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.
Anyway, the simple point is that I didn’t know myself half as well as I imagined. And I can thank Donald Trump for reminding me of that essential truth. Of course, we can never know what’s really going on inside the heads of all those other people out there on this curious planet of ours, but ourselves as strangers? I guess if I were inscribing something in the forecourt of my own Delphic temple right now, it might be: Who knows me? (Not me.)
Consider this my little introduction to a mystery I stumbled upon in the early morning hours of our recent election night that hasn’t left my mind since. I simply couldn’t accept that Donald Trump had won. Not him. Not in this country. Not possible. Not in a million years.
Mind you, during the campaign I had written about Trump repeatedly, always leaving open the possibility that, in the disturbed (and disturbing) America of 2016, he could indeed beat Hillary Clinton. That was a conclusion I lost when, in the final few weeks of the campaign, like so many others, I got hooked on the polls and the pundits who went with them. (Doh!)
In the wake of the election, however, it wasn’t shock based on pollsters’ errors that got to me. It was something else that only slowly dawned on me. Somewhere deep inside, I simply didn’t believe that, of all countries on this planet, the United States could elect a narcissistic, celeb billionaire who was also, in the style of Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, a right-wing “populist” and incipient autocrat.
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.
By William S. Lind
The American Conservative
The fault line in American politics is no longer Republican vs. Democrat nor conservative vs. liberal but establishment vs. anti-establishment. This is an inevitable result of serial failure in establishment policies. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the establishment’s repeated military interventions abroad in wars against non-state opponents. When such interventions fail in one place—first Somalia, then Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Libya, now Syria—it does the same thing again somewhere else, with the same result.
Why has the establishment allowed itself to be trapped in serial failure? Once we understand how it works, the answer is plain: it cannot do otherwise. On Capitol Hill, the legalization of bribery—“campaign contributions”—means money rules.
This article from World Nut Daily raises an interesting question.
It would appear that in regions of the U.S. where the Blue Tribe is especially dominant, there is an effort to fully eradicate references to the traditional American past. Even in the conservative South, there have efforts to remove references to the Confederacy, which is somewhat understandable from a “pro-American” perspective given that, after all, the Confederacy was a separatist revolutionary movement (and good for them), and from a civil rights perspective given that the Confederacy was a slavocracy. However, there have also been efforts to remove references to Christopher Columbus (for obvious anti-racist or anti-colonial reasons), and increasingly I come across reports on attacks against the “founding fathers” of the United States as well (which also makes sense from a leftist perspective given their rather un-PC views on many things). However, the sum total of this is to essentially delegitimize the traditional American nationalism. If you dismiss America’s “founding fathers” as racist, sexist, classist, homophobic whatevers, then obviously there’s not much case for the traditional American patriotism.
Here’s the transcript.
To the People of Europe,
Fate lays upon me the task of writing you from distant shores. My name is Augustus Invictus, and I am a candidate for the United States Senate. Though I am an American, I am by blood a son of Europe. My ancestry is British, my name Roman, my religion pan-European. I am trained in Anglo-American law, educated in continental philosophy and politics, steeped in Western aesthetic. Though Florida may be a great distance from my ancestral land of Scotland, I am in blood and in soul your brother.
And though I am an American politician, the issues I raise in my campaign for the Senate here affect every man, woman, and child of the West. I write to you today not to condescend or to advertise my American arrogance, but to call for the unity of all Westerners against the powers that would destroy our people.
From New Zealand & Australia to the United States & Canada, and even to South Africa, we share a common civilization, born of Europe. This is impolitic to say in any country, and it is now evidence of “hate speech” in several. We must ask ourselves why the self-described elites in our respective countries would keep us divided, why they would insist that we have no common culture, why they would insist that we take literally countless immigrants into countries callously neglecting their rightful sons and daughters.
I hope that we may come to see each other as fellows. I pray that we may come to cherish what we share more than we might lament the differences between us. Though we have warred, though we have viewed each other with great suspicion, these misfortunes are, I hope, passed. We share a common bond that the millions of immigrants recently recruited to our ancestral land will never share. We, as Westerners, are brothers, though long-separated; they are foreigners being imported by your own governments to destroy the proud heritage and people of Europe.
Your officials have betrayed you.
Great interview with Augustus by Lana Lokteff. Listen here.
Augustus Invictus is an attorney and community leader in Orlando, Florida who is a candidate in the 2016 US Senate election. Best known as a radical philosopher and infamous social critic, he is Managing Partner of Imperium, P.A., the law firm he founded in 2013. As an attorney, Augustus has worked to defend those who have become collateral damage of America’s two longest-running wars: the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
Augustus begins with an explanation of the name he has chosen to identify with, along with the mystical path that led him to study law and eventually pursue politics. He talks about his affiliation with the Libertarian Party (LP) and the problems he sees with its watered down, mainstream message. Augustus describes the main issues he aspires to tackle as Senator: the drug war, foreign policy, and the financial crisis. We get into the customary LP stances on open borders, immigration and equality, and we look at how these key concerns have been muddled with leftist contention. Augustus shares his view on the problems that will ensue for Libertarian ideals if non-Westerners continue to flood into America, and he also speaks to the Marxist degeneracy that has infected pop culture and the educational system. Then, we discuss the absence of natural law and hierarchy in the current US government system, along with the tyrannical forces pushing oppressive mandatory regulations, censorship and hate speech laws. At the end, Augustus sums up the actions he is taking to tackle the looney left’s war on White men and inspire a resurrection of the American front.
The Paris terrorist attacks and San Bernardino shootings have ushered in a new era of urban terror. The combined death toll of both attacks was 146 dead with hundreds wounded. The response from American politicians, law enforcement and intelligence departments has varied, but is unified in their calls for expansion of government power to fight a terrorist threat that the the US had a hand in creating. Together, mass shootings and the threat of terrorism have been the primary fears upon which the ruling elite has played upon to legitimize their mass surveillance programs, mass disarmament plans, and expansion of their wars for global hegemony. Here is how they are doing it.
Democrats want you to support expanded gun control.
An editorial in the New York Times said that rifles were “marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection” and said that politicians “reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing”. It is clear that the left wing of the global plutocracy wants us to fear and even hate armed civilians, though it remains entirely uncertain that gun ownership rates have anything to do with recent reductions in violent crime and homicide rates. Furthermore, mass shooting deaths accounted for only .09% of homicides from 1984 to 2014. Most recently, President Obama is pushing for an executive order to expand background checks and close the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to buy weapons without a background check at gun shows. Though, again, it is unclear if such measures would have prevented any recent terrorist attack or mass shooting. In fact, it is believed and almost assured that the Paris terrorist attacks were carried out with weapons smuggled in from the Balkans and other European nations with a thriving black market in firearms. How are measures designed to keep guns out of the hands of citizens supposed to stop terrorists? One can only conclude that they are not supposed to stop terrorists, only stop people with intentions of so called “macho vigilantism” and “insurrection,” also known as US citizens.
In a better world, Paul would be POTUS.
(In an >even< better world, the concept of a POTUS – and other national equivalents – would remain just that.)
By William T. Hathaway
Terrible terrorists are killing our soldiers in their countries and killing us here at home. How can we stop them?
The answer is simple: Stop terrorizing them. We started this war. What we do to others comes back on us.
In addition to centuries of crusades and imperial conquest, the past 100 years show a clear pattern of Western aggression in the region. During World War One the British persuaded the Arabs to fight on their side by promising them independence. Thousands of them died in battle for the Brits because of this promise of freedom. But after the victory Britain refused to leave; it maintained control by installing puppet kings — Faisal in Iraq and Ibn Saud in Saudi Arabia — to rule in its interest.
By Aleksey Bashtavenko
Attitudes toward hierarchies shed light on fundamental differences between the left and the right. The latter tends to be skeptical of them and for this reason, leftists often rally around the ideal of equality. On the other hand, the right views hierarchies as desirable because they promote social order. Meritocracy is the underlying premise behind the argument for the necessity of hierarchy. It is often assumed that the elites deserve to be in power because they are more qualified to govern than the ordinary people. Clearly, this principle can be abused and in many cases, an unworthy person joins the ranks of the elites simply by being born into the ruling class.
The elites aspired to remedy the intellectual weaknesses of their youngsters by subjecting them to a rigorous education. That is why it was quite common for nobles to be tutored by the leading scholars of their time. When Diogenes the Cynic was sold into slavery, he was purchased by an affluent estate owner in the capacity of a philosophy tutor for his son.
The Princess of Pessimism, Ann Sterzinger, on labour and…er, labour.
A few months back, publisher Chip Smith asked me to write a new intro for the upcoming second edition of my 2011 novel NVSQVAM. To write the essay I had to rethink my protagonist, Lester Reichartsen, whose youth and dreams came to a screeching halt when his girlfriend slyly quit taking her birth control pills.
Reviewers’ response to Lester’s depressive and unenthusiastic assumption of the role of family man surprised me. Many a columnist—both liberal and conservative, those who loved the book and those who hated it—declared him a disgusting human being.
Pushing aside the fact that the phrase “disgusting human being” may be redundant, I was forced to confront the contrast between reader responses and my own underlying assumption: that Lester is no more horrible than anyone else.