By Samuel Goldman
The New Yorker‘s George Packer can’t decide what to think about 21st-century America.
On the one hand, Packer likes developments that enhance the lifestyles of the educated upper middle class: “marriage equality, Lipitor, a black President, Google searches, airbags, novelistic TV shows, the opportunity for women to be as singlemindedly driven as their male colleagues, good coffee, safer cities, cleaner air, photographs of the kids on my phone, anti-bullying, Daniel Day Lewis, cheap communications, smoke-free airplanes, wheelchair parking, and I could go on.” On the other hand, he’s sorry that these benefits aren’t more broadly shared. Life is pretty good in brownstone Brooklyn and its spiritual counterparts. But it’s gotten harder and harder in “urban cores like Youngstown, Ohio; rural backwaters like Rockingham County, North Carolina; and the exurban slums outside Tampa…”
by Jim Goad
I once read that all societies throughout history were consistent in that they deemed it wrong to kill another human being…but they were wildly inconsistent in how they defined the term “human being.”
Such universal contradictions are compounded by the monotheism under which much of the world’s minds have been yoked for millennia, a strange philosophy that posits a God who says “Thou shalt not kill” yet who kills every creature he creates.
We currently have a culturally dominant and largely atheistic left, who never shut the fuck up about how many people have been killed by religion, Nazis, racists, and guns. Yet they’ll try to shout you into silence if you mention how many people that atheistic communistic egalitarians have killed.
by Spencer Pearson
On the 9th of April 1992 the Conservative Party won a general election and with it absolute control of the British state. A feat they have failed to repeat in four attempts over twenty one years. Recently Tory leader More…
By Steve Sailer
We are constantly told that the GOP is doomed because it’s the party of straight white men. That may well be true, but few have asked: How can the diverse Democrats hold together? How can special interests as different as blacks and gays be kept in sync?
The answer appears to be: The Obama coalition can stay together only by stoking resentment—and, indeed, hatred—of straight white men. This naked animus is rationalized by projecting the hate felt by the victorious Democrats onto the losers:
…no matter what some “libertarians” think.
By Gavin McInnes
With the passing of Hugo Chávez, we got a lot of crocodile tears from liberals claiming we had “lost a friend” who “lifted the poor and helped them realize their dreams.” Jimmy Carter told us that he “never doubted Hugo Chávez’s commitment.” The Nation lamented that “he wasn’t authoritarian enough.” I haven’t seen this much love for a Latin American tyrant since Che Guevara became a T-shirt.
But if we’re going to perform oral sex on every despot who can’t pronounce the letter “J,” why not Pinochet?
The LA Times is pissed.
|Demonstrators rally outside the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. to assert their right to own firearms and to denounce recent gun-control efforts. (Tim Roske / Associated Press / January 19, 2013)
Related photos »
Take out the anti-Semitic, anti-gay, and anti-abortion stuff and you have modern left-liberalism.
Fascism: It’s about getting things done.
Good post from Anthony on a FB forum.
“I think bourgeois Americans are not as conservative as Hoppe assumes that are in some of his writings. Even with today’s dominant social values, most Americans would not want to live by rules as strict and culturally rightwing as he implies would be common.I heard Hoppe say in a talk once that the drug war would be impossible without a state. Conservatives might support a drug war with socialized costs, but they won’t incur the costs themselves to wage a crusade against this personal activity. I think without a state, social oppression is possible but the costs become much more personalized. For social oppression to thrive without the state requires authoritarian pressures running through the culture. It is possible but exhausting. The more these authoritarian currents are softened through free trade, migrations, social interactions, the internet, the media, and so forth, the harder it is to maintain voluntary authoritarianism of the kind we see some rightwing libertarians advocate. A covenant rule against homosexual activity, for example, is possible in a small community, but has a limit to its enforceability, especially insofar as the other values of a free society thrive in the community. I predict that if we abolished the state today, there’d be private communities with more conservative social pressures than I would personally favor, and probably even a few that we might consider anarcho-fascist. But I think they would be on the fringe, and they would tend to liberalize over time. If there are covenants that don’t allow gays or whatever, they would be few and far between even in modern conservative America A society as free as it would need to be simply to let go of the state would tend toward authoritarianism breaking down on the local level as well. If the truly oppressive social relations were stubborn in this regard, I and other libertarians would probably agitate for peacefully encouraging a move away from reactionary social norms.
A recent exchange between some leftists and myself on the FB page of libertarian exemplar Anthony Gregory. Check it out if you wish.
By Khadijah Umayyad
I myself am an ardent reader of antiwar.com and have spent untold hours listening to the Scott Horton show. As my initial post on WWI historical revisionism might indicate I take war-revisionism, historical and theoretical, to be of great importance to breaking down a primary buttress of the nation-state ideology: “national defense”. That being said I see very little of use coming from the left on antiwar, simply because most of them are basically more-radical social democrats and liberals who will simply toe the popular line in a modified form. Liberal-tarians like Glenn Greenwald are rare, perhaps even rarer than right-wing anarchists, and they continue to be surprised when the readership of Salon and Mother Goose immediately stops calling things ‘fascist’ when a Democrat is doing them. I think if they could really grasp the nature of politics and political reasoning – as power gaming, social signaling and mating rituals – they would abandon political leftism altogether and simply become anarchists. Look at Paul Gottfried’s excellent article Is a Left-Right Antiwar Coalition Possible? for an evaluation of the possibilities.
I think there is some possibility for a coalition of interests with the left, but not within or oriented toward the existing political and ideological paradigms. Only the anti-liberal left displays serious discontent with the politics of the American state and its anti-racist/anti-sexist totalitarian agendas, and they are a marginalized minority within leftist circles. So long as the left remains staunchly liberal they will remain staunchly useless and counter-productive.
By Khadija Umayyad
If you’ve been reading this blog [i], you’ve probably noticed that I am fairly critical of the left, especially the liberal and ‘rights’ oriented left. You might wonder if I’m some kind of right-winger. Well, some people might say so, but I don’t think so.
My approach to things is a mix of nihilism and pluralism. I do not believe that everyone is required to be friendly, respectful, and un-bigoted. I do not believe that life is inherently superior in leveled societies. I do not believe that there is really any reason to seek to remake mankind, and certainly not to make everyone in the image of Yankee metrosexual social democrats, not even of the anarchic variety. I don’t believe that race or class solidarity are necessary for the success of the anarchist project, and I do not believe that religion or Anglo-Saxon family values have anything in particular to recommend them to this entire planet. Plenty of people get along fine being homosexual druggies, and plenty of people seem to manage living in Amish communities. Different strokes for different folks.
by Bill the Butcher
“The world was full of cravens who pretended to be heroes” ―George R.R. Martin, Game of Thrones
Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine
“Progressive” liberals fear the average gun owner, and, convinced of their superior moral quality, they want everyone else to fear gun owners, too.
But gun-fearing progressives are not exactly gun-hating saints. For instance, the Democratic Party’s leadership is guarded by guns, they sell assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels, our taxes for welfare programs are collected at gunpoint, and the progressive’s dinner was shot with a gun. More…
An essay in seven sections.
The Fundamental Political
“That rifle on the wall of the
labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”— George Orwell
By Michael Parish
All different, all the same More…
Brett Stevens reviews Paul Gottfried
The bullshit is stronger than the bullet and the ballot.
We have always been fighting the Revolution. This is the thesis, in a more complex form, of Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy, a collection of essays centered on the instability of modern liberal democracy after the “end of history,” and how it has launched us into an unending series of wars for ideological objectives. In exploring that, Gottfried also uncovers the neurotic and confused nature of modern existence.
As someone who has typically placed themselves on the left of the anarchist movement, a common trend I have noticed emerging among my so-called “comrades” is that much of the left’s philosophy is becoming indistinguishable from the socially conservative movements that most anarchists have traditionally opposed.
Ironically, instead of being based upon infiltration by jingoistic traditionalism of the Neo-Conservative variety, anarchism’s descent into social conservatism is born of a preoccupation with social justice, and idealistic desires to eliminate anything and everything that is deemed to be “harmful”, “oppressive” or “anti-social” and could potentially interfere with the typical anarchist goal of a utopian society.
Totalitarian humanism is now the left’s equivalent of Neoconservatism.
The motives may indeed be different and the methods employed can often vary but the conclusions and consequences of this philosophical outlook can often be no different to those of Neoconservatism or any other conservative pro-state movement in terms of its ideas regarding how to approach controversial social issues such as pornography, prostitution, hard drugs and so forth. If put into practice, then the outcome would ultimately be the same: The imposition of moral values upon people who do not agree with them and have no desire to conform to a rigid ideal about how humans should behave.