What ISIS Really Wants 2

1920

From the Atlantic. A thorough overview of the much-maligned militant-Muslim Männerbund.


What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The group seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been its leader since May 2010, but until last summer, his most recent known appearance on film was a grainy mug shot from a stay in U.S. captivity at Camp Bucca during the occupation of Iraq. Then, on July 5 of last year, he stepped into the pulpit of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, to deliver a Ramadan sermon as the first caliph in generations—upgrading his resolution from grainy to high-definition, and his position from hunted guerrilla to commander of all Muslims. The inflow of jihadists that followed, from around the world, was unprecedented in its pace and volume, and is continuing.

Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once. But his address, and the Islamic State’s countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals, are online, and the caliphate’s supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable. We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.

More…

Why I’m Scared of Widows & Orphans 2

child1_bomber_jpgbzbmxr

Islam, immigration, and interventionism.

I’ll be incorporating a response to the Ann-xieties expressed here (and elsewhere) into a future Infernal episode.


There’s a lot of raspberrying and dismissiveness in the debate over whether to let the wave of “Syrian” “refugees” wash up on U.S. shores. In the partisan sandbox-fights to which we tend to reduce even the most serious questions, it’s easy to forget that in a case like this, there is probably a strong moral argument to be made on either side.

More…

Ron Paul: Is Islam on the Verge of Engulfing Western Civilization? 3

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.)

The Magical Bottomless Labor Pool Reply

GoHome

The Princess of Pessimism, Ann Sterzinger, on labour and…er, labour.


1,950 words

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.

More…

Halal & Hypocrisy XIII: Remove Kebab? 1

 

KEBAB_MENARD_ROBERT_INTERDIRE_BEZIERS_RACISME_TWEET_TWITTER

New from the Inferno: A tyrannical tale of kebabs and killjoys.


The south of France, and one man finds himself deeply disenchanted by the culinary delights on offer in his locale. So much so, in fact, that he took to the press, voicing his determination never to let another kebabish open in his town again.

Lushes and reprobates – I give you Robert Ménard: ex-secretary general of press freedom group Reporters Sans Frontières and currently disgruntled mayor of the supposedly shish-saturated town of Béziers. This blowhard first came to my attention a couple of weeks back, when I read about his distaste for döner at the Daily Sabah. Already something of a national celebrity for his animus towards Allahphiles—making a point of illegally collecting stats on Muslim schoolkids and personally declaring Syrian refugees in his town persona non grata—the somewhat megalomaniacal mayor now wants to obstruct the opening of any further lamb-spit houses in his locale.

Reading about this reminds me of one reason I kickstarted this series-within-a-series known as ‘Halal & Hypocrisy’: to shine a spotlight on those for whom fighting the Islamification of the Western world serves as a Trojan Horse for their own liberticidal bullshit. Whilst I may not be thrilled about the concept (and existence) of borders (at least not on a nation-state level), I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have some sympathy for those who view them as a means of preserving treasured cultural and civil liberties—not to mention life and limb—in their lands (a la the late Pim Fortuyn). That said, I find it tragicomic how fervently those of such a persuasion appeal to the very institutions responsible for their malaise to make everything alright, especially when the latter either double down with a “solution” that further feeds the beast or take it as an opportunity to play bait ‘n’ switch by adding their own encroachments.

More…

France’s False Choice Reply

lead_large

Atlantic article from January. Thoughtful overview of Dar al-Islam in the land of the Gauls.

Also, rather refreshing to see a mainstreamer who can tell the fucking difference between liberty and democracy!


The impressive and inspiring show of solidarity at France’s unity march on January 11—which brought together millions of people and more than 40 world leaders—was not necessarily a sign of good things to come. “We are all one” was indeed a powerful message, but what did it really mean, underneath the noble sentiment and the liberal faith that all people are essentially good and want the same things, regardless of religion or culture? Even if the scope is limited to Western liberals, the aftermath of the assaults in Paris on Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket has revealed a striking lack of consensus on a whole host of issues, including the limits of free speech, the treatment of religions versus racial groups, and the centrality of secularism to the liberal idea. Turns out, we are not all one.

French schoolteachers were reportedly dumbfounded that (some) Muslim students refused to stand up for a moment of silence after the attacks. But this is where confusion seeps into the debate. Within France, there is not a cultural divide on the attack that left 12 dead at the offices of a satirical magazine. To even suspect that a significant number of French Muslims might support the slaughter of innocents is troubling. But beyond the killings themselves, there is, in fact, a cultural divide—one that shines light on some of the most problematic aspects of how we in the West talk about Islam, values, and violence.

More…

Mass-Immigration: The Athenian Approach 1

By James Norwood

Libertarian Alliance

Mass-immigration brings two main challenges. The first is displacement of the traditional population. The second is enlarged membership of the political nation – that is, the grant of voting and other citizenship rights to the newcomers.

These tend to be seen as a single challenge. With or without citizenship rights, immigration on a large enough scale will transform a country. The grant of citizenship rights only becomes critical when the number of alien citizens passes beyond a certain level.

This being said, the two are separable. What brings many immigrants – certainly the tidal wave readying itself at the moment to overwhelm Europe – is the promise of lavish welfare. Some, no doubt, are exactly what the mainstream media tells us they are. Either they are fleeing persecution in their own countries, or they are coming in search of economic opportunities that may bring positive, if limited, benefits to the settled population. But many, it seems, are coming for the free money. Why else are they hurrying through Hungary and the Czech Republic, to claim asylum in Germany?

Moreover, once they are settled in their host countries, it is usually a matter of five or ten years before the newcomers are able to vote. They then swell the constituency of voters for all the policy and legal changes that are summarised by the words “political correctness.”

But suppose entrance to a European country brought no citizenship rights. Suppose there were no welfare, no free education, no hope of citizenship and the vote. As said, some would still come. Fear of persecution at home, or the chance to start a business here, would not be abolished. There would even be some beggars – the streets of Paris or Berlin or London would be more welcoming than the streets of Mogadishu. But the tap would be more than half shut off. The freezing of the electorate would slow the further growth of ethnic voting blocs. The immigration controls we already have might then begin to work.

I will not discuss whether the political will exists to make the necessary changes. I will instead show that the political will has existed in other times and places. Citizenship and its attendant rights have not always been a category granted by the State. Let us take the example of Classical Athens between the 6th and 4th centuries BC.

More…

The Immigration Question: A Libertarian Middle Ground Between Rockwell and Carson 7

By Chris Shaw

Rockwell’s recent piece Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal provoked an angry response by Carson in How Low Can Lew Rockwell Go?. However they both go wrong. The former assumes a nonsense, fascistic idea that all American and European whites despise immigration and would prefer communities governed by restrictions on movement that have never been seen and takes a simplistic view of immigration and its forms and effects. However the latter also takes a simplistic view, asserting implicitly that because America was founded on robbery and imperialism, the people who live here now have no right to protect their culture and ideas in the way they would like. What if this argument was made for tribal peoples or for native cultures? Many of these were founded on similar crimes, but of course that doesn’t matter. Instead there is a ridiculous conflation of skin colour and the crimes of governments that happen to share that skin colour.

At the end of the day it comes down to state agency and recognising there is such a thing as cultural borders and personal fences. As Hoppe has pointed out, the state induces both forced exclusion and forced inclusion. That means that both Carson and Rockwell’s arguments are far too simplistic in what is a complex, multifaceted issue. More…

How Low Can Lew Rockwell Go?: The Case for Open Borders 18

By Kevin Carson

Center for a Stateless Society

For a long time, anarchists and libertarians have mockingly characterized the stereotypical liberal goo-goo response to any vision of a stateless society as “But what about the rooaaads?” But now a couple of libertarians — at least that’s what they call themselves — have made that phrase their own. In response to the seemingly self-evident proposition, from a libertarian standpoint, that people should be able to move freely from place to place regardless of imaginary lines drawn by states on a map, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Lew Rockwell — the gray eminences of the paleo-libertarian world — cry out “But what about the rooaaads?”

In a Mises Circle talk earlier this month (Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property), appropriately enough in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s stomping grounds, Rockwell restated an argument earlier formulated by Hoppe:

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house…. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

From here Rockwell continues to elaborate on an argument whose basic assumptions are — I say without equivocation — mind-numbingly stupid.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

More…

Open Borders Are An Assault on Private Property Reply

By Lew Rockwell

This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Phoenix, AZ, on November 7, 2015.

Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly. This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service,  or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z ‘s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

READ MORE

Matt Heimbach and Jared Taylor Debate Tim Wise and Michael Dyson Reply

Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Suppose an ATS associated had been the fifth participant in this debate. What should an ATSer say in response to the two sides being presented? One friend suggests something like the following:

“Most people viewing this probably see two radically opposing positions that are irreconcilable at best. What I see, is an emerging consensus where both sides agree that it is best to live in a cohesive community surrounded by people with similar values and aspirations. The sooner these gentleman see this as well, the sooner we can cease debating and start working toward that common goal.”

Ironically, I would agree with most of what all four participants in the discussion actually said. I know Jared and Matt personally, and being a sociologist, a profoundly left-wing profession for the most part, I’m also very familiar with the work of Wise and Dyson.

More…

…And Then They Came for the Tech Workers Reply

doug-stanhope-banner-750x400

From RightOn: Labour-market laughs and lamentations mit Ann Sterzinger.


Y’all in Europe might find it a challenge to accommodate all of your new friends right now, but there’s hope: on this side of the pond, the native-born American worker just scored a massive coup, I tell you what.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a bit of a hullaballoo when SunTrust Banks in Atlanta decided to take advantage of our government’s generous H-1B special occupational visa program. The H-1B visa is a great boon to the American economy, allowing companies to replace their spoiled, entitled, costly native-born skilled labor force with cheaper, more compliant computer programmers, IT assistants, and scientists from countries like India.

It’s not that Indian people are innately more charitable toward their great and benevolent employers than Americans, mind you; but people who are in the country on an H-1B visa can’t change jobs without risking deportation, so they have to shut up and take what they’re given. The ideal employee!

But that wasn’t what made the news; such abuses of the H-1B are becoming commonplace. Just as humdrum was the way SunTrust humiliated the American employees they were firing by making them train their own replacements.

But then SunTrust pushed their luck a bit too far.

Showcasing both their lack of esteem for the American employees’ years of service and their lack of confidence in their cheap new workers’ ability to hit the ground running, SunTrust stuck a “continuing cooperation” clause in the severance agreement.

If they wanted severance pay, the rejected workers had to agree to donate their own time to step in and provide emergency help if something went wrong—for NO ADDITIONAL PAY.

More…

Horizontal Collaboration 1

12185890_10203561922847240_317974046_o-750x400

A raunchily revisionist review by Ann Sterzinger. Sheds more light on the Conflict Without Heroes that was World War II.

__________________

Is present-day Paris more puritanical than it was under the Nazis?

I’d love to simply dwell on the jaunty visual attractiveness—not to mention the entertainment and historical value—of author Mel Gordon’s recent coffee table book from Feral House press, Horizontal Collaboration: The Erotic World of Paris 1920-1946. It’s by turns a joyful and critical account of the legal sex industry in Paris before, during, and after the two world wars.

I’d also prefer to avoid painting myself into a corner as “That one lady who spends weeks at a time wondering aloud about what the French are going to do with all their enthused new Muslims.”

But as the EU brass continue prying national borders open to everyone who can fit on a boat, it’s almost impossible to read an account of Paris, sex, and the Nazi occupation without one’s mind wandering to Paris, sex, and the new theocrappation.

…Although the extent of said theocrappation depends on how you interpret some viscerally shocking poll data. For instance: does 3 percent of a sample of the French population responding “very favorably” to ISIS while 13 percent respond “rather favorably” add up to 15 percent of the electorate backing ISIS? You parse the adverbs.

But in any case, as my dear departed friend Lisa Falour used to say: Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke. (An influx of radical Muslims is comedy gold, in fact; just as France was running out of humorless Catholics, here comes the new boss…)

I am, however, aware that reductio ad Hitlerum is a running gag with all the kids these days; therefore, I shall drive straight on to reductio praeter Hitlerum.

Because if the research in this book is anything like accurate—and Feral House’s longtime reputation might imply that it is—it sounds like the Nazis were more tolerant of, if not titillated by, Parisian sexual culture than our new friends the jihadis.

Then again, the Nazis were also more fun, sexually speaking, than the native French feminists in all apparent likelihood, so there’s that to chew on as well… Not to mention the fact that the Nazi stormtroopers supposedly acted less rapey in gay Paree than the heroic American GIs who came to chase them away.

More…

J’accuse: Leftist intellectuals turn right 1

frenchleft02_186x138-714x475

From Politico.

Onfray’s book on atheism lies half-read on my print-pile; maybe one day, I’ll actually lay hands on it again.

~MRDA~

_________________

Unusual ideological bedfellows in France are uniting against globalization and the euro.

By Pierre Briançon

10/16/15, 5:30 AM CET

Updated 10/16/15, 7:14 PM CET

PARIS — When the newspaper Libération last month accused self-professed “left of the left” philosopher and best-selling author Michel Onfray of “doing the [far-right party] Front National’s bidding,” French intellectuals circled the wagons.

Riding to the rescue from the left and right to defend Onfray, they did what intellectuals do in these cases: organize a public debate. The headline of the event, to be hosted at the Maison de la Mutualité on October 20 by political weekly magazine Marianne in support of its sometime contributor Onfray, sets a new standard for navel-gazing: “Can we still debate in France?”

Spoiler alert: The fury stirred up by the controversy offers a good clue to the answer.

Onfray is only the latest French thinker whom government-friendly media and Socialist party officials accuse of pushing ideas similar to those of the far-right — on immigration, the role of Islam in society and the need to restore France’s battered sense of self.

More…

Privatize the Borders! 3

From Liberty Chat.

__________

By Robert P. MurphyLibertyChat.com contributor

Bryan Caplan has become perhaps the leading libertarian spokesman for “open borders,” the term that many people are using to mean that national governments do not place restrictions on the movement of people across the outer boundary of a country. Although I agree with the economics of Bryan’s analysis, I strongly disagree with his rhetoric. In particular, I think the very term “open borders” is awful on two counts: It incorrectly states what the libertarian position actually is, and–perhaps more serious–it concedes the nationalist framing of the immigration question in a way that will hasten the transformation of the U.S. into a giant police state.

First let me deal with the question of the libertarian ideal. If politics weren’t an issue, and we could get the society we really want, I think both Bryan and I would want all real estate held in private hands. There would be no such thing as “immigration policy” or “border control,” except for what each landowner decided for his or her property boundary. If the current border between the U.S. and Mexico ended up being divided among 2,870 different people, owning contiguous plots of land that collectively reached from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, then those individuals would have the legal right to decide whether to build a fence to keep out Mexicans or whether to have a giant neon sign saying, “Hola Amigos!”

More…

So Where Are the Feminists? Reply

wherearefeminists

Ann Sterzinger asks the question at RightOn, spotlighting how the clash in the feminist worldview between “Enlightenment Person” and “Mommy Goddess” curtails any meaningful criticism of the more predatory and illiberal residents of Dar al-Islam. I notice the bifurcation a lot in abortion debates, where feminists talk about personal autonomy with one breath only to endorse the subjugation of unwilling fathers to the wombocracy with the next; and let’s not get into the decidedly maternalist bent of feminist anti-sex-industry campaigns.

Of course, the mistake made here is taking the feminist “equality” spiel at face value, instead of simply acknowledging the special pleading that forms the backbone of the ideology. On a related note, I’m somewhat wary of the reports of a “rape epidemic” in Scandinavia, given not only the prevalence of feminist dogma, but also expanded definitions of “rape”, the possibility of false/mistaken reports, and questionable reporting procedures (particularly in Sweden); it certainly raises the question of how embellished the “epidemic” is by such factors.


Why do radical feminists remain silent on the issue of mass immigration into Europe, in spite of the fact that the statistics show that European women are among its primary victims?

I’m not the first to ask this, but the more times it gets asked, the better.

During this debate on just how we’re going to get millions of Muslim migrants settled in Europe—since Europe’s politicians apparently have never seriously considered the option of actually securing their borders—where the hell are the feminists?

Because rape is bad, right?

Have they read the rape statistics regarding the millions of devout Muslims who are already ensconced in the Land of the Unbeliever?

More…

Greg Johnson Interviews Vox Day Reply

This includes an interesting discussion of some of the problems with conventional libertarianism, including free trade, open borders, and excessive reliance on ideological abstractions.


Vox Day and wife

From Counter-Currents:

Greg Johnson talks to video game designer, musician, blogger, novelist, and publisher Vox Day. Topics include:

  • His political outlook and its formation
  • Why he is no longer a Libertarian
  • “National libertarianism”
  • The necessity of borders
  • The European refugee crisis
  • Why nationalism and tribalism are unstoppable forces
  • Illegitimate forms of identity politics
  • The problem of white identity in the United States as opposed to European national identities
  • His book new Why SJWs Always Lie
  • Why they always lie
  • Advice to those who wish to roll back political correctness
  • A preview of coming attractions

Recommended reading:

Sanders v. Klein on immigration: The old Left against the adolescent Left 2

A division emerges between the social democratic labor Left and the cultural Left.

By Ian Smith

The Hill

The recent fiery to-and-fro between old-style social democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Vox-founder Ezra Klein was a perfect illustration of just how long it’s been since the Left was right on immigration. Klein, an immigration-novice who once stated we need open-borders or else the quality of Chinese restaurants would decline, attempted to rebut Sanders’ once-uncontroversial notion that excessive immigration depresses wages, by touting the increasingly popular, yet evidence-free, idea that an open-borders policy can actually solve global inequality. Although Klein’s response was less thoughtful assessment, more emotional spasm, it’s become standard argumentation for contemporary facts-be-damned Democrats.

Refuting Sanders’ argument that “open-borders” debases American sovereignty and hurts working people, Klein stated that the question was really a more ‘philosophical’ one. By making the “global poor richer”, he said, what immigration policy should really be based on is a ‘weighting’ between national sovereignty and global inequities. This overly moralistic but increasingly common position is a major subject of a new book on immigration: How Many Is Too Many? by Philip Cafaro. A philosophy professor himself, as well as a progressive against open-borders, Cafaro pillories his fellow leftists when they apply “overly abstract” and “highly general ethical principles” to a “particular policy issue in a specific time and place.” This usually shows, he writes, they have “little apparent understanding of the effects [such] proposals might have on the people living in that society.” This is indeed a fair sketch of the left today.

READ MORE

The appeal of Trump: Why immigration may be the defining issue of the 21st century 1

Will the future of political conflict pit a hyper-capitalist Left versus an anti-capitalist Right?

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

The Week

There was once a fanciful idea that the internet and all its attendant technologies of cheap communication would reverse the pattern of urbanization in developed countries. Some people still believe this: People could telecommute to work while enjoying the comforts of the small towns and country roads of their childhood. A few people, in fact, do this. But the for the most part the opposite phenomenon is playing out. The information age is the age of moving people. And if that’s true, Donald Trump is just the first manifestation of a new era in global politics.

The information age makes it very easy for a small town kid to find an apartment, a job, and a social network in the big cities and growth areas. It also allows him to stay connected with friends at home. In other words, it lowers the price of moving and the cost of leaving. It reduces the feeling of disorientation in new places, while allowing people to still belong, in some sense, to where they came from. New York, Los Angeles, D.C., Silicon Valley, Portland, and Austin have all benefited from these trends.

And the truth is that this is a global phenomenon. It’s easier than ever to establish social, commercial, and employment relationships in places thousands of miles away from you. So why not go there? According to the U.N.’s figures, by 2013 the number of emigrants from the Global South that emigrated to the Global North was equal to the number of emigrants in the Global South that emigrated within the Global South. One of every nine Africans with a tertiary diploma was living in one of the elite nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It’s not a coincidence that Trump is surging ahead because of his anti-immigration views in America, while Europe is roiled by debates over how to handle migrants crossing the Mediterranean.

This, incidentally, is why I am convinced that there was no way that the GOP could have precluded the Donald Trump moment in American politics by passing comprehensive immigration reform two years ago. The movement of people from country to the city, from poor nations to richer nations, from the Global South to the Global North, may be the great political problem of the next age in global development. Just as the building of trade routes and the maintenance of empires defined the mercantile age, then the construction of a political economy (capitalist or socialist) became the major problem of the industrial age, the mass movement of people may be the defining issue of whatever we’re calling the information age.

More…

Is Trump Our Last Chance? 1

My take on Donald Trump:

Unlike many anarchists, I think immigration can be criticized on a variety of grounds. Mass immigration appears to be an effort to an effort to flood the economy with cheap labor for capital, thereby dispossessing the traditional working class. It also appears to be an effort to create a permanent constituency for the left-wing of capital, thereby assuring permanent electoral victory. Immigration also appears to be an effort to impose global capitalist mono-culture on all societies everywhere. There’s also the concern about large-scale immigration from highly reactionary societies that inevitably bring their cultural norms with them. Do we really want Islamist parties to become competitive in Western elections?

That said, Donald Trump’s anti-immigration program as outlined by Jared Taylor in the article below clearly involves a massive extension of state power and approaches the level of being a “war on immigration” comparable to the “war on drugs.” Taylor is a white nationalist who regards preserving the white demographic majority in the United States as the highest political good. Fair enough. But as revolutionary anarchists our principle ambition should be to weaken and destroy our primary enemy, the plutocratic-imperialist-police state based in Washington, D.C. As I wrote in “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America“:

On immigration, it is clear enough that the only viable solution is one of local sovereignty. Obviously, we should not wish to strengthen our great common enemy, the US federal government, by militarizing the borders and building a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande. Instead, the Swiss model can be applied to immigration policy and individual communities can decide whether to be pro-immigrant “sanctuary” communities, anti-immigrant communities with the Minutemen stationed at the county line, or somewhere in between.  The great Israeli dissident Israel Shamir discussed the value of the localist approach in his debate with Noam Chomsky: More…

Borders? What Borders? 1

By Neil Lock

Libertarian Alliance

Sean Gabb has called for (in his words) a decent libertarian essay in favour of open borders. I hope this will fit the bill. My view is certainly libertarian; for I favour not so much open borders, as no borders – at least, no political borders, and so no barriers to migration. As to decency, you the reader shall judge.

Borders in a Libertarian World

Can borders exist in a libertarian world? Most definitely, yes. Where does the justification for these borders come from? From property rights. Each individual has the right to set a border around his own property, and to admit only those he chooses to.

At first sight, it might seem that in a libertarian world there would be no general freedom of movement. Individuals might agree to the use of routes (easements) over each other’s property; but each would only allow use of his easements by those who have a contract with him. However, libertarians are practical people – aren’t we? And we don’t like to waste time or effort. So, after a while, many would not bother to check who was using their easements. As long, of course, as they kept to the route, weren’t noisy, and didn’t commit acts of violence or theft.

In this way, I think there would arise a general presumption of freedom of movement along defined routes, even across property owned by others. This freedom might, perhaps, be denied to specific individuals – for example, convicted criminals or former politicians – because of their past actions. And some might choose to guard their property jealously, not permitting anyone to cross it; though they would, of course, always be in danger of tit for tat. Others might choose the opposite tack. Perhaps, even, donating part of their property for public use, such as a park. More…

Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders? 1

By Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent.

Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands.

What have we, as libertarians, to say about this?

The mainstream response, I suggest, has been unsatisfactory. For the libertarian mainstream, the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights. Since movement across a border is not in itself a violation of individual rights, closing the borders is, by definition, an illegitimate use of force. Therefore, the libertarian mainstream is formally opposed to immigration control. More…