murder each other over drug dealing disputes, from fights and domestic violence that spirals out of control, and from the mentally ill or lone nuts like Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, or Omar Mateen.
September 11, 2001 was a singular but spectacular incident that has predictably kept plenty of people up in arms ever since. The OKC bombing in ’95, which killed about 150, had the same impact on the Left. I remember how after OKC the Left was saying many more such acts were just around the corner. But over 20 years later there’s been no such thing. The same thing happened with 9-11. I remember people talking about how there was going to be nuclear destruction of US cities and terrorism with bioweapons and all kinds of stuff. But 15 years later there’s only been a handful of incidents like Orlando, San Bernardino, and Ft. Hood that were perpetrated by lone nuts or small groups of friends acting as freelancers.
By Tom Engelhardt
Know thyself. It was what came to mind in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory and my own puzzling reaction to it. And while that familiar phrase just popped into my head, I had no idea it was so ancient, or Greek, or for that matter a Delphic maxim inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo according to the Greek writer Pausanias (whom I’d never heard of until I read his name in Wikipedia). Think of that as my own triple helix of ignorance extending back to… well, my birth in a very different America 72 years ago.
Andy Nowicki grabs himself a front-row seat at the Circus Maximus. I sure hope popcorn isn’t part of the psy-op!
Three Presidential elections ago, I wrote an article for The Last Ditch entitled “I Loathe Democracy.”
In that piece, composed just days prior to the W. vs. Kerry throw-down of ’04, I noted the “elementary error in logic in the very notion of trusting the majority,” which is after all the principle upon which democracy is predicated. But, I added, the dimensions of my vitriol wasn’t limited to a mere quibble over an unsound calculation:
In the face of a particularly pitiful election selection, Ann Sterzinger makes the case for giving oneself the first and final vote.
Personally, were I American, I’d either just stay home or turn up only to draw a cock on the ballot paper, in line with my anti-democratic precedent (#Brexit exempted). Still, I suppose voting for oneself, or “no confidence”, works as another way to inoculate oneself from the pozz of the team-sport/herd-animal mentality undergirding electoral politics.
Also: Hurhur…she said “minge”….
Press TV. Listen here.
Democratic and Republican nominees at the US 2016 presidential election are both “right” when they accuse one another of “corruption,” an analyst says.
Keith Preston, the chief editor and director at AttacktheSystem.com, made the comments in an interview with Press TV, when asked about recent accusations by Donald Trump against his rival, Hillary Clinton.
Speaking at a rally in suburban Detroit on Friday, Trump said that Clinton and “her co-conspirators” were not above the law and should be held accountable for their deeds, further urging US President Barack Obama to “pledge” not to pardon Clinton, his former secretary of state and once Democratic rival.
Clinton’s use of a private email server in the Obama administration has been used by the Trump campaign and the GOP to question her resolve for national security.
An interesting take on immigration, economics, and US-Mexican relations from a Mexican nationalist.
The economic analysis he gave was quite good. I wish these identitarian folks would emphasize that more. Often they sound like ordinary Republicans grousing about “colored folks on welfare.” He didn’t say anything Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky would disagree with in that area.
His description of Latin America as a European civilization is pretty much in line with my own thinking. We’re descended from Northern Europe and they from Southern Europe. We’re historically Protestant and they Catholic. We speak English and they Spanish. But it’s still derivative of the West, and we both have native indigenous and black minorities as well.It’s not like Islam or Southern or Eastern Asian which is a whole different civilization.
Fernando Cortés, a long-time Mexican nationalist and identitarian, offers his perspective on immigration to the United States at the 2016 American Renaissance conference. He argues that the Mexican regime could be accused of almost intentional mismanagement of the economy so as to keep Mexicans poor and provide cheap labor for Americans. Mr. Cortés acknowledges the damage that massive Mexican immigration does to American identity, and says that, at the same time, the present system is bad for Mexico, which loses important workers, even as corruption and civil decay creep north. He speaks of his happiness in finding identitarians in America because, “for me, the US is Mordor—the only place where the ring can be destroyed.” We will always be neighbors, he says, and “two nations can live side by side with true, separate identities.” However, this can be successful only when “each nation has its own folk, territory, and independence.”
The System is crumbling and the power elite is getting worried.
By Jonathan Rauch
t’s 2020, four years from now. The campaign is under way to succeed the president, who is retiring after a single wretched term. Voters are angrier than ever—at politicians, at compromisers, at the establishment. Congress and the White House seem incapable of working together on anything, even when their interests align. With lawmaking at a standstill, the president’s use of executive orders and regulatory discretion has reached a level that Congress views as dictatorial—not that Congress can do anything about it, except file lawsuits that the divided Supreme Court, its three vacancies unfilled, has been unable to resolve.
On Monday the US Supreme Court ruled to uphold evidence gathered during an illegal investigatory stop in Utah. The case, Utah vs. Strieff, has wide implications for the 4th Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
The Supreme Court decided that even if the stop of Edward Strieff by narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell was illegal, the evidence gathered during that stop is admissible in court for Strieff’s prosecution. Strieff was stopped by detective Fackrell after he was observed leaving a suspected drug house. Fackrell found drug contraband on Strieff only minutes after the stop, and then discovered an outstanding warrant for Strieff’s arrest. The Supreme Court ruled that the discovery of a valid, pre-existing warrant unconnected to the investigation was enough to make the search and evidence legal and that “Officer Fackrell’s purpose was not to conduct a suspicionless fishing expedition but was to gather information about activity inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs.”
What could be more appropriate?
Who’s your favorite candidate for the presidency? The one who plans to carpet bomb ISIS? The one who wants to murder the families of terrorists? Or the architect of our disastrous intervention in Libya, who once threatened to nuke Iran? Whose saber-rattling do you think demonstrates the blithest disregard for civilian lives?
While bellicose enough to reflect our leaders’ thirst for human blood, our current national anthem has a few deficiencies. No one can sing it, its melody is ripped straight from “To Anacreon in Heaven,” and it has a truly awful third verse that disses slaves.
One Shannon Madden of Birmingham, Alabama, has proposed an elegant solution: replace “The Star-Spangled Banner” with Black Sabbath’s “War Pigs.” This is an idea whose time has come. For starters, you can sing it. “Satan, laughing, spreads his wings” is a more realistic image of the aftermath of our merry adventures than “our flag was still there.” And though I seldom take in a game of sports, on those rare occasions when I do, I would rather lend my voice to an Iommi, Osbourne, Butler and Ward composition than a song by a slave-holding anti-abolitionist. Wouldn’t you?
Sign the petition here.
I found this post on a social media site that I think sums up “The Donald” pretty well. Donald Trump is simply a huckster. The only thing he stands for is himself. That said, I’m thrilled by his electoral success thus far because it shows supposedly sacrosanct “American democracy” for the sham that it is where a billionaire plutocrat can simply buy himself the presidency or at least the nomination of a major party. This is the kind of thing you’d find in some of the most reactionary Latin American or African countries. Plus, Trump is single handedly taking the wind out of the sails of the neoconservatives, “movement conservatives,” televangelists, and GOP country clubbers all in one swoop. Maybe all of these sectors will be so repulsed by a Trump presidency, they will consider secession. I can’t wait for him to ridicule Madame Hillary the Dragon Lady in the presidential debates. Given how hated Trump is by the Left, maybe a President Trump will motivate the Left to go into full oppositional mode, and maybe our so-called “anarchists” will get serious about this arduous task of overthrowing the government.
I don’t hate The Donald. Here’s the thing about Trump that I can never trust.
He lied; He lies still and no doubt will lie in the future.
In 1999 he switched from Republican to independent, then to Democrat in 2001, then to Republican in 2009 now claims to be a conservative
He favored the economic stimulus plan
A map of future secessionist enclaves?
View at the New York Times
By Russell D. Longcore
Yep. You read it right. DumpDC is endorsing Hillary for President.
Our Next President?
Now, let me lay out my argument so you can see the genius of this position.
Remember that the overarching reason for the existence of DumpDC is to promote state secession from the United States of America. So if you are reading this article, expecting me to promote the health and wellness of the USA, stop reading right now. You will not find that here.
The accepted premise for the every-four-year presidential dance is to find the best person to be President. Isn’t it? But out of 320 million people, there are usually only about 20 or less that take it seriously enough to commit to becoming a potential candidate. Most assuredly, these candidates cannot be the best the nation has to offer.
Are these few people TRULY the best, most qualified candidates to become President of the United States? How do Americans determine who is best? How does each political party determine who is best?
There seems to be a separation here between perception and reality. Most VOTERS think that the President is the leader of the entire Washington government, the embodiment of the Executive branch of the Constitutional government, the leader of the political party from which he/she springs, and the leader of the nation. And who would be the best person to occupy this Oval Office chair? Wouldn’t it be the person who sticks most closely to the Constitution, our founding document?
Let’s not bullshit each other here. Let’s acknowledge the reality of how DC works. The elected officeholders in Congress and in the White House all take an oath of office in which they swear to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Then they spend most of their time violating that Constitution.
They vote to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually that are authorized nowhere in the Constitution. They enact unconstitutional laws. They created gigantic bureaucracies that over time have mushroomed into the liberty-stealing, money-wasting, entitlement-growing leviathans we have all come to despise.