When a group of young libertarians gathered in Pepperdine last week for a Students for Liberty conference, they probably did not expect to begin their day listening to a speech advocating for greater cooperation between the Liberty and the Occupy Wall Street movements.
Two days ago, the Stateside military lifted its ban on females assuming combat roles. According to The Guardian, Pentagon Defence Secretary (and civilian-assassination-endorsing piece-of-shit) Leon Panetta, together with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, scribbled away the 1994 prohibition in the ostensible interest of equality, no doubt eliciting cheers from feminists and “gender egalitarians” everywhere.
Equality is a pernicious and dangerous political policy, but that’s exactly what Obama declared in full voice in his second inaugural speech as the cause and preoccupation of his government for the next four years.
He explicitly promised equality for women, gays, illegal immigrants, the middle class, “the growing many [who] barely make it,” the poor, and, by suggestion, blacks – or what the Associated Press’s lead story called “the wider struggle for equality for all.” He began by declaring, in a decidedly Lincolnistic fashion, that “what makes us American is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:
Jack Donovan joins Colin, Richard, and Andy to discuss David Fincher’s seminal mind-twisting masculinist cinematic epic, Fight Club.
Some years ago, before I attained wisdom, I got a bit closer than I should have to some problems a friend was having with his wife. After one sensational dust-up that left my pal literally crying in his beer, I urged him to tell me what the casus belli was. Not a very articulate guy, he struggled to explain: “This row we had…it wasn’t really about what it was about. Know what I mean?”
I think we all know. Rather a lot of human conflict, with all its yelling and breaking, its blood and tears, isn’t about what it’s about.
The current brouhaha over gun control strikes me that way. Listening to the opinionators, I started to think I could do a near-simultaneous translation—a translation, I mean, from the surface chatter about constitutional rights, kid safety, self-defense, and 30-round magazines not “clips,” for crying out loud) to the underlying ideas in the speakers’ heads. Something like:
Blue guy: “Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine? What use is that, except to commit mayhem?”
Gottfried, Paul. War and Democracy: Selected Essays 1975-2012. London; Arktos Media, Ltd., 2012.
The last time I saw Paul Gottfried was at the Mencken Club bash last November. At one point between lectures I passed him in a hallway having an animated conversation in French with some French visitors. A year or so before that, Paul and I were both speakers at Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society conference in Bodrum, Turkey. Professor Hoppe’s attendees were disproportionately German and Austrian. Paul seemed to be doing most of his offstage conversing in German. A couple of years before that I committed, in an online column, some minor solecism with a technical term from Greek philosophy: Paul emailed in with a correction, including a full account of the etymology and Aristotelian usage of the offending term.
ThinkProgress is rather enjoying the post-election secession chatter. “Twenty five percent of registered Republicans want their state to secede from the United States, according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling,” the site reports.
I’ve made my thoughts on this idea clear before, so there is no need to reiterate them here. But it is worth pointing out that, for all the “look how crazy Republicans are” insinuations, secession talk is hardly a conservative phenomenon. Instead, to paraphrase Ron Paul, talk of secession is a deeply American tendency. As anyone who follows politics will know, leftists disappointed by election results are always threatening to move to Canada. Take attendees at this summer’s Democratic National Convention, for example. Per Mediaite:
James Boyd, a freelance writer, is executive director of the Fund for Investigative Journalism in Washington, D.C.
On a June afternoon in 1960 Karl Hess 3rd, an assistant to the president of Ohio’s vast Champion Paper and Fibre Company, was driving toward Cincinnati, lost in the manipulative thoughts common to rising young executives. Suddenly the sound of a police siren intruded and he pulled over, perplexed but not alarmed, for in his world the police menaced not.
“Mr. Hess?” The trooper spoke deferentially. “The White House is trying to reach you, sir. Please call this number.”
He called. Would he write the platform for the upcoming Republican National Convention at Chicago, the platform Richard Nixon would run on for President? He would; shortly thereafter he moved into an office in the White House.
Although people like Bill O’Reilly habitually refer to establishment liberals as the “far Left,” they are two very different things.
What we identify as mid-20th century, New Deal liberalism is rooted in the Progressivism of the turn of the 20th century. The Progressives came largely from the white collar managerial-professional classes that controlled large bureaucratic organizations — giant corporations, government agencies, universities, foundations and think tanks — that dominated American society after the Civil War. Many Progressives in the corporate world came from industrial engineering backgrounds. The kinds of people who made up the demographic base of Progressivism saw American society as an extension of the large, hierarchical institutions they managed, and thought society could be managed the same way way an engineer managed industrial processes.
According to James Livingston in the Jacobin, socialism may be more ubiquitous in America than anybody realizes, precisely because it has not been achieved through explicit political maneuvering by traditionally socialist political elements. It’s an interesting corollary to the argument that the Left has been historically victorious in capturing the state, since it implies that the real ends of socialism (both positive and negative) continue to be realized through less obvious means–indeed, as a natural progression of capitalism’s inherent contradictions, as Marx predicted. Excerpt: More…
For the overwhelming majority of Americans, there’s nothing to do in response to the horrific news of a gunman who killed 18 children in a Connecticut elementary school.
So, in what’s becoming an emerging trend in response to news of mass shootings, many gun control advocates are directing their horror at the National Rifle Association online.
As of press time, the NRA, the most visible pro-gun lobby in the U.S., hasn’t addressed this shooting on its social media sites. Its most recent announcement on both Facebook and Twitter is from early Friday morning, before news of the shootings broke: A contest to give away an unspecified “auto emergency tool.” More…
Ostensibly, she’s a horny, hyper-enhanced, insatiable fuckpig, ready to give hummers to all cummers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year, 3 holes per session…
…until the director yells “cut”, upon which she reverts to a hollow, empty, used-up shell of a woman, living only for the next shoot, the next snort, the next memory-altering high to blot out the lows of her child fuck-toy past.
Such is the sorry existence of the spread-legged starlet known as the porno “actress”. Just ask any social conservative or Dworkinite diva. If they say it, it must be true. Right?
By Josh Israel on Dec 13, 2012 at 5:28 pm
It has come to light that House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) secretly approved a $500,000 increase to a contract with a private law firm to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. While the increase was approved in September, neither the public nor the Democratic House minority was informed until this week, Roll Call reports.
This article is included in the recently released National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice, edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.
By Wayne John Sturgeon
Mutualism as Free Market Anti-Capitalism
It was the French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who first coined the term ‘anarchist’ and produced the economic theory of ‘mutualism’. This original anarchism and mutualism envisaged a society which, contrary to popular notions, was pro private property, patriotist, and advocated a kind of co-operative free marketism through the establishment of a mutual credit bank, which would lend to people at a minimal interest rate to avoid systematic debt creation and usury, etc. Although widely celebrated by the ‘left’ for his slogan ‘property is theft’, this slogan is completely taken out of context and misrepresented; for he also said, ‘property is order’, distinguishing between the
property created by labour and the ‘property’ created by state coercion and exploitation.
Proudhon described mutualism as a ‘synthesis of communism and property’, as he warned that a society with private property but without equality would lead to statist hierarchical relations. This emphasis on the balance between property and equality would later find another attempted resolution in the thinking of Michael Bakuinn who developed a more collectivist strategy, thus paving the way for anarcho-communism via also the significant contributions of Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta etc. Thus, mutualism came to be associated with ‘individualist’ traditions of anarchism. More…
by Rachel Haywire
For a while the Fash have been fighting with the Posh who are generally not very Fash. One might say Fash is a reaction to Posh. Yet every now and then someone comes along who is both Posh and Fash. This person is Fosh. More…
To the point of causing intestinal convulsions, there has been no shortage of analysis on the elections of 2012. Every no-name mop-head mainstream media hack with a niche audience has put in his or her two cents on the finale of perhaps the biggest non-event of the decade and almost every single one of them has been depressingly wrong or completely disingenuous – but perhaps this was to be expected. The word “journalist” has today become synonymous with “whore”, simply because success in the field makes whoredom essential. The job of news outlets is not to report on the facts, but to fashion an illusory world out of manure bricks and glossy paint, and this is exactly what they have done in their musing on the fate of the GOP. More…
This piece by critic of yours truly Matthew Lyons is quite good and well worth worth reading. Here’s the money quote:
“we need to “worry much more about the consequences of ruling class ‘anti fascism,’ than [about] ruling class propensities to impose fascism from above.” Building on Walden Bello’s warning that leftists need to combat not only neoliberalism but also “global social democracy” (an emerging ruling-class strategy that seeks to mitigate global inequality and environmental destruction in a technocratic capitalist framework), Hamerquist suggests that an authoritarian anti-fascism could become a lynchpin of global social democracy.”
It’s about time someone on the radical Left actually figured this out.
Golden Dawn has surged in popularity during Greece’s debt crisis and was catapulted from obscurity to winning 7 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections in June, riding a wave of public anger at austerity, corrupt politicians and immigrants.
Activists and politicians have called for the ultra-nationalist party, whose members have been seen giving Nazi-style salutes and whose emblem resembles a swastika, to be banned. More…
I know that it’s unattractive and bad form to say “I told you so” when one’s advice was ignored yet ultimately proved correct. But in the wake of the Republican election debacle, it’s essential that conservatives undertake a clear-eyed assessment of who on their side was right and who was wrong. Those who were wrong should be purged and ignored; those who were right, especially those who inflicted maximum discomfort on movement conservatives in being right, ought to get credit for it and become regular reading for them once again.
by Matt Welch
The first 61 words of this chilling and banal
New York Times
article are a perfect distillation of how grotesque power
appears in the eye of Americans who wield it:
Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a
second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks
before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted
killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new
president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according
to two administration officials.
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6.
A reminder to most Democrats who spent 2002-08 telling us that
abuse of executive
power was at or near the top of the nation’s most urgent moral
concerns: You just didn’t mean it.
During this election cycle, IVN covered third party candidates to ensure voters could access information about the wide range of choices they had at the ballot box.
Gary Johnson, from the Libertarian Party, received 1,139,562 votes which represents 0.9% of the popular vote. He is the third party candidate who has done the best this year, but fell far short of the 5% needed to receive public funding for the 2016 Libertarian candidate. He is, however, the most successful Libertarian Party candidate in the history of the party.