Why must the West blame all Russia’s ills on President Putin? Reply

By Kanwal Sibal

The Daily Mail

An activist wearing a mask of Russian President Vladimir Putin joins protesters against Russia's anti-gay legislation

From our vantage point the vicious onslaught against President Vladimir Putin in western political circles, especially the media, is difficult to appreciate.

The media is of course reflecting prevailing political attitudes towards the Russian president in US and European political circles. Unconstrained by diplomatic fetters, it can be exceedingly harsh, with the governments having the argument of press freedom to reject any responsibility.

The fact the Western press can claim to be free and often attacks government policies does not mean that it cannot be faulted for bias, disregard of facts and poor judgment when it pronounces on affairs not its own.


Victory Over AIPAC, What It Means, What It Doesn’t Reply

By Scott McConnell

The American Conservative

Eli Lake here does a micro-analysis of AIPAC’s failure on its Iran sanctions bill. The timeline is confusing: AIPAC supported (and probably drafted, that’s how it’s usually done) the Kirk-Menendez-Schumer legislation designed to scuttle Obama’s Iran negotiations; then it appeared to back off, signaling through many channels that it wasn’t necessary to bring the bill (which gained 59 co-sponsors, a majority but not enough to break a filibuster or override a presidential veto) up for a vote immediately. This wasn’t AIPAC’s only mixed signal: AIPAC also appeared to attack Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democratic Congresswoman (and pro-Israel stalwart) representing an AIPAC stronghold in South Florida for not facilitating companion legislation in the House. Then it backed off from the attack and defended her. All this took place amidst an unprecedented public debate about sanctions and Iran diplomacy which put the organization under a spotlight; AIPAC lobbying for the bill was reported openly in the New York Times, an extremely rare occurrence. As a group which prefers to work behind the scenes and win its votes by overwhelming margins, this was a doubly uncomfortable situation.

Lake doesn’t try to draw big conclusions, but it is time for a reassessment. Is the eight hundred pound gorilla of Capitol Hill really weakened? On its way out? Was AIPAC always a bit of a paper tiger, which could be blown away as soon as an American president set his mind to it? These are critical questions, whose answers will shape American mideast policy for decades to come.


Confessions of an Unreconstructed ‘Isolationist’ Reply

Says Raimondo: “The age of Obama presented us with new opportunities – and new and bigger problems. What had been the antiwar movement evaporated with such swiftness that it was almost possible to believe the huge demonstrations had all been but a dream. Yet the war danger was unabated, as we said from the beginning – and that was yet another lesson it took Americans a bit of time to learn.”

The reason the antiwar movement of the Bush era evaporated was because it was never a real antiwar movement. It was an anti-Republican movement.  Now that the New Left has come full circle, the Obama cult has taken over, and “George McGovern’s Revenge” has taken place, the Left no longer objects to U.S. imperialism, but wants to use America’s military-industrial complex to further the revolution internationally.

Ironically, the power dynamics of international geopolitics remain somewhat similar. America continues to claim a right to unilateral hegemony because of its own supposed exceptionalism and benevolence, with the principal obstacles to this hegemony being a cautiously isolationist and xenophobic China, and the traditional Russia geopolitical stance of claiming sovereignty over its own regional sphere of influence. Further, just as the Soviet Union often backed anti-colonial wars of “national liberation” in the Third World, the geopolitical interests of a resurgent conservative-nationalist Russia are now converging with nationalist, traditionalist, and religious forces around the world who resist Western liberal-imperialism.

I’ve long believed that the reason Third World nationalist figures in the Cold War era like Castro, Ho,  Nkrumah and others adopted Communism as their model was for the purpose of obtaining Soviet support. Otherwise, they might have posed merely as revolutionary nationalists. But Putin’s conservative traditionalism likely travels more easily throughout the lesser developed world than Marxism, and is more compatible with the values of the local populations. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Btw, the folks at Antiwar.Com deserve as much support as they can get. Be sure to help them out with donations if you can.

By Justin Raimondo

I was going to write about this very interesting essay by David Rieff in The National Interest today, and weave in another fascinating piece by William Lind in The American Conservative – unfortunately, necessity has dictated another course.

The response to our fundraising drive has so far been quite disappointing. If this goes on – well, I don’t even like to think about it.

I think we deserve a lot better – so let’s take a look at our history.


Obama’s Liberal Imperialism 3

Anarchists and Libertarians in the Western countries need to understand that we are essentially in the same position as Russian anarchists in the 1920s, i.e. anarchists living under revolutionary leftist authoritarian regimes, rather than right-wing conservative or reactionary regimes. Those Anarchists and Libertarians who persist in denouncing the “racists and reactionaries” or “right-wing fascists” have as much coherence as Anarchists denouncing the Czar in Bolshevik Russia or denouncing Louis XVI in Napoleon’s France. My fellow Anarchists and Libertarians, it is time to get with the times.

By David Rieff

To accuse President Obama of being exceptional in his refusal to embrace American exceptionalism has been a perennial staple of discourse among hawkish conservatives intent on proving that he has a proclivity for going AWOL when it comes to national security. During the 2008 election campaign, Senator John McCain, for example, accused then candidate Obama of not believing in America’s role as the world’s leader and of not pushing back hard when confronted by those in other countries who doubted America’s greatness. And Mitt Romney tried to play the same card in 2012: “Our president doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do. And I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.”

For those, like me, who would prefer our country to be more of a republic and less of an empire, and to eschew its historic global role of the “dangerous nation,” to use the characterization coined by Robert Kagan, who meant it as praise, the most obvious response to these claims is a heartfelt: “If only!”


The New Cold War: 21st Century Jacobin-Bolshevik America vs Russian Traditionalism 4

Actually, this interpretation of the relationship between the U.S.A. and Russia has a precedent in the work of Carl Schmitt. In “Nomos of the Earth,” Schmitt, a Hobbesian conservative, analyzed the Cold War as a conflict between two ideologically-driven forces, American liberal-democratic-capitalism and Soviet Marxism. Schmitt actually considered the Americans to be more extreme than the Soviets, therefore making the latter less objectionable from a traditional conservative perspective.

An unfortunate legacy of the Cold War is the negative attitude some American conservatives yet harbor toward Russia. Conditioned for decades to see Russia and the Soviet Union as synonymous, they still view post-communist Russia as a threat. They forget that Tsarist Russia was the most conservative great power, a bastion of Christian monarchy loathed by revolutionaries, Jacobins, and democrats. Joseph de Maistre was not alone among 19th-century conservatives in finding refuge and hope in Russia.

Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is emerging once more as the leading conservative power. As we witnessed in Russia’s rescue of President Obama from the corner into which he had painted himself on Syria, the Kremlin is today, as the New York Times reports, “Establishing Russia’s role in world affairs not based on the dated Cold War paradigm but rather on its different outlook, which favors state sovereignty and status quo stability over the spread of Western-style democracy.”

In his own Times op-ed on Syria, Putin wrote, “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it.” Sen. Robert A. Taft and Russell Kirk also doubted it.


Sean Gabb Reviews Keith Preston’s New Book 3

By Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance

Review Article by Sean Gabb

Attack the System: A New Anarchist Perspective for the 21st Century
Keith Preston
Black House Publishing Ltd, London, 2013, 473pp, £16.50 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-9927365-0-7

I first came across Keith Preston in October 2008. In those days, the Libertarian Alliance was able to put up £1,000 every year for a prize essay. The title I had set for that year was “To what extent can a libertarian utopia be described as Tesco minus the State?” I wanted someone to analyse the frequent identification of libertarianism with the defence of big business. Though I had my own view of the question, the conclusions reached were less important than the quality of the analysis. Sadly, my question brought me a flood of autopilot defences of big business, all in the house style of the Adam Smith Institute. One of them began something like: “I’ve never heard of Tesco, so I’ll write about Wal-Mart.” It continued with a love letter so gushing, even Madsen Pirie might have given it a funny look.

One morning, while brooding over which of these submissions was least undeserving of our £1,000, another big envelope arrived from America. It was by Keith Preston, and its title was “Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy.” I read it with astonishment and delight. I set aside that I agreed with it, and read it as I would an undergraduate essay. Even so, long before the final page, I knew that this had to be the winning entry. It had a clarity and force of analysis that placed it and its writer in the highest class. Indeed, if there had been no other payback for the six years that we ran the prize essay, being able to give £1,000 to Keith would in itself have justified the enterprise.

Obviously, then, I commend this book, which is a long selection of Keith’s writings on politics and philosophy. They range from Nietzsche to Ernst Junger, from attacks on Marxism and mainstream libertarianism to calls for the overthrow of the American Empire. It is hard to say which essay is the best. All of them are excellent. This is the first review book I have had in several years that I wish I could put on my shelves, rather than keep on hard disk.


Women Against The State 24

Attack the System
Women Against the State

February 1, 2014

A panel discussion with M.K. Lords, Becky Belding, Trista Rundatz, and Keith Preston about gender issues in the libertarian milieu, and wider issues facing the libertarian and anarchist movements. Topics include:

Topics include:

  • Why anti-state movements attract more men than women.
  • The left/right divide within libertarianism and anarchism.
  • The role of statist oppression vs oppressive social and cultural norms.
  • The relationship between libertarianism and women’s issues.
  • Currents within feminism and how these compare and contrast with libertarian values.
  • Is the pendulum swinging concerning gender role issues and gender oppression?
  • The men’s rights movement.
  • How the state is a common denominator in all forms of oppression.
  • Why men and women often differ in their political issues of interest.
  • The issues of pornography, prostitution, and sex work.
  • Anarchist strategy and communication.
  • Gender roles and mental health.
  • Psychotropic drugs and the pharmaceutical industry.
  • War-profiteering and the military-industrial complex.

M.K. Lords is an activist, writer, and fire dancer. She edits and contributes regularly at Bitcoin Not Bombs and also writes for Young Voices. Her work has been featured in Bitcoin Magazine. Her activism emphasizes direct action and agorist methods of building the counter-economy. You can get in touch on twitter @mklords, Facebook M.K. Lords, and view her writings at Bitcoin Not Bombs. She is also a returning guest to the Attack The System show.

Becky Belding is a libertarian and married mother of three living in South Carolina. She is a part time wage slave in finance to fund her expensive lapidary and wire art hobby, Eclectic Spectrum. She also has a political blog at Meat Curtain of Doom.

Trista is satanic anarcha feminist, small business owner and blogger. You can read her rantings here: And I rant….

File type: MP3
Length: 2:09:16
Bitrate: 32kb/s CBR

Download (right click, ‘save as’)

Email Keith:

Bitcoin Against the System: An Interview with M.K. Lords 2

Attack the System
Bitcoin Against the System: An Interview with M.K. Lords

January 29, 2014

Keith Preston interviews Bitcoin and counter-economics activist M. K. Lords.

Topics include:

  • How Bitcoins can be used to bypass the warfare state and assist with social justice issues such as homelessness.
  • The Ron Paul campaigns as a transition to more radical forms of libertarianism.
  • Subversive concepts such as agorism, counter-economics, and crypto-anarchy.
  • Gender roles and the cultural divide among anarchists and libertarians.
  • Educating the public on knowing their rights during encounters with the police.
  • The increasing repression of the poor as class divisions widen.
  • Why it is futile to regard the state as a means to social justice.
  • Obamacare as a means of creating a monopolistic insurance cartel on the model of the corporate media monopoly.

M.K. Lords is an activist, writer, and fire dancer. She edits and contributes regularly at Bitcoin Not Bombs and also writes for Young Voices. Her work has been featured in Bitcoin Magazine. Her activism emphasizes direct action and agorist methods of building the counter-economy. You can get in touch on twitter @mklords, Facebook M.K. Lords, and view her writings at Bitcoin Not Bombs.

Check out this awesome casino list to find a reputable website to play online recommended by online casino reviews.

File type: MP3
Length: 1:27:33
Bitrate: 32kb/s CBR

Download (right click, ‘save as’)

Email Keith:

A review of Keith Preston’s “Attack the System: A New Anarchist Perspective for the 21st Century” at Aristokratia 1

By Victor Kaine

A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears to me, for now I will speak to you about the death of peoples. State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.” It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.”
– Nietzsche

Keith Preston presents an impressive anthology of twenty-six essays composed between 2001 and 2013, the purpose of which it is to direct the narrative of the anarchist movement and advance its theoretical foundations into an approach more appropriate to the modern era. This begins with an examination of the philosophical premises behind the politics, before expanding further into elements of practicability.

The rest of the review is here

Nationalism for All: A review of Keith Preston’s “El Salvador: A War by Proxy” Reply

By Gilbert Cavanaugh for Alternative Right

El Salvador: A War By Proxy
Keith Preston, Black House Publishing, 145 Pages
Available for purchase from Amazon here

Reviewed by Gilbert Cavanaugh

A few weeks ago, I was reading Sam Francis’s Essential Writings on Race at work, and a co-worker I knew to be an anarchist gave the book a queer look and asked about it. As you might imagine, our conversation did not proceed pleasantly. At one point I asked him what he made of the blood-and-soil movements left-wingers seem sympathetic to, such as the Zapatistas in Central America or the Basques in the Iberian Peninsula. He gave a non-answer, and the conversation petered out.


The Snowden Effect and the Liberal Implosion Reply

By Justin Raimondo

We haven’t seen anything like this since the Vietnam war era: an administration caught red-handed illegally and systematically spying on Americans in the midst of an increasingly unpopular war. At that time, too, the political class was badly divided, with the hard-liners circling their wagons against the rising tide of popular outrage and the dissenters auguring a new and not-so-Silent Majority.

While the Vietnam conflict dragged on for years without much protest aside from a marginal group of extreme leftists, as more troops were sent and the conflict expanded in scope the massive demonstrations against the war began to shake the heretofore solid unity of center-left liberals who constituted the electoral base of the Democratic party. The cold war liberalism of the Arthur Schlesingers and the George Meanys was the main intellectual and political bulwark of the war’s defenders, but that fortress was stormed and taken by the “new politics” crowd, who took over from the defeated supporters of Hubert Humphrey and LBJ’s old gang and handed the party’s nomination to George McGovern.


Modernity vs. Tradition: The Next Cold War Reply

Is Putin gearing up the lead the resistance of traditional societies to Western liberal imperialism?

Article by Matt Parrott

James Kirchick, writing for Foreign Policy, rather accurately describes how Russia is creeping deeper and deeper into fulfilling Alexander Dugin’s vision for her as the world’s savior from American cosmopolitanism . . .

The Center for Strategic Communications, a Kremlin-linked think tank, has bestowed a new title on Russian President Vladimir Putin: It’s calling him “World Conservatism’s New Leader.” Putin, according to the report, is the most influential world figure resisting the global onslaught of multiculturalism, radical feminism, and homosexuality, all foisted upon an unsuspecting world by the “ideological populism of the left.” For years, Putin has been working to reestablish the global influence that Russia once enjoyed. But there was one big problem: his regime has been devoid of the ideological raison d’être provided by communism. Whereas the Soviet Union was once able to muster support from people around the globe as the world headquarters of Marxist-Leninism, Putin’s Russia offered little in the way of comparable ideological appeal (other than to revanchist Russians seeking a vague return to their country’s former glory).


Global Resistance and Rising Anarchism – The New Politics of the 21st Century 1

By Devon Douglas-Bowers

A number of occurrences have taken place over the past 13 years since the rise of the new millennium; we have seen and are seeing the rise of popular movements all over the world and a resistance to the forces of imperialism, capitalism, and subjugation, from the most recent Arab Spring to the world’s largest coordinated anti-war protest in history with the global protests against the Iraq War[1], to the rise of the Occupy Movement and the rise of indigenous resistance as can be seen in the Idle No More campaign of Canada’s First Nations population. What we seeing around the world is a global resistance that, in some cases, has anarchist undercurrents. We are witnessing the new politics of the 21st century.

While many movements such as the Occupy Movement and the Arab Spring had anarchists and anarchist influences within them, anarchism as a political philosophy is quite misunderstood and some time should be taken to understand it.

Anarchism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and should be abolished.”[2] While it does advocate the abolition of the state, anarchism also includes “a heightened and radical critique and questioning of power and authority: if a source of authority cannot legitimize its existence, it should not exist,”[3] this has led to anarchism being critiqued by a number of individuals, and an increase in anarchist thought to the point today where there are a large number of anarchist ideas being championed, from anarcho-feminism to queer anarchism to black anarchism.


The GOP Can’t Win as a Party of War in 2014 Reply

By Conor Friedersdorf


A group of hawks is called a cast, an aerie, a kettle—or, if John Bolton gets his way, the 114th United States Congress. The one-time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has set up a PAC and a super PAC to help hawks in the 2014 midterms, and is insistent that foreign policy should be prominent in American politics. For a man dedicated to that subject, however, he has a curious blind spot.

Here’s an exchange the mustachioed raptor-enthusiast had on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show:

HH: Yesterday on this program, and people can read the transcript if they want at http://www.hughhewitt.com, and we posted the audio as well of Dr. Charles Krauthammer, hour-long interview like this one. He said that look, national security, foreign policy, just doesn’t really matter in presidential elections. How do you respond to that?


Hawks for humanity Reply

By Chase Madar

Does the human rights industry adore war?
samantha power hawk liberal UN
Samantha Power, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2013 in Washington.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

The human rights industry does a lot of noble work around the world. And yet many of the field’s most prominent figures and institutions have lately taken to vocally endorsing acts of war. Where does this impulse come from? On what grounds is it justified? And how’s the hawkish stance working out, given a decade of strategic and humanitarian debacles for Washington and its allies?

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and one of the country’s most celebrated human rights advocates, certainly doesn’t shrink from military action. She has supported missile strikes on the Syrian government as well as Washington’s participation in the Libya war and has called for strong-arming U.S. allies into sending more soldiers to fight in Afghanistan — all in the name of human rights, of course. Harold Koh, a former dean of Yale Law School, is best known for his scholarly work on human rights law and the War Powers Act — yet he devised the legal rationale for both Obama’s open-ended drone strikes and the war on Libya. And Michael Ignatieff, a former leader of Canada’s Liberal Party and Power’s predecessor as director of Harvard Law’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War.


Fuck Foreign Aid! Pan-Abolitionism for a Better Tomorrow Reply

For the new year, I have a dream….


A.D. 2014, and it seems obvious that the highfaluting notion of “progress” remains almost purely a technological phenomenon. Whilst the denizens of Slave Britannia cow under the yoke of political correctness and media censorship, those further south of the sphere make a sport of killing and jailing those of differing creeds and copulatory tastes. Universally, nation-states continue their eternal pursuit of bleeding the citizenry in the name of their pet schemes and shibboleths.

Still, some voices, though far from heroic, merit a mention for seeking to turn the turgid tide.


After This Year’s Mess, Small Is More Beautiful Than Ever Reply

By Kirkpatrick Sale

There is one and only one conclusion that I should think everyone alive during this last year of sequester and shutdown and gridlock and Obamacare, and unprecedented government intrusion, would come to is this: the government we have in this country is too incompetent, inept, corrupt, wasteful, and inefficient, too centralized,  undemocratic, unjust, and invasive, and too unresponsive to the needs of individual citizens and small communities, and all because it is too big.  Simple as that.
The reason that more of us don’t come to it is that as a nation we have long been fixated on the value of bigness, size, super-this and colossal-that, immensity, bulk, quantity, greatness, Big Macs, Whoppers, Green Giant, big-box stores, king-size mattresses, global trade, mass production, mcmansions, high rises, double-wides—and the smallest olive size is jumbo.  We’re just not trained to see things in terms of scale, proportion, adequacy, appropriateness.  As a nation we killed nearly a million of our own people to reinforce the value of oneness and largeness, and to punish the idea of division and separateness.

Is the Politics of the Future Chauvinism vs. Multiculturalism? Reply

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Across Europe, globalism and transnationalism, as represented by the eurozone and EU, seem in retreat, as nationalism is resurgent. Now it is the UKIP, a new British independence party, which seeks to secede from the EU that is surging—at the expense of the Tories.

Let France be France! Let British be Britain! Let Scotland be Scotland! These are the cries coming from the hearts of Europeans rejecting mass immigration and the cacophonous madness of multiculturalism.

All men may be equal in rights. But most prefer their own faith, country, culture, civilization, and kind. They cherish and wish to maintain their own unique and separate identities. They do not want to disappear into some great amalgam of the New World Order.

Whether globalism or nationalism prevails, the big battle is coming.”

Sadik Gulec / Shutterstock.com


Enraged Workers In Bangladesh Burn Down One Of The Gap’s And Wal-Mart’s Largest Supplying Factories Reply


This is one effective form of protest. Buzzfeed writes:

Workers incensed by rumors of a co-worker’s death in a police firing burned down one of Bangladesh’s 10 biggest garment factories supplying to major Western brands on Nov. 29:

According to authorities, factory workers were enraged after a loudspeaker from a mosque announced a worker’s death during a police firing to disperse a road blockade by factory employees earlier that day.

Six months’ worth of supplies for U.S. brands, including Gap and Wal-Mart, were burnt in the fire. Other burnt garments included those from huge global brands such as American Eagle Outfitters, Marks and Spencer, Sears, Uniqlo, and Zara. A Standard Group official estimated that the firm could lose well over $100 million in the fire.

Authoritarian Leftists: Kill the Cop in Your Head 1

Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin

It’s difficult to know where to begin with this open letter to the various European-american leftist (Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, in particular) groups within the United States. I have many issues with many groups; some general, some very specific. The way in which this is presented may seem scattered at first, but I encourage all of you to read and consider carefully what I have written in its entirety before you pass any judgments.