Robert Stark interviews Ann Sterzinger Reply

Ann Sterzinger Returns!

Ann Sterzinger

Topics include:

Trigger Warning, her new project with Rachel Haywire

The Pros and Cons of Child Abuse

Why she is a “radical moderate” and why it’s foolish to subscribe to any ideology in its entirety

Why people feel a need to be part of a political team that will support them and how it’s difficult to be politically homeless

More…

Greening Out Podcast #27 – Propaganda Is Alive and Well and On Channel 4 Reply

GreeningOut27

We chat about the propaganda ‘docudrama’ UKIP – The First 100 Days and what an absurd vision it promotes. We talk about UKIP generally and their policies and why we’re not UKIP supporters, the EU, the Scottish independence referendum and how the UK mainstream media try to shut down any form of radicalism with unfounded fear-mongering.
We go on to talk about secession as a left-wing phenomenon in Scotland, how the media like to throw left and right terms about, the errors of conflating UKIP with the EDL or the BNP, how the mainstream media loves to shut down debate about immigration and how movement of people would be different in a stateless world.

We also chat about how propaganda pieces like this one can give the general public the wrong impression of what libertarianism is, how a lot of the dystopian elements in the show are actually happening now, monarchy worship, the surreal news and how the free market gives people more choice.

We then move on to talking about the 2012 documentary “Please Subscribe” about people who make their money from YouTube, drunken cookery shows (and why Caity doesn’t want Dan to start one), the culture of instant gratification, the great Massive Attack song/video “Live With Me”, the coming One Direction breakup, who really owns Channel 4 and why they may be hostile to UKIP, Chris Atkins, why mainstream TV stations sometimes surprise us, what the Labour party are actually for anymore (nobody knows).

We end by talking about how the mainstream media will crush any form of radicalism, how conservatism is very different in the UK compared with the US and how when things are getting on top of you you should “have a wee word with yerself”

Download (right click save as)

Show notes: http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk/greening-out-27—propaganda-is-alive-and-well-and-on-channel-4

Greening Out Interview #22 – Keir Martland on Libertarianism in the UK and the US, UKIP, Mass-Immigration and Much More 1

martland

Caity and Dan have a very interesting conversation with Keir Martland. Keir is Director of Youth Affairs for the Libertarian Alliance is an A-level student in the north west of England studying History, Philosophy, Economics, and Maths, who has been a member of the Committee since August 2014.

He has been writing for various libertarian blogs since 2012 and his writings appear on sites including The Libertarian Enterprise, Mises Hispano, and Attack the System. Keir is a former Conservative Future Secretary and for much of 2013, he was an Editor of the webzine The Libertarian. He is a keen public speaker and debater and in 2014 he addressed the annual conference of the Traditional Britain Group. Keir is also the driving force behind the fortnightly Libertarian Question Time and other YouTube activities. He is to be contacted at keir@libertarian.co.uk. .
We chat about the current state of libertarianism in the UK, if individualism is making a comeback with younger people, the illusion of living under capitalism, the differences between libertarianism in the UK and the US, Milton Friedman, the misconceptions of the state, libertarian infighting and if it is organic or otherwise, establishment libertarianism vs. radical libertarianism, cultural marxism, the notion of left-wing bias in the media and how the mainstream media lives on fear.

More…

Halal & Hypocrisy XII: Vive la Dissonance! 3

16077033019_8e447c3098_o

On the 7th of January, three Islamic gunmen stormed the offices of left-wing satirical mag Charlie Hebdo, killing eleven staff members in the ensuing bullet shower. The magazine had previously made an international name for itself by printing the Mohammed cartoons of 2006, and continuing to satirise Islam on its pages after being firebombed in 2011. Prior to all that, the magazine had secured a decades-old niche as France’s answer to Private Eye.

1cartoons

The following Sunday, a legion of “leaders” came together in Paris to express their solidarity with those slain. Key figures from fifty of the world’s nations joined a substantial number of Parisians, taking to the streets to declare their fealty to the principle of free speech. Je suis Charlie, nous sommes le monde, and all that.

How I wish I’d been there amongst them – to spit on their fucking faces.

As things stand, I’ll settle for the next-best option: kindling the Inferno.

More…

The State of the Culture War and the Class War Reply

Neoliberalism and totalitarian humanism converge.

“Feminism: Originally a necessary and progressive movement. Today it’s a crowd of attention-starved, hysterical totalitarians masking themselves as progressives, and whose continued screaming existence shows that the movement has destroyed itself with its success.

Multiculturalism: All dandy, as long as it is not a smokescreen for the right’s industrial magnates importing cheap labor, and the left’s power brokers importing voting-cattle.

Gay rights: Whatever that is. Gays have, or should have, the same rights as any other human in a somewhat enlightened society.

Atheism: Far preferable to dressed-up theocrazy, especially (but not limited to) since the rise of theocratic tendencies tends to drag down scientific and technological advances with it.

Summary of the activist central bank policies since 2008 in the US: These have remarkably enriched the top1%, while keeping the US warfare state afloat.”

-Peter Bjorn Hansen

Hot Air and the Paris Atrocities 1

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

For the avoidance of doubt, I will begin by saying that the murders this week at Charlie Hebdo were a barbarous crime, and deserve the strongest punishment allowed by law. This being said, the smug chanting of the politicians and media people is getting on my nerves. Here, without further introduction, are the more objectionable mantras:

Je suis Charlie

I will repeat that this was a barbarous crime. But there seem to be barbarous crimes and barbarous crimes. Suppose the attack had not been on a cultural leftist magazine, but on the headquarters of the Front National, and the victims had been Francine le Pen and the party leadership. Would all those city squares have filled with people reciting Je suis le Front National? I hardly think so. Nor would the media have given blanket and uncritical coverage.

Indeed, we had our answer before the gunmen had opened fire. When Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh and Lee Rigby were murdered no less barbarously, we were all urged to moderate our response. In the first two cases, we were told, with more than the occasional nod and wink, that victims had brought things on themselves. As for the third, the only protest demonstrations were broken up by the police.

Cultural leftists have the same right not to be murdered as the rest of us. So far as the present lamentations indicate, they are seen by the directors of public opinion as having a greater right.

More…

The Cat is Out of the Bag Reply

By Keith Preston

For an opposing perspective, see this article by Joseph Nye. For an article that makes comparable arguments, see this piece in Foreign Policy by Gideon Rachman.

When the future history of the former United States of America is written, the pivotal turning point that likely marked the downfall of the USA will be the events of September 11, 2001.

The United States emerged from World War Two as the most powerful nation-state in the world, rivaled only by the second-rate Soviet Union. American hegemony and dominance spread throughout the world as Western Europe became protectorates of the USA, and the colonies of the former European colonial empires in Asia, Africa, and Latin America became U.S. client states. However the postwar era and the late 20th century were also a time of anti-colonial insurgency, leading the U.S. to get bogged down in the anti-colonial war in Indochina and eventually experience defeat. This had the effect of de-legitimizing U.S. militarism to a great degree. More…

The State: Its Rise and Decline Reply

Read this classic lecture from 2000 by Professor Van Creveld, and then read my “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire” from 2003. Van Creveld’s lecture describes the emerging world order, and my essay outlines a new paradigm for the “worldwide Grey Tribe” as it might be called.

By Martin Van Creveld

October 16, 2000

This is an excerpt from the keynote lecture given at the Mises Institute conference on the themes in Professor van Creveld’s talk.

The background of the state as we know it today is formed by civil war, although at that time, of course, it was not yet called civil. The endless wars between the various principalities, some of them Christian and others Moslem, that took place in the Iberian Peninsula during the fifteenth century; the English Wars of the Roses; the French guerres de religion; and the Thirty Years War which devastated much of Germany and Central Europe–all these resulted in so much death and destruction that, to end them, people were even prepared to have their appetites controlled. As figures such as Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes argued, the only way to bring about peace and quiet was absolute government invested in a single person. And peace and quiet, more than anything else, was what people wanted and what history seemed to demand.

More…

Sean Gabb on “The European Right” Reply

Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance speaks at the H.L. Mencken Club.

Listen to the audio of the speech here.

When I was invited to address this gathering on the subject of “The European Right,” I rather think I was expected to bring with me a note of cheer. The various, and mutually hostile movements that may be described as the European Right had just done well in the elections to the European Parliament, and you were living through the fifth year of what you doubtless call the Obama Tyranny. If I could be brought over, to tell you how clean and brave things were turning in the Great European Motherland, what a fine dinner this would be.

Well, that was then, and we are now. Since there are people in this room who were in Budapest earlier this month, and since you have all read at least as much about what happened there as I have, I will spend no time on the details of the conference of the National Policy Institute. I will only say that, of all the countries in Europe, Hungary seemed the most appropriate for this conference. It was still banned by a government that the mainstream media regards as semi-fascist, and disowned by a party that is regarded as fascist without qualification.

More…

A Realistic Libertarianism? 4

This should ruffle some feathers.

I should qualify that I am not necessarily taking Hoppe’s side in this argument, which is a growing  argument in libertarian and anarchist milieus, concerning whether anti-statism is more compatible with a leftist or rightist worldview. As those who are familiar with the entire body of my work would know, I am generally to the left of Hoppe on both economic and cultural issues, but to the right of “left-libertarians, bleeding heart libertarians, and humanitarian-cosmopolitan libertarians.” I think the economic status quo deserves far more criticism than what right-libertarians are usually prepared to give, but I have little patience for the politically correct progressive moralism of the left-libertarians, which tends to bend easily into nanny statism.

Beyond that, I am far more concerned with what I believe should be the principle concern of anarchists and libertarians, and indeed all political radicals of any kind, and that is the unprecedented centralization of political and economic power on a world scale, and with unprecedented weapons and surveillance technology.

Like Hoppe, Kirkpatrick Sale, Alain De Benoist, Troy Southgate, the late Murray Bookchin and other radicals advocating decentralization, I wish to see political and economic power devolved to the lowest level reasonably possible, such as provinces, cantons, city-states, villages, towns and neighborhoods. However, I am infinitely flexible when it comes to the specific makeup or content of such communities. Among libertarian communities, there would no doubt be those with a rightist orientation, and those with a left-libertarian, bleeding heart, humanitarian, or cosmopolitan orientation as well, and realistically speaking, there would probably also be quite a few non-libertarian communities.

By Hans Hermann Hoppe

“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.”  [my emphasis, HHH]

Murray Rothbard, “Big-Government Libertarians,” in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 101

Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.

Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.

More…

Libertarians and the European Union: A Rejoinder to Petr Mach Reply

“Victory for the Eurosceptic forces would likely be a victory for protectionism, economic nationalism, immigration barriers, and Putin.”

They say that like it’s a bad thing.

I always did think Reason tended to be a bit neoconnish and this illustrates it.

Support for “free trade” (globalization) is definitely an area where I disagree with orthodox libertarians, who apparently do not realize that regional super-states (like the European Union or the apparatus of NAFTA) and a de facto global super-state (in which the American empire is senior partner and military arm) have largely been created in the interests of fostering “free trade.”

Globalization is the primary force that is causing the re-proletarianization of labor in the post-industrial countries, along with neo-liberal domestic economic policies.

Mass immigration is the “reserve army of capital,” as thinkers from Ralph Nader to Alain de Benoist have pointed out, and only serves to hasten the re-proletarianization process.

Also, it’s possible to be neither a Putin-idolator or a Putin-phobe. Contemporary Russia is not the Soviet Union, and while Russia certainly remains an imperialist country,  it is largely a backyard imperialism, comparable to American imperialism as it was during the nineteenth century. Nothing to get worked up about, from an international or geopolitical perspective.

By Dalibor Rohac

Reason.Com

There is much to agree with in Petr Mach’s response to my article about the European Union (EU). As he puts it, my defense of the EU is “utilitarian,” not a principled one, and I fully accept that it is possible to imagine alternatives to the current political arrangements in Europe that would be much friendlier to individual freedom than the status quo.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mach’s text does little to address my main concern, namely that such alternatives might not be on the menu of options available to us at the moment, and that the likely political dynamics of an EU downfall carry a big risk of making the continent, as a whole, less free.

More…

Kevin Mac Donald Attacks the Libertarian Strawman 7

Strawman

Another oldy.

___________

by All-in-All

The Alternative Right (including Third Positioners) has a long history of making ignorant attacks on libertarianism which strikingly parallel those made by the socialists of the 19th century. This should not be surprising since white nationalism and most of the Alt-Right are basically just classical social nationalists. Libertarianism and White Nationalism by Kevin MacDonald is the latest of these sallies into error, and I thought I’d take a minute to bust his balls for talking about things he obviously doesn’t understand.

libertarianism is considered part of the conservative mainstream. It doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the multicultural powers that be.

This is just hysterically and obviously false. Some libertarians, such as Walter Block, are notorious for defending discrimination (racial, sexual, national, religious), defending private, exclusionary communities, and calling bullshit on the claims of racist, sexism and ‘homophobia’ that constantly loom. Some Libertarians, such as Hans Hoppe, are also famous for repudiating democratic and republican governments and stressing that hierarchical and even patriarchal societies are both normal and generally admirable. Finally, there is basically no one who is as open to the idea of human biodiversity, and in particular hereditary intelligence, as the libertarian fringe.

libertarianism is an ideology of national dissolution that would greatly exacerbate problems resulting from immigration.

Libertarianism is an ideology of state dissolution. Like the mainstream left (i.e., Republicans, Democrats and their toadies), MacDonald and his crew frequently make the mistake of confusing the State – a predatory/parasitic agency – with society, a collection of individuals engaged in various relationships commercial and otherwise. MacDonald would do well to re-read his Nietzsche, where the distinction is made clear.

More…

Could America Become Mississippi? Reply

By Jamelle Bouie

Salon.Com

 

The racial polarization of the recent elections—where the large majority of whites voted for Republicans, and majority of minorities voted for Democrats—could continue for decades. Does a dramatic change in your social environment make you more conservative, and if so, what kind of change would it take?

Working at Northwestern University, psychologists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson apply that question to demographic change, and, in particular, to white Americans vis-a-vis the prospect of a United States where the majority of Americans are drawn from today’s minorities. Does a threat to one’s status as the demographic “in-group” increase political conservatism? The answer, in short, is yes.

Using a nationally representative survey of self-identified politically “independent” whites, Craig and Richeson conducted three experiments. In the first, they asked respondents about the racial shift in California—if they had heard the state had become majority-minority. What they found was a significant shift toward Republican identification, which increased for those who lived closest to the West Coast.

More…

The Stark Truth: Robert Stark Interviews Keith Preston Reply

Listen to the interview at Counter-Currents.Com

Robert Stark welcomes back Keith Preston of Attack the System. Topics include:

  • Keith’s article “Who am I? Left, Right, or Center”: https://attackthesystem.com/2014/02/21/who-am-i-left-right-or-center/
  • How his anti imperialist views on foreign policy overlap with the far Left as well as Paleoconservative and New Right thinkers
  • How he finds his critique of capitalism often overlaps with both those of the far Left but also those of Catholic distributists and social nationalists on the far Right
  • How he shares some views on social issues with the Left, but swings back to the Right on decentralist, anti-statist or civil libertarian grounds
  • His support for regionalist and ethno-identitarian movements as a bulwark against imperialism and the Leviathan state
  • The cult of guilt by association versus intellectual freedom
  • Making a case against mass immigration to anarchists
  • His podcast “Who Are the Power Elite?”: https://attackthesystem.com/2013/12/30/attack-the-system-who-are-the-power-elite/
  • The difference between power elite analysis and conspiracy theories
  • Power elite analysis versus theories of democratic pluralism
  • How the power elite uses demographic, cultural, and class conflict to protect its own position of dominance
  • Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone and the concept of social capital
  • His podcast “Creating Alternative Infrastructure”: https://attackthesystem.com/2014/02/15/ats-roundtable-on-creating-alternative-infrastructure/

Sticking to what they know: Israeli firm wins bid for wall construction on U.S.-Mexico border Reply

By Chloe Benoist

Albawaba.Com

Elbits provides the surveillance system for the Israeli-built wall in the West Bank (File Archive)
Elbits provides the surveillance system for the Israeli-built wall in the West Bank (File Archive)

An Israeli military contractor, whose surveillance technology is used along Israel’s apartheid wall constructed in the Palestinian West Bank, has been chosen by the United States to provide similar services on the southern border with Mexico, Israeli media reported on Wednesday.

Elbit Systems announced on Sunday that the US Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had awarded its subsidiary a $145 million contract to deploy border surveillance technology in southern Arizona, Reuters reported.

But according to Bloomberg analyst Brian Friel, quoted by Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the one-year contract could expand to a broader $1 billion deal if the US Congress passes stringent immigration legislation.

Elbit Systems is set to install watch towers along the border with sensors for spotting, tracking, and classifying data, along with command and control centers.

More…

Most Americans Support Legal Status For Undocumented: Poll Reply

A note to my paleo-leaning friends: Immigration restriction is a failed movement, a political dead end. Americans are becoming more immigration-friendly, as they have with marijuana decriminalization and gay marriage. Still, there are alternatives to both compulsory multiculturalism and totalitarian humanism from the Left and old-fashioned nationalism (or fascism) from the Right. The time is now for Pan-Anarchism.

By Elise Foley

Huffington Post

Main Entry Image

WASHINGTON — While most Americans think undocumented immigrants should get a chance to become legal residents, they’re split on whether a recent uptick in deportations is a good or bad thing, according to a poll released Thursday by Pew Research Center.

The report comes at a time when both immigration reform and deportations are being hotly debated. The House GOP is considering whether to move forward with reform, potentially including legal status for currently undocumented immigrants. While advocates push for legislation, there’s a parallel effort to convince President Barack Obama to slow the rate of deportations and provide reprieve to families and communities torn apart by deportations.

The new poll found broad support for allowing some undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally, which would in effect stem the tide of deportations. Seventy-three percent of those polled support such a measure, while 24 percent oppose allowing undocumented immigrants to stay.

More…

Why we on the Left made an epic mistake on immigration 1

By David Goodhart

Church and State

Members of the Bangladshi community photographed in Whitechapel Market, in east London, 7 September 2010. (Photo: Rebecca Reid)

Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration.

Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.

And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate.

But for some years, this has troubled me and, gradually, I have changed my mind.

More…

Practical vs. Moral Objections to Open Borders 1

By Jason Brennan

Yesterday, the Swiss did something evil: they voted to restrict immigration. Tyler Cowen comments:

In my view immigration has gone well for Switzerland, both economically and culturally, and I am sorry to see this happen, even apart from the fact that it may cause a crisis in their relations with the European Union.  That said, you can take 27% as a kind of benchmark for the limits of immigration in most or all of today’s wealthy countries.  I believe that as you approach a number in that range, you get a backlash.

…One of my objections to the open borders idea is that I think it would be negative for sustainable, actually realized flows of immigration.

More…

Switzerland Goes Fascist… 3

Say the totalitarian humanist bureaucrats and parasite of the EU.

By Eric Margolis

Democracy can be so inconvenient. Take Switzerland, the closest thing the world has to a perfect democracy.

Switzerland’s eight million citizens vote by referendum on all major issues. The Swiss cantons have made key decisions this way for over eight hundred years.

Last week, Swiss voters decided by a razor-thin 50.3% to begin limiting immigration from the European Union within three years, perhaps much sooner. The vote in non-EU member Switzerland sent shock waves across Europe and brought a storm of abuse down on the Swiss.

In recent years, the Swiss have signed a number of agreements with the EU harmonizing Swiss law with Europe that allowed unfettered Swiss commercial access to the European Union. Now, 56% of Swiss exports go to the EU.

The Swiss grudgingly agreed to adhere to the EU’s basic tenet of free movement of citizens across the EU’s member states.

More…

On Immigration and Discrimination Reply

A Facebook reader raises this question for anarchists and libertarians:

Imagine someone seizes the property of a thousand people in an area and forces them into a commune. The newly -crowned dictator then invites a thousand other people into the commune against the wishes of the original thousand, and then forces the two groups to associate and trade with one another. Is this not what actually happens when the state dominates a territory, opens its borders against the wishes of most of its subjects, and forces it inhabitants to associate and trade with the newcomers through anti-discrimination laws?

It is interesting that our anarchist and libertarian comrades of leftist inclinations do not criticize anti-discrimination laws, to the degree they criticize them at all, with the same zeal with which they criticize anti-immigration laws.  Is is really their anarchist and libertarian ideals that motivate them on these issues, or are they more motivated by a desire to advance their own wider preferences for cultural cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism? It’s not that they’re “wrong” for holding these preferences? But do these have anything to do with the wider anarchist/libertarian paradigm per se? Or is it simply a matter of special pleading on behalf of favorite groups and individual preferences?

Of course, anarchists and libertarians officially do not believe in states beyond the level of voluntary collectives, proprietarian communities, or non-state tribal associations depending on what kinds of anarchists or libertarians they are. But there’s noting in any of these particular theories that could legitimately justify state imposed immigration law OR state imposed discrimination law. Of course, there’s the thorny question of how these matters should handled within the context of the actually existing state system, and there’s certainly enough grey area on these questions for reasonable differences of opinion to exist. And libertarians and anarchists of the Right have their own hypocrisies to match those of the Left.  But I have to wonder to what degree some anarchists and libertarians are ultimately going to be willing to trade in a social democracy run by leftists for an anarchism that reflects a genuine cultural and ideological pluralism,  and which includes communities and institutions where “conservative” values of different kinds might well thrive.