An immensely important essay given the current controversies.
“It seems as if the time has come to abandon terms like open and closed borders in favor of decentralized borders. We imagine a free society with decentralized borders would consist of a mixture of open borders, closed borders, public property, private property and unowned land. We believe a network of competing public and private spaces which allow for freedom of movement is most consistent with the sovereignty of the individual.”
The following essay is chapter 10 from the upcoming Manifesto of the Free Humans, book 3 of The Conscious Resistance series, from Derrick Broze and John Vibes. The book will be released for purchase and free download on April 7, 2017.
We are going to take a look at one more area of conflict among students of radical political philosophy. After examining differences of opinion on property and the environment we believe it is essential to discuss the arguments around borders and immigration. We start by considering several key questions. What would migration look like in the absence of the State? How does a society’s view on property affect the view of immigration? Would there still be a class of people known as “illegals”?
US security forces have engaged with migrants at the country’s southern border with Mexico. US border patrol agents used tear gas to keep the group from approaching the crossing line. The recent deaths of two immigrant children in U-S custody have piled pressure on President Donald Trump for his tough immigration policies. The U-S president blamed the Democrats and QUOTE- their pathetic policies for the tragedy. Democrats, on the other hand, accuse Trump of demonizing migrants for political gain. The U-S government has been on a partial shutdown over a standoff between the White House and the Congress over funding for a border wall since December 22 last year.
A predictable shit show. I love political fractiousness. Virtually none of the contending factions associated with the present political/culture war paradigm have any relevance to the pan-anarchist position. All of them are groups that seek control of the state or seek to solicit favors from the state. The best bet is for the Left and Right to continue to attack the Center, while simultaneously attacking each other, and for the Left and Right to similarly fracture internally. The objective is to weaken the state’s ability to maneuver while preventing any political faction from gaining a monopoly on power.
A pro-free speech progressive vs an antifa on free speech. I am actually somewhere between these two guys. I am all for violence against the state (when tactically appropriate) but opposed to either censorship/deplatforming of mere expression of opinions or violence against other political groups that are against the system and out of power. There’s far too much moralizing on the part of both of these guys for my tastes, and this Hasan Piker guy engages in a great deal of special pleading. This discussion also represents another interesting cleavage on the left.
Will the rise of Generation Z mark the death of SJWism? Is the PC/SJW/Antifa phenomenon simply the final stage in the backlash against the “old world” that existed before the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, and which has now become status quo?
It is necessary for anarchists and libertarians to oppose authoritarianism wherever it emerges. In the 1950s, it was racism and McCarthyism. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was the draft and the Vietnam War, Nixonism, and COINTELPRO. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was Reaganism, the War on Drugs, the “Satanic panic,” the religious right, Clintonism, and the “war on crime.” In the 2000s, it was the neconservatives and the War on Terrorism. In the past decade or so, left-wing authoritarianism of the SJW variety has become pervasive. In the future, it could become something else. For instance, “anti-sex trafficking” hysteria seems to be on the rise, or perhaps SJWism could create a right-wing backlash of the kind that has already been partially observed by the emergence of Trumpism, the Alt-Right/Lite, etc. Eternal vigilance.
Far Left Media Is Dying Because Gen-Z Is Too Conservative. Study after study shows the trend, generation z is becoming conservative and mostly resembles libertarians or moderate Republicans. This is a dramatic shift from Millennials who are overwhelmingly progressive. What happens then is that these companies cannot grow or attract new readers because young people do not want far left media. The outcome is obvious, these companies are laying people off and collapsing. While social justice is something most people agree with, the regressive left is too authoritarian and off putting.
The foundation of anarchism should be a commitment to anti-authoritarian values generally, not just opposition to “right-wing authoritarianism.” Far too many anarchists are simply “conventional progressives, minus the state” and even the anti-statism of many “anarcho-social democrats” is questionable. Left-wing authoritarianism has been a plague on radical movements for more than two centuries. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the critiques of left-wing authoritarianism that have been developed over time.
One of the first and most important works of this kind was Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France. The writings of Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche provided an analysis of left-wing politics as a expression of secularized religiosity. Early anarchist criticisms of Marxism are also an important part of this history, particularly the critique of Marxism offered by Bakunin. In the 20th century, a range of writers from the left and right created critiques of Communist authoritarianism. The writings of Arthur Koestler are among the most interesting of these.
Many anarchists, even those of a hard left variety, are aware of the history of Communist totalitarianism (although such tendencies are also making something of a comeback in leftist circles as well, and are presently infesting the anarchist milieu in various ways). However, many anarchists are oblivious to the fact that the tradition of leftist authoritarianism is far more than merely Bolshevism or Stalinism. Hence, most anarchists have no intellectual armor against the influence of critical theory and “cultural Marxism.”
History repeating itself as a tragedy and a farce. The principal weakness of most contemporary anarchists is their failure to recognize that any set of values can be turned toward authoritarian ends, not just conservative ones, and any kind of group can act in an authoritarian manner, not just traditionally hegemonic ones. Here’s the money quote from this article:
“And if all the volumes of scholarship are not enough, the parallels between Marxism-Leninism and cultural Marxism are obvious:
Both eliminate freedom of thought and expression and attempt to impose totalitarianism on their suffering subjects, as we see on too many American university campuses. Stalin’s and Mao’s tyranny was more oppressive than Hitler’s or Mussolini’s and killed far more people, probably at least ten times as many.
Both see history as a product of only one factor, in Marxism-Leninism ownership of the means of production and in cultural Marxism which groups, defined by race and gender, have power over which other groups.
Both define some groups of people as good and others as evil regardless of what individuals do. Marxism-Leninism defines workers and peasants as good and capitalists and members of the middle class (the hated bourgeoisie) as evil, while cultural Marxism says whites, males, heterosexuals, and non-feminist women are evil while blacks, third world immigrants, gays, and feminists are good.
This article is almost two years old but relevant to current events. Has the “far right” become the “new left” now that the Left has largely fallen down on the job? On an international level, if neoliberalism has become the standard, and if the traditional left has largely been coopted and absorbed by neoliberalism, is populism the “new left” in terms of domestic politics of Western countries? And is Eurasianism the “international left” when it comes to global geopolitics?
By Katy Lee and Claire Sergent
HAYANGE, France — The towers of the ArcelorMittal steel mill loom over the little town of Hayange, silent and shuttered. Few people stopped to chat on a recent winter day — the streets were shrouded in an icy fog — but those who paused summarized life here succinctly: There has been little work since the blast furnaces at the mill were shut down in 2013, and little hope either.
“Everyone is sick of it,” said Pascal, who declined to give his last name, leaning on the door of his tattoo parlor. “100 percent I am going to vote for Marine Le Pen.”
US President Donald Trump says hush payments to women he allegedly had affairs with before the 2016 presidential election were legal. Trump said the payments were personal transactions and denied they were a violation of US campaign financing laws. Earlier, federal prosecutors in New York demanded a “substantial” jail sentence for the US president’s former lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen pleaded guilty in August to bank fraud and campaign finance violations. Democrats say Trump himself could face impeachment and imprisonment if the transactions are proven to be campaign finance violations.
This is a really interesting discussion of the James Fields case that contains a lot of important information on how the US criminal legal system works. Anyone can learn from this discussion, irrespective of political views. Listen here.
This is Rebel Yell – a Southern Nationalist podcast of the Alt-Right. I’m your host Musonius Rufus. Joining me are my cohosts Mencken’s Ghost and Ryan McMahon. For our 113th episode of Rebel Yell, Mencken and Fulwar speak to Augustus Invictus in a special report on the Fields verdict.
I generally hold to the obviously heterodox view that, contextually speaking, Donald Trump is the most liberal president the USA has ever had (though Barack Obama was more liberal on some social issues like the environment and transgender rights, and Jimmy Carter was more liberal on some foreign policy issues like international human rights). It is therefore interesting that his biggest supporters would be some of the furthest right sectors of US society, such as the religious right and the racialist right. Imagine Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt running for president in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s with followers of George Wallace, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson as their biggest backers., and you have a rough analogy to the present situation. This article by a neocon evangelical and former member of the Bush administration explains why. During the George W. Bush era, I said that Dubya did not govern any further to the right than LBJ, and Trump is much further to the left.
By Michael Gerson
ne of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.
An interesting M-L-M critique of the critical theory oriented “Left.” I don’t agree with his general ideology but I agree with his assessment of “identity politics” as having no real value other than to create divisiveness that will have the effect of undermining the system (“destabilizing the imperialist core”), thereby making anti-imperialist victory more likely. That’s why I have spent so much time promoting all kinds of fringe, freakazoid movements and ideologies, and favor the most extreme, ridiculous or insane political candidates. Weaken the system at its core. Another thing I like about Jason is that he recognizes that the “revolutionary potential” of the First World is minimal to non-existent. I agree with his assessment of the Third World at the focus of anti-imperialist revolution, even if I don’t share his Marxism.
American political conflict isn’t quite what it used to be. The American Revolution, the Civil War, the labor wars of the late 19th/early 20th century, and the racial/cultural revolution of the 1960s make today’s “polarization” and “incivility” look pretty tame in comparison. Today’s “political conflict” is Yankees vs. Red Sox, not the Weimar Republic. Even events like Charlottesville are more a gang fight or a riot by sports hooligans than political combat. All across the US, urban street gangs make the Alt-Right/Lite and SJWs/Antifa look like tenth rate amateurs. In 2017, there were 17, 284 homicides in the US. At most, 34 of these were committed by political extremists, only about half of those murders were actually politically motivated. We live in an age of “bourgeois bitchiness” (the rivalry within the upper middle class between Reds and Blues) and “tiddlywinks radicalism” (virgin basement dweller “fascists” vs triggered snowflake “leftists”).
I find it fascinating that Donald Trump, a man who personifies the perfect hybrid of 1960s/70s hedonism and 1980s/90s greed and materialism, would emerge as a conservative hero, with the religious right and social conservatives being his biggest backers. If there are any snowflakes left who still think some right-wing Christian theocracy is on the horizon, they need not worry. Trumpism represents the Latin Americanization of US politics (a high stratified class system where open corruption is the norm in politics) rather than “A Handmaid’s Tale.”