Why We Need Hillary to Win: The Fire Rises 3

An interesting and, I suspect, accurate bit of analysis.

I think this commentator is correct that as U.S. society continues to move leftward, the right will become increasingly alienated from both the political establishment and the mainstream culture, and begin to adopt a more radical, militant, and anti-establishment stance. Hence, they will be less oriented towards “Defend America!” or “Take Back America!,” or more oriented towards “To Hell with America!”. Plus, as their numbers continue to dwindle, they will realize the impossibility of taking over the state, and begin to adopt ideas like secession and decentralization. Where it will go from there is anyone’s guess.

The majority of leftists, liberals, progressives, left-anarchists, and (probably) libertarians usually express horror at the idea of “right-wingers” seceding in order to practice allegedly reactionary values within the context of their own enclaves. While I am merely an anarchist (in the tradition of Stirner), and not any kind of right winger, I would consider mass secession by predominately rightist-leaning communities to be a means of weakening and destroying the American imperial empire, both internationally and domestic. Unfortunately, most cultural cosmopolitans and “progressives” apparently believe that making sure there’s an an abortion clinic and a gay bar on every street corner in every backwoods town is more important that overthrowing a genocidal imperialist regime and a global plutocratic tyranny.

By Jan Stadler

Traditionalist Youth Network

Given the endless coverage by FOX news and Bill O’Reilly of poll after poll after speculation with Charles Krauthammer over whether Hillary can win, will Hillary run and can Rand Paul beat Hillary, I am going to assume the 2016 election has already begun.

Of course in line with this excessively premature hysteria about Hillary Clinton, conservatives, libertarians, populists, Tea Partiers and Christian fundamentalists are all in a twit over the future prospects of Hilary Clinton become the next president of these states united.


Is Market Anarchism eclipsing Anarcho-Marxism? 26

It seems to me that in the last couple of years “free market anarchism” in its various forms has grown to the point where it’s now starting to eclipse or even surpass the “anarcho-Marxists” in terms of size and influence. I base this observation on the number of public events sponsored by both, and the online presence of both. Am I right or wrong in this perception?


How liberalism became an intolerant dogma 1

Required reading.

By Damon Linker

Liberals are increasingly religious about their own liberalism, treating it like a comprehensive view of reality and the human good.

A lot of liberals are taking things very personally these days.
A lot of liberals are taking things very personally these days. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)

At the risk of sounding like Paul Krugman — who returns to a handful of cherished topics over and over again in his New York Times column — I want to revisit one of my hobby horses, which I most recently raised in my discussion of Hobby Lobby.

My own cherished topic is this: Liberalism’s decline from a political philosophy of pluralism into a rigidly intolerant dogma.


Sean Gabb On the Persecution of the Christian Bakers in Ulster 8

Libertarian Alliance

Note: See this news story for background: “A bakery owned by a Christian family is facing legal action after it declined to make a cake printed with a message supporting gay marriage.” (Belfast Telegraph, 8th July 2014)

Speaking in London today, Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, made this statement:

I have spent much of my life denouncing the persecution of homosexuals. More recently, I have turned to denouncing the persecution of Christians by homosexuals. I do both on exactly the same grounds, of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

I urge our gay friends to join in these denunciations. The current persecution is wrong in itself, and is also undertaken without regard for its consequences. These, I have no doubt, will eventually include the recriminalisation – probably indirectly in the first instance – of homosexual acts. Homosexuals are the weakest element in the pc coalition of the oppressed. On the one hand, they are widely hated within the other groups. On the other, most of them have the option of creeping back into the closet the moment the winds shift direction – one whiff of persecution, and the gay lobby will become a leadership without a membership.

Now is the time for us all to take a stand for the traditional liberal values of freedom of speech and association. These cover the right of gay people to live as they please – and also of traditionalist Christians to have nothing to do with them.

Robert Stark interviews Dick Smothers Jr. Reply

Listen here.














Robert Stark interviews former Porn Star Dick Smothers Jr.

Topics include:

Growing up the son of Dick Smothers of the Smothers Brothers and how he had a fairy normal childhood

Why being a Porn Star was not his main dream growing up

His rock band Kamikaze and his 80′s tribute band

Why he likes to create what he performs

The corporate environment of the music franchise

Why there’s more independence in the Porn Industry

Why The Porn Industry resembles the Publication Industry rather than the Film Industry

How his first Porn debut was in a Showtime Soft Core series My First Time

The  Soft Core Genre

His preference for couples scene and the Genres he refused to act in

Abusive and degrading Genres of Porn and how girls are often coerced into those films

How guys like Max Hardcore harm the industry and appeal to a dark side of human nature

How the Porn Industry includes both kind and abusive individuals

His appearance on Howard Stern’s Show

Luke Ford and his observations on individuals in the industry

People who are traumatized or have long term psychological problems from porn

Dating women in Porn

A Dominatrix film he refused to act in

Why he was considered  straight-laced by the standards of the Porn Industry

Why he wanted to be a positive male representative of the Industry

The interview with Reuters were he said he wanted to be the Orson Wells of Porn

Why there needs to be more creativity in Porn

How Porn becoming more accessible has harmed the profits of the industry

Why there’s a mean streak in America and how that influences it’s Porn

Why he left the industry

The AIDS Scare and how the industry is regulated for STD’s

The types of men who act in porn

The Narcissistic celebrity culture in America

His advice to someone looking to get into porn

Robert Stark interviews Matt Forney on Bowden & Sade Reply

Listen here.












Topics include:

Jonathan Bowden’s Mad

The theme of teenage angst and alienation with modern society

Jonathan Bowden’s Sade

How the Marquis de Sade symbolizes the dark side of the Enlightenment

Sade’s honest nihilism versus the politically correct moralistic degeneracy of modern liberal society

How human nature becomes animalistic once it is stripped of morality

How Bowden labeled Andrea Dworkin a female de Sade

Parallels between Dworkin, Sade, and Elliot Rodger’s manifesto

Camille Paglia as a dissident feminist

No Cake? No Peace! 3

Some Gay Cake Nazis earlier today

Several times I’ve seen what I assume was a hypothetical suggestion that PC elites might one day persecute a Xian bakery for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding .  Well, that day has now arrived (more or less).  The Great March Of Progress shatters another fascistic obstacle in the fight for universal equality!   Death to the Nazi Bakers and their reactionary evil!

I’m really not making this shit up; check the BBC story here

Pluralism Has Limits 7



Old but gold.


by AntisocialMisanthropicPessimist

I think immigration, as a subset of private property, is one area where the AnCaps have a serious practical issue, that is assuming AnCaps have enough clout to matter anyway.

Basically, if you didn’t personally appropriate something, you don’t own it. Nobody owns the vast majority of the USA, or ANY unowned land. I reject the ‘commons’ as a concept, although I acknowledge some sort of customary-use and the possibility of joint ownership, etc. The problem is that none of these ‘immigrationist’ schemes would be possible on anything other than an individual community level. Between any two towns there are almost always large tracts of uninhabited land. If you try to stop some random Mexican from settling there, you deserve to be shot, and I don’t really have an inclination to budge on that.

Pluralism only extends as long as people are self-inflicting their stupidities. As soon as they try to extend their crazy notions of property beyond the boundaries of their creepy community they’re just gangsters with a religion, and fuck ’em.

So I really think the AnCaps are somewhat correct when it comes to slapping down over-eager pluralism. The fact is that a lot of these people – GeoLibs or Anarcho-Borderists – are going to have real potential, if not actual, conflict with a libertarian notion of law.

I also think that most alternative formulations of property rights and entities like ‘nations’, etc. are just mystical bullshit that don’t deserve to be taken seriously. I can accept communes and syndicates, etc. as long as they confine themselves to their own hippy-dippy bullshit, as soon as they start trying to ‘homestead’ my corporate farm I’ll gladly invite the Pinkertons with Sharpes rifles to welcome them.


The Rise of the Progressive Puritans 1

Jason Hurley, an acquaintance from maverick anarchist circles, offers the following insights concerning this article by Matt Walsh. Read Walsh’s article here.  Says Jason:

“Matt Walsh, your entire premise is based in medicalized morality. It’s no secret that early doctors and scientists of the developing western world carried their Abrahamic biases with them as they made discoveries and observations. They effectively synthesized their own moral prejudices into the taxonomy of disease they were building, and lacked the properly equipped mind or methodology to ask the much more important and responsible question, “Is it even a disease at all?”

Your premise assumes that sex possesses an intrinsically sinister or dirty underpinning, and that certain types of sexual relationships are universally traumatic to all human beings. But just as many people do not become squeamish in the face of blood or viscera, not every person thinks of public sex or even monetized sex as being a painful, exploitative invasion of their sacred pee-pee temple. Many people who aren’t repulsed by blood become surgeons. We value surgeons in our crypto-Abrahamic, nominally secular society. People who are not affected adversely by promiscuity or public displays of orgy become porno stars. We don’t value porno stars or prostitutes in our society. That is the only difference. More…

NATA-NY’s Anti-Racism Reply

Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes!

By J. Cypher


Since its inception, NATA-NY has been grossly misunderstood and vehemently attacked for being so-called “racists.” Despite repeatedly demonstrating the ways in which we are anti-racist, we continue to be labeled “nazis” and “fascists.” At the same time, our critics are referring to the people of color in NATA-NY as “tokens” who “only get called when the group is accused of racism.” We find this to be incredibly offensive and much more racist than anything we’ve ever said or done. In response to this continual misunderstanding, we have reiterated our positions on racism and anti-racism below. We welcome intelligent dialogue!


Yes, Privilege Checking Sucks Reply

I don’t personally see myself as having a dog in this fight. I post this exchange between Given and Carson here out of recognition that this is a controversial issue among anarchists and libertarians, and one that many of them care a great deal about, even if I don’t. As a pluralist, my presumption is that within the context of a pan-anarchist mass movement there would be “privilege-checking”  and “non-privilege-checking” factions and tendencies, and the same would be true of post-revolutionary systems.  By this point, anyone who cares is familiar with my general critique of these kinds of arguments.

By Casey Given

Center for a Stateless Society

In “Why Privilege Theory is Necessary,” Kevin Carson highlights three points of disagreement with my initial article. First, he claims that the point of the privilege framework is “not about feeling guilt.” Second, he believes that the privilege framework can “foster solidarity” among various socioeconomic groups. Third, he asserts that focusing on policy reform to eliminate oppression will only “make other forms of oppression function more smoothly and efficiently.” It is my point of privilege to respond in disagreement on all three points.

Regarding guilt, Kevin may not perceive the privilege framework as serving to shame individuals of supposedly privileged socioeconomic classes. Nevertheless, many reasonable people see it as such, especially students required to undergo sensitivity trainings on college campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has documented this academic trend over the past two decades, challenging the often bizarre exercises that students are forced to participate in to be made aware of their so-called privileges. One infamous case at the University of Delaware involved an exercise in which students were made to stuff marshmallows in their mouth if they have a societal disadvantage and then talk to each other, symbolizing the supposed privilege that straight white males enjoy since they were the only ones in the class without a muffled mouth. More…

Why Privilege Checking Does Not Suck 1

By Kevin Carson

Center for a Stateless Society

Casey Given, in “What’s the Point of Checking Your Privilege?”, questions the relevance or usefulness of the concept of privilege. Not that he questions the existence of racial and gender oppression — far from it. He simply argues that privilege theory is irrelevant to — or actually detracts from — fighting oppression. The “privilege framework” has the effect of

sweeping oppression under the rug by emphasizing white guilt over political action to end socioeconomic inequality. What, after all, is the point of checking one’s privilege if not followed by action? Libertarians should pay heed by ignoring the privilege framework to instead focus on addressing racial injustice through market-based policy reform….

If awareness of one’s privilege is not sufficient to end oppression, then the framework itself seems little more than an exercise to alleviate white guilt. But, what good can that do? White guilt will not stop cops from racially profiling black people. White guilt will not help a family escape the cycle of poverty their ancestors have been stuck in for centuries…

Here Given displays a failure to grasp what privilege theory is about. It’s not about feeling guilt. People are born into privileged groups through no fault of their own; no culpability is involved. Rather, privilege theory is simply about awareness — about an accurate perception of the reality we must work within — as Occupy activist and medic Oakland Elle (@OaklandElle) succinctly explained in a series of tweets on May 25:


The Bigotry of Anti-Bigotry 12

Yes, yes, yes! A thousand times, yes!

By Dan Sanchez

Libertarian Alliance/LewRockwell.Com

Left-libertarians who espouse “thick libertarianism” especially like to lump anti-“bigotry” (I’ll explain the scare quotes later) into libertarianism: e.g., anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, etc. The more principled ones are careful to insert the proviso that “libertarian” efforts to combat bigotry must never violate the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP); e.g., laws against “hate speech,” business discrimination, etc, are out of the question. Instead, they favor non-state, non-coercive social harassment, including especially what they call “BOP,” which stands for “Boycott, Ostracize, Protest.”

One of the chief reasons left-thick-libertarians think anti-“bigotry” should be subsumed within libertarianism has to do with what is called “strategic thickness.” They argue that “bigotry” favors statism, and a more bigoted population will tend to be more statist. Therefore a good libertarian should combat bigotry as part of his war against statism.

There are three big dangers with this position.

The first one is a danger with “thick thinking” in general (which I discuss at length in “The Perils of Thick Thinking”). Even though more principled left-thick-libertarians cleave to the NAP proviso themselves, broadening “libertarianism” to include commitments that are potential rivals to the NAP linguistically makes it easier for other less-principled folk to sacrifice the NAP for those ends, and still call oneself a “libertarian.”

The second big danger with this position is how easy it is for the State to take advantage of it.


For Discussion 21

I agree with Dr. Gabb’s comments concerning this advertisement 100%. The discuss that follows on the Libertarian Alliance blog is also interesting.

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance


I suspect that many of our regulars will need to pause when they see this, to wipe the vomit off their monitors. But I suggest the following:

1. It is not our business what consenting adults do in bed together;
2. It is mean-spirited to pass even non-coercive hostile judgement on what they do;
3. So long as no one who disagrees with the above is persecuted, there is nothing objectionable about gay marriage;
4. While the ideal is for children to be brought up in a stable union of both their biological parents, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the sort of family shown in the picture – it looks better than many defective versions of the ideal;
5. Though no hotelier should be forced to offer accommodation to such families, it is praiseworthy if one does.

I should, therefore, regard the advertisement as one of the few good things about the modern world. For some reason, however, I don’t. Is this because I am secretly as intolerant of homosexuality as Stephen Green? Or is it because the advertisement has an agenda that goes beyond liberal tolerance? Or am I now inclined to see Enemy Class propaganda in everything I look at?

All I can say for sure is that both men look like lefties.

Is America dangerously divided? 1

By Bruce Stokes


Editor’s note: Bruce Stokes is director of global economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center. The views expressed are his own.

If you thought that political polarization in America was bad, think again. Because it’s worse than you thought. And if you’re under the impression that dysfunctionality in Washington is merely a product of partisan political gamesmanship on Capitol Hill, try again. Because a new survey finds that the divisions inside the Beltway actually reflect a deep ideological divide within the U.S. public that manifests itself not only in politics, but in everyday life. Indeed, this polarization is growing – and it has profound implications for economic and security issues that affect the rest of the world.


School Shootings and Gun Control Reply

There has been a lot of talk about spree killers and gun control with the recent school shooting in Oregon and the rampaging cop killers in Las Vegas, NV and Canada. A few things to remember: The US police state and prison industrial complex incarcerates it’s own citizens at a rate higher than any country in the world. It houses 25% of the world’s prison population. Many of these prisoners are members of minority groups, the underclass, and the working poor. The police state guns down civilians on a daily basis across he country; often doing so during duties that are described as “routine” stops. Increasingly, the police are becoming militarized with an inflow of equipment and training from the armed forces. SWAT teams are conducting no-knock raids, sometimes at the wrong address, often on the basis of flimsy evidence from unreliable informants. They are throwing flash grenades into the cribs of toddlers, bringing automatic carbines to enforce zoning ordinances and health codes, and have taken on the mentality that America is a war zone and that they are a force of occupation.

Left Gun Nuts 32

Rarely have I encountered an article that so vividly illustrates why the bulk of the “progressive” and “social democratic” Left is utterly worthless.

The last sentence of this article is telling: “Only then can the Left shift the terrain of struggle away from apocalyptic fantasies of armed insurrection to areas where it has historically drawn strength, such as cultural politics.” In other words, let‘s just forget about the revolution and focus on criticizing gun toting rednecks and “cultural politics” (let me guess: more “LGBTQI” stuff, right?) That pretty much defines the Left in its present form.

All sorts of Lefties—anarchists, socialists, Black and Latino nationalists, and even quite a few Democratic Party-voting liberals—cling to guns just as tightly as the far Right.” Not coincidentally, those are the only factions of the Left that are worth anything. The rest are either full on totalitarian humanists or lame ass social justards.

This guy is some sort of university professor. That’s all the Left is today: the left-wing of the middle class, i.e. academics, journalists, students, professionals, public sector workers, etc. As an anarchist, I see this crap as our primary enemy. These folks are the contemporary equivalent of our historic archenemies, the Communists. These days, I’d see these “progressive” and social democratic douchebags as merely the left-wing of the establishment with the neocons being the right-wing of the establishment. The “populist nationalists” like the Eurosceptic parties, the TAC “conservatives,” and many libertarians are now to the left of the Left. And serious anarchists are to the left of that, of course.

By Andrew Culp and Darwin Bond-Graham


In the aftermath of the Isla Vista massacre, we can expect the far Right to vehemently oppose any renewed call for gun control. They will tout the supposedly Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Right will summon up the specter of a tyrannical government waiting to oppress us but for our wood stocks and blued steel. We will be told yet again that gun control leaves citizens to the mercy of criminals who simply ignore the law. And we’ll hear about how guns are as American as apple pie, John Wayne, and sports. The gun lobby, its main financial backers being the firearms manufacturing industry, and its most vociferous lobbyists, the 5 million members of the NRA (only about two percent of the U.S. population), are going to mobilize in the media, the halls of Congress, and California’s state capital Sacramento to kill any bill that might restrict the ability of people like Elliot Rodger from getting their hands on a gun.


UKIP: The System Works! Reply

I wrote this last week, but then decided I didn’t like it.  However since everyone is talking ’bout UKIP here’s the actual situation.

NOTE: Fans of the UKIP “revolution” should watch out for Thursday’s Newark-on-Trent by election, which is a parliamentary election on a first past the post basis rather than proportional representation as in the Euros.  If UKIP win it will show they have gathered enough momentum to be able to break into Westminster, a significant increase in support for establishment parties will suggest a “Le Penn” effect in effect (2002 père Le Penn gets to a run off Presidential second round, and the establishment mobilize 82% of the electorate to vote against him).


Robert Stark interviews Keith Preston on The European Elections Reply

Listen to the interview.

Topics include:

•The recent elections in Europe
•How the elections were a referendum on the neoliberal establishment
•How European Nationalist parties are moving to the left economically
•Whether the United State could see similar movements
•Ralph Nader’s call for a left right alliance against the corporate state
•Whether dissident movements could appeal to ethnic minorities in the future
•”Time For White Male Thick Libertarianism?”
•Libertarians who oppose free speech in the private sector
•Arguments about whether dissident political movements inspire mass murderers

Time For White Male Thick Libertarianism? 1

By Christopher Cantwell

I spend a good deal of time on this blog talking about the State. Previously I’ve sort of mocked people who tell me “government isn’t the only oppressor you know!” because while it certainly isn’t the only, it certainly is the most dangerous, the most pervasive, and that which enables all others. While feminists and people who are very concerned about race tell me that a myriad of “privilege” exists in the world which must be “checked” to solve “oppression” I have mocked them as being off base.

Perhaps I was wrong about this. I may need to reconsider. Of course, not to jump on the misandrist anti-white bandwagon, but rather to combat it as an important issue of liberty. Perhaps white men need their own “thick” libertarianism.


Ralph Nader: “The left is seized by fear and the right is driven by brass” Reply

This is the most interesting development I’ve seen in mainstream U.S. politics since the Ron Paul phenomenon. Hopefully, it will have a similar effect. The Ron Paul campaign not only spearheaded massive growth in the mainstream libertarian movement, but served as a “gateway drug” that led many of these new libertarians to a more serious form of anarchism. Now, let’s hope Nader’s ideas create a lot of the new enthusiasts for a left/right convergence against the system, and serve as a “gateway drug” to new forms of radicalism that challenge the left/right model.

An interview with Nader by David Daley.


Ralph Nader: "The left is seized by fear and the right is driven by brass"Ralph Nader (Credit: AP/Evan Vucci)

Say what you will about Ralph Nader — and most of you probably have — the man is tireless and persistent.

Now 80, Nader has a new book with the triumphant title of “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.” And even if you’re not convinced that alliance is emerging, let alone unstoppable, Nader beats on, a relentless, articulate and sometimes very lonely critic of big business, media mediocrity and politicians who put corporate interests ahead of the public interest. Which means most of them.