Ralph Nader: The Democrats are Unable to Defend the U.S. from the “Most Vicious” Republican Party in History 2

By Jon Schwarz

The Democratic Party is at its lowest ebb in the memory of everyone now alive. It’s lost the White House and both houses of Congress. On the state level it’s weaker than at any time since 1920. And so far in 2017 Democrats have gone 0 for 4 in special elections to replace Republican members of Congress who joined the Trump administration.

How did it come to this? One person the Democratic Party is not going to ask, but perhaps should, is legendary consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

Nader, who’s now 83 and has been been based in Washington, D.C. for over fifty years, has had a front row seat to the Democrats’ slow collapse. After his bombshell exposé of the U.S. car industry, Unsafe at Any Speed, he and his organizations collaborated with congressional Democrats to pass a flurry of landmark laws protecting the environment, consumers and whistleblowers. Journalist William Greider described him as one of America’s three top models for small-d democratic activism, together with Saul Alinsky and Martin Luther King, Jr. Meanwhile, the 1971 “Powell Memo,” which laid the groundwork for the resurgence of the corporate right, named him as a key enemy of “the system,” calling him “the single most effective antagonist of American business.”


This is Going to Ruffle Some Feathers… Reply

The ever expanding political polarization in the United States appears to be splitting off into four basic factions. The two largest factions are the Red Tribe represented by the Republicans and the Blue Tribe represented by the Democrats, and this conflict between the mainstream tribes is now turning violent as evidenced by the assassination attempt against Steven Scalise and other Congressmen. The two smaller factions are the fractious alliance between the various far right tendencies as evidenced by the poster below, and the SJW/Antifa/neo-Marxist/Communist configuration on the far left.

I do not share the ideals of any of these four factions (or collections of factions). Here’s a brief and incomplete rundown of where I think each is insufficient.

-The Republicans are the party of plutocratic, imperialist, police statism, and I have said for nearly thirty years that if everything the Republicans tend to favor were put into practice the United States would have the economy of the traditional Latin American oligarchies (see the Kochs), the civil liberties of the Soviet Union (see Jeff Sessions), and the foreign policy of Nazi Germany (see the neocons). Trumpist pretensions about trying to move the GOP in a more paleoconservative direction are a demonstrable failure, and Trump has become clearly subordinated to the interests of the wider ruling class oligarchy. Noam Chomsky’s claim that the Republicans are the most dangerous organization in history might be hyperbole, but one that is closer to the truth than one might think.

-The Democrats are likewise the party of plutocratic, imperialist, police statism, although one that prefers to have a greater diversity of skin colors, genitalia, and sexual habits within the ranks of the ruling class. The persistent Russia-baiting of the Democrats indicates that they have arguably moved to the right of the Republicans on foreign policy (if such a thing is possible), their economics represent the left-wing of the plutocracy, and they have contributed to the growth of the police state every bit as much as the Republicans.

-The far right is increasingly abandoning any libertarian inclinations it may have ever had, and instead orienting itself towards authoritarian rightism of the Pinochet-Franco-Salazar-Mussolini model, and given state power would likely create a society that was at least as bad as that of the Republicans.

-The far left is becoming increasingly contemptuous of liberal values of any kind such as those outlined in the US Bill of Rights, and is instead adopting the Marxist critique of liberalism as merely a mask for class rule, and supplementing this with the Marcusean notion of “repressive tolerance.” Not coincidentally, the presence of hammer and sickle Communists (“tankies”) among the ranks of the far left is also growing, and the anarchist contingent among the far left is once again being overrun by Marxists as has been the historical norm. The far left would create a society that would be at least as bad as that of their far right opponents.

The best possible outcome of this conflict would be one where an equilibrium is maintained, where the various factions remain pitted against once another, with none of these being able to monopolize power, and where the state eventually fractures into enclaves for different factions while avoiding a full blown civil war.

We Are Inches From A New World War, And Clintonists Are To Blame Reply

By Caitlin Johnstone


This is your fault, Clinton Democrats. You created this, and if our species is plunged into a new world war or extinction via nuclear holocaust, it will be your fault. You knuckle-dragging, vagina hat-wearing McCarthyite morons made this happen.

American military provocations against the pro-Assad coalition in Syria are fast becoming a daily occurrence. In response to the US air force’s gunning down of a Syrian military plane on Sunday, Russia has cut off its hotline with which it was coordinating operations with America to avoid aerial collisions, and has warned that all US aircraft west of the Euphrates river will now be tracked and treated as potential targets. Today, 25 miles northwest of the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, a US reconnaissance plane was intercepted by an armed Russian aircraft which came within five feet of the plane’s wingtip. This on the same day that the US shot down yet another Iranian military drone in Syria.


The Lumpenproletariat as Class Vanguard: Why Anarchists Must Attack the Left from the Left 9

The conflicts between myself and the mainstream leftist-anarchist movement are well-known. When I am asked about the source of this conflict by outsiders to the anarchist milieu, my usual response is that what they are observing is a continuation of the historic battle between the anarchists and the Marxists. Fundamental to this conflict is a contending view of the concepts of state and class. For Marxists, the principal target of revolutionary conflict is capital. However, for anarchists it is the state that is the primary enemy. This difference was acknowledged by Friedrich Engels.

“The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletariat revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state. But after its victory the sole organization which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfill its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune.”

– Frederick Engels, “Engels to Philipp Van Patten in New York,” London, April 18, 1883.


Why I Am Not A White Nationalist Reply

An interesting new piece from Jack Donovan.

I generally think that WN is to race and immigration what the religious right was to the sexual revolution and secularization of US society in the postwar era. It’s a backlash against prevailing currents that amounts to swimming against the tides. Only WNs are far less wealthy, numerous, popular, or influential than the religious right was in its heyday.

I think the core argument that guys like Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer make (“Should whites allows themselves to become a minority in their historic homelands surrounded by other populations with deep seated historical grudges against whites?”) is a valid one and one that should be heard without vilification of those making the argument. And Islamic immigration is an issue that transcends racial boundaries.

But I still think it’s a one-dimensional way of thinking.

Radio Asian-Aryan Episode 1: Andy Nowicki Reply

Listen here.

Radio Asian-Aryan.

Presented by pilleater.

Episode 1.

Andy Nowicki talks about his new book, Meta-#Pizzagate: On the “Unspeakable Rites” of Those Who Rule Our Demon-ocracy.

With Robert Stark and The Adventure Kid.

-Twin Peaks
-Yuko Mishima
-and a whole lot of bantz


Intro song: Costanza – Assman
Outro song: Yoko Nagayama – Give Me Up

Self-Determination, not Universalism, is the Goal Reply

By Jeff Deist

Mises Institute

Conservatives and progressives alike spent the 20th century arguing for universal political principles. But the world is not so malleable; even in a hyper-connected digital age elites struggle to maintain support for globalism against a tide of nationalist, populist, and breakaway movements. Libertarians should embrace this reality and reject universalism for the morally and tactically superior vision of radical self-determination.

For decades we’ve been conditioned to believe the world is getting smaller, and thus that globalism in all its forms is inevitable. Instant communication, inexpensive access to digital information, global trade, and cheap fast travel will combine to demonstrate once and for all that nationality, geography, culture, language, ethnicity—and even history— matter far less than a shared humanity.

Given this inevitable reality, old modes of living will be tossed aside by a world hungry for modernity. Universal suffrage, an article of faith in a post-monarchical world, will yield social democracies with robust safety nets, regulated capitalism, legal protections for women and minorities, and widely agreed-upon norms regarding social issues. Western conceptions of civil rights will spread far and wide, with technology bridging the old boundaries of nation states. Both progressives and conservatives share this vision, although the former emphasize a supra-national administrative state (“one world government”) while the latter focus on globally managed trade schemes under the auspices of international law.


US-Led Economic War, Not Socialism, Is Tearing Venezuela Apart Reply

By Caleb Maupin

Mint Press

A pro-government supporter wears a T-Shirt with image of Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez, as he waits for results during congressional elections in Caracas, Venezuela, Sunday, Dec. 6, 2015.

WASHINGTON — (ANALYSIS) The political and economic crisis facing Venezuela is being endlessly pointed to as proof of the superiority of the free market.

Images and portrayals of Venezuelans rioting in the streets over high food costs, empty grocery stores, medicine shortages, and overflowing garbage bins are the headlines, and the reporting points to socialism as the cause.

The Chicago Tribune published a Commentary piece titled: “A socialist revolution can ruin almost any country.” A headline on Reason’s Hit and Run blog proclaims: “Venezuelan socialism still a complete disaster.” The Week’s U.S. edition says: “Authoritarian socialism caused Venezuela’s collapse.”


Boston Free Speech Rally – A Brief History of ANTIFA with Gabriel Brown (May 13th, 2017) Reply

Boston Free Speech Rally
Boston Commons, Boston, Massachusetts
May 13th, 2017

Gabriel Brown explains a brief history on the origins of the Anti-Fascist Action (Antifa) as well as their sponsors in the Ford Foundation and the Southern Poverty Law Center with Steven J. Baldassari. Steven was not certain what to make of the Anarchist position during the discussion but he came to the agreement that we shared much more in common than we had disagreements so this discussion and interview resulted in a positive conclusion.


Brigitte Gabriel and Dave Rubin: Terrorism, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Linda Sarsour Reply

Youtube demonetized this video due to the nature of the topics discussed. Support The Rubin Report on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rubinreport

Brigitte Gabriel (National Security Expert) joins Dave Rubin to discuss her childhood under brutal terrorism in Lebanon, why national security is an American issue, the Muslim Brotherhood, her views of Linda Sarsour, the “gullible” women’s movement in America, and much more.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Dave Rubin on Political Islam, Sharia Law, and “Islamophobia” Reply

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Human Rights Activist) joins Dave Rubin to discuss the preaching of Islam, the left’s alliance with Islamists, the dangers of political Islam, Sharia law, “Islamophobia”, her serious fight against the practice of female genital mutilation as well as, her political and idealogical awakening, her foundation and activism, and much more. *This episode was filmed on location, not in The Rubin Report studio.

Is Communism Dead? 2

By Libertarian Heathen

In the most laughable Nick Sarwark gaffe to date, the Commissar of the National Libertarian Party was interviewed recently and said:

“The association of libertarianism with the right is an artifact of the political climate of the Cold War, when communism was seen as a common enemy of both libertarians and conservatives. With the collapse of communism as a political force and the decline of conservatism within the Republican party, the right is no longer a natural ally, if indeed it ever was.”

Communism is not a relic of the Cold War. Communism has made a very successfullong march through the institutions“, and at this point in history we have crossed the tipping point, where more than half the population takes more from the government than they contribute. We just socialized our medical system, in another major coup for the goals set 100 years ago, when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, and every year since, a million people have died under red flags. Communism is not only the common enemy of libertarians and conservatives, it is the enemy of all mankind, even the planet itself, as environmental destruction inevitably follows the cultural destruction that is the opening act of any nation falling under the siren song of “equality”, sung by the useful idiots, the foot soldiers of the revolution. Our only solace is they are usually the first ones to be killed when the proletariat has his day, which really means a different oligarch with a mind vastly more hateful and murderous than the capitalist they replace.


Why is the Pluralist Commonwealth an American system? 1

An interesting libertarian socialist perspective.

By Gar Alperovitz

The Next System

William Appleman Williams, in his system-challenging book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, insisted that at the heart of American foreign policy was a “very powerful and dangerous propensity to define the essentials of American welfare in terms of activities outside the United States.” The imperialist thrust of American behavior on the world stage, for Williams, stemmed from the need to access markets on a larger and larger global scale, driven by the growth imperative at the heart of a capitalist economy. What was and is ‘tragic,’ about this, Williams held, was that this economic priority in practice commonly subverted (and continues to subvert) genuine American ideals of democracy for ourselves as well as others.

My own historical work on the reasons behind the decision of senior US political leadership to inexcusably use atomic weapons against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unfolded within this frame—as an attempt to come to terms with the dynamics of a system that ultimately came to justify such brutal “atomic diplomacy,” even as many top World War II military leaders, including President Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly denounced the morality of the decision. My experience as a Legislative Director in the U.S. Senate at the time of the dubiously supported Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that created the basis for America’s entry into the Vietnam War deepened my awareness of just how dangerous the current structure of power is both domestically and internationally.

There is much to be learned from experiments around the world with new forms of economic development and political governance. It is also certain that capitalism is global, and that any program for real transformation needs to come to terms with global inequities and the role of globalized trade. But I believe that, in general, we have, first and foremost a responsibility to act where we are—and that Americans have a special responsibility here, as inhabitants of the most powerful corporate capitalist nation in the history of the world. Our task—and it is by no means small—is to transform the economic system of this nation, displacing the economic engine of global expansion and the power relationships it creates and sustains. Thus, the development of the Pluralist Commonwealth, here in the United States, is not just a matter of making our economic and political system more fair and more just, but an essential long-term act of international solidarity. Our foreign policy will not change until we change.

What resources for a Pluralist Commonwealth can be found in the American tradition?

It is true that the United States has little recent historical experience with alternative ownership paradigms, explicitly framed as such. However, the history of populist development has left a much larger mark on the contours of American political economy than most realize. From the municipal socialists of cities like Milwaukee to the largely PUBLIC and COOPERATIVE history of rural electrification, there is deep tradition of practical, community-based ownership of important economic sectors. Twenty percent of American electric generation, for instance, is currently produced and distributed by municipally owned utilities or cooperatives;1 over 100 million Americans are members of one or another cooperative;2 and there are many, many more such practical on-the-ground examples (as we shall shortly explore).


Robert Stark talks to Anatoly Karlin about Automation & the Basic Income Reply

The Stark Truth















Robert Stark, Rabbit, and co-host Pilleater talk to Anatoly Karlin about Automation, the Basic Income, and Future Trends. Anatoly blogs for The Unz Review and is on the Russian language podcast rogpr.


Anatoly’s analysis of the French election results and our show prior to the election
Political trends among Millennials and Gen Z
How automation will be the main political and economic issue in the future
The Automation of low skilled jobs in the near future and super intelligence in the distant future
Where Automation Will Replace Jobs in American Cities and what demographic groups will be impacted the most
The effects of automation on immigration, birthrates, and Human Bio Diversity
How automation will exacerbate income inequality
Whether automation will create a new political realignment
Why automation will make a basic income necessary
Proposals for generating revenue for the basic income, taxing robots, and why Anatoly finds it more feasible to tax the ultra rich
Rabbit’s proposal to break up the United States and why Anatoly thinks it would only exacerbate inequality in regards to automation
The Creation of a leisure class, liberating creative types, and addressing the right’s concerns that a basic income would lead to degeneracy
Peak Oil, Alternative Energy Sources, self driving cars, and how those will effect urban trends
Affordable Family Formation
Technological effects on socializing and dating
Anatoly’s participation in a Transhumanist Debate on immigration and the basic income in the SF East Bay
Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own
Artificial Wombs and CRISPR gene editing
Scott Jackisch’s The Robot Lord Scenario