Jill Stein is the only candidate in this election that comes close to being an actual radical, or even an actual liberal. The Trump movement is a parallel to France’s National Front. The normal Republicans are even further to the right (more like El Salvador’s ARENA or Israel’s Likud). Hillary is a center-right politician in the vein of Richard Nixon (or the Christian Democratic Parties in Europe or Latin America). Even Bernie ran as a recycled New Deal Democrat (we used to have tons of guys like that in Congress, even representing Southern states like Fritz Hollings from SC or Al Gore when he as a senator from TN). Gary Johnson is just a moderate-liberal Republican like John Anderson or Mark Hatfield. Jill doesn’t even strike me as being that far left. Her politics are similar to 1970s McGovern Democrats, and many of her views would be entirely mainstream in Europe and even Latin America, perhaps even in India.. US politics is like something you would find in the most retrograde Third World countries that still manage to practice formal democracy (like El Salvador or Bangladesh).
Andy Nowicki grabs himself a front-row seat at the Circus Maximus. I sure hope popcorn isn’t part of the psy-op!
In that piece, composed just days prior to the W. vs. Kerry throw-down of ’04, I noted the “elementary error in logic in the very notion of trusting the majority,” which is after all the principle upon which democracy is predicated. But, I added, the dimensions of my vitriol wasn’t limited to a mere quibble over an unsound calculation:
In the face of a particularly pitiful election selection, Ann Sterzinger makes the case for giving oneself the first and final vote.
Personally, were I American, I’d either just stay home or turn up only to draw a cock on the ballot paper, in line with my anti-democratic precedent (#Brexit exempted). Still, I suppose voting for oneself, or “no confidence”, works as another way to inoculate oneself from the pozz of the team-sport/herd-animal mentality undergirding electoral politics.
Also: Hurhur…she said “minge”….
Anti-Fascist News has been engaging in some lazy investigative journalism about me; either that or they’re running a deliberate disinformation campaign. Given Antifa’s track record of cultish, conspiracy-theory behavior, either or both could be true.
For the uniformed, Antifa is a network of Communists and anarcho-communists who are self proclaimed anti-racists and antifascists. While they hope to prevent the second coming of Adolf Hitler and Nazism, they tend to have a hard time finding actual fascists and spend a great deal of time policing leftwing political groups and movements, where they attempt to expel anyone and everyone who doesn’t adopt their particular brand of anarcho-communism. The predictable results of their demands for ideological purity on the left are fractured political movements full of suspicion and paranoia. A very brief overview of the authoritarian left and its history will show you little but petty infighting, expulsions, fracturing, and splintering, which will leave you wondering to what degree their movements are run by Cointelpro. They are the McCarthyists of the left, checking under the bed for fascists and monitoring their supposed friends and allies for any signs that they don’t toe the line and agree with their narrow set of views.
Some things they had to say about me: More…
Todd Lewis and Andy Nowicki discuss the important issue of excessive statism on the alt-right.
Men’s Liberation was sort of the left wing of the MRA movement. Warren Farrell was pretty much a Men’s Lib type. Men’s Libbers and feminists started fighting pretty quickly because the feminists were so insane. Also because a lot of Men’s Libbers realized that feminism was a war against men. Men’s Libbers who wanted to go to women’s groups’ meetings and ally with them were banned as the feminists pushed “women-only fora” and “only a woman can comment on the problems of women.” In particular, gay men were some of the first to break off from Men’s Liberation.
Men’s Lib had a reputation for being a bunch of faggots, but that while there was some truth to this, that was not really true as most Men’s Libbers were straight, although their position on male homosexuality was very stupid. The early feminists attacked gay men a lot (Isn’t that incredible?), accusing them of being the ultimate woman-haters for bailing out on women altogether. At the same time, feminist idiots were cheering on lesbianism like they always have from Day One. So lesbians are ok but gay men are not. Screw that.
I will say though that gay men were some of the best of the early Men’s Libbers, and even today, gay men play a surprisingly important role in the left wing of the MRA’s such as the Good Men Project. Straight men have to suck up to women to get laid, so these leads to a lot of pedestalization, reality distortion and failing to see the down side of women. Gay men are estranged from women completely, so they can sit back at a distance and judge them fairly. That said, there is a faction of gay men who are misogynist kooks, and this gay “type” has always been around.
However, most gay men do not hate women at all. They just don’t want to have sex with them. Ever known a straight women who was not some sort of a fag hag? Neither have I. Straight women always love their gay pets.
So you see the feminists have been insane for a long time. Simone Beauvoir was an extreme man-hater and the SCUM Manifesto (a classic treatise in the feminist canon) was written in the heat of the 1960’s. The Redstockings were one of the first hardline feminist groups. Ellen Willis was a member. They were out of Boston. Frankly, they were insane, and this was 1969. Feminism didn’t go nuts, it was crazy from the beginning. That said there are some equity feminists we can ally with and to the extent that women are still treated unfairly, we will support their causes.
There is not much left of the Men’s Libbers, but there are some leftwing men calling themselves masculisits or even masculinists. Generally, most such men are fairly sane and most masculists also identify as feminists in a way. These are sort of leftwing MRA’s who are also sympathetic to the problems of women. In other words, these men say that both sexes are oppressed nowadays and further both sexes oppress each other and there are many injustices against men now too that women have turned the tables and predictably turned from oppressed to oppressors by enacting laws that oppress men. Humans can’t seem to do equality. The oppressed never want equality. They only want to turn the tables and lord it over those oppressing them and turn into oppressors themselves. Humans are rather lousy.
Anyway there is not much left of Men’s Libbers and it could be a movement that should be revived in my opinion. A lot of progressive men need to get on the ball. The women have turned the tables on us and are now oppressing us with a lot of new “Female Rule” type laws they put in to privilege women and attack us unfairly. They did this because feminist now is mostly just paybacks and revenge. I assume that all leftwing men are not masochists, but sometimes I wonder. If Left men are willing to sit back and let women abuse and oppress them, they are beyond hope. It will be a tough call though because most Left men are badly brainwashed by feminism.
By Robert Lindsay
By Ryan England, one of the main Alt Left theorists. From one of the main Alt Left groups on Facebook:
I’ve come up with colloquial expressions of subtypes I’ve noticed in my short time with this movement. Note that these are not hard fast rules or mutually exclusive categories, but rather descriptions of what seem to be motivating passions. Some perhaps approximate the Alt-Leftist ideal better than others:
“The Left Wing of the Alt Right.” Rabbit uses this phrase quite explicitly. They are most open to race realism, most opposed to mass immigration and most opposed to Islamism, but are also inclined towards some kind of economic socialism or social democracy and are otherwise put off the Alt-Right somehow or another. “Strasserites” might be a more explicitly national socialist variant of this, “National Bolsheviks” would be even more out there still.
“GamerGate Leftists” – Named from an article I read a while back claiming that most gamergaters were left-leaning, are another type. These types need not be big on GamerGate per se, but being anti-feminist and anti-SJW is huge with them as is civil and cultural libertarianism. I found a number of these posting on anti-SJW pages. They come to the Alt-Left either because of a belief in Leftist economics, though they are usually not that far Left.
Guys who believe in some regulation and a social safety net. Think YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, though they don’t use the term Alt-Left to describe themselves. These kinds are defecting less from Richard Spencer and more from Milo Yiannopoluous. I used GamerGate’s colors in the design of my page’s logo and banner, in an attempt to attract these types.
“Red Enlightenment” I refer to as those most passionate about rationalism, skepticism, empiricism and in some cases, transhumanism and futurism. Generally a scientifically minded and technocratic sort of socialist or social democrat.
“True Liberals” Anti-racist and feminist supporters who think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and are concerned for the SJW’s lifestyle puritanism and opposition to free speech. They are more pro-feminist and pro-social liberal than the gamergaters though. “The Democratic Party of the 1990s” someone once remarked to me, to which I replied, “There were no liberals or leftists in the 1990’s except myself.”
“Brocialists” Socialists or social democrats with a penchant for men’s rights and anti-misandry. I seem to have drawn a number of these to my page, and a few of my moderators fall into this category. Hillary Clinton supporters have accused Bernie Sanders of using these as his base of support.
“Red Templars” Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. Get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the left wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.
“The New Old Left” Would dispense with race, culture and identity all together, if they could and make Leftism mostly about economic Leftism. The Realist Left page and the blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century are like this. Farther left you’d find /leftypol/ on 8chan and some Marxist/Anarchist groups that reject IdPol.
I would say that I fall into a number of those categories. Brocialist for sure. I am not sure who exactly these Brocialists even are, but anything like the original Men’s Liberation groups that arose alongside Women’s Liberation might be ok for me.
Todd Lewis and Keith Preston discuss the most controversial ideology.
Some thoughts on what it would take for “anarchist success” to be achieved.
A good point of reference is the history of revolutions.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, there was a wave of revolutions (American, French, 1848, etc) that essentially pitted the Enlightenment against the Ancient Regime, resulting in the growth of democratic republics and science-driven industrial capitalist societies.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, the major conflict was between industrial capitalists and proletarian labor, resulting in the eventual growth of modern welfare-managerial states, and the incorporation of the labor parties and trade unions into the system, along with the expansion of the middle class.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the basis of conflict became the traditional in-groups vs traditional out-groups (minorities, women, gays, students, youth, etc). Much of that has subsequently been institutionalized as well with the bourgeois bohemians, newly rich, new class, minority middle class, political correctness, gay marriage, etc.
It seems like that what it would take for anarchists, libertarians, anti-statists, ant-authoritiarians, etc to get their moment in the sun would be a political alignment along the lines of liberty vs. power. Regrettably, things instead seem to be going in the direction of nativism vs globalism (hence, Trump, Farage, Le Pen, etc). More often than not nativism represents state-centric nationalism than anything to do with anarchism, though I agree it’s a double-edged sword. Back in the 1990s I started realizing that right-wing populist nationalism was going to be important in the future as a response to globalization, and I started indicating to anarchists that finding common group with the populist right might be a good idea. However, the majority of anarchists have generally seemed resolutely opposed to this approach. The anarchists of the left for example have generally identified social conservatism rather than the state as their primary enemy. And the right has responded to the growing SJW phenomenon with identity politics of its own. The problem is that the identity politics of the left and right is all there seems to be. All of the different types of anarchists and libertarians argue about that stuff as must as Democrats and Republicans do, and often more intensely so.
How Glorious was the “Glorious Revolution”?
(Adapted from an address to the 11th meeting of the Property & Freedom Society)
By Keir Martland
I would like to begin by thanking Professor Hoppe and Dr Imre Hoppe for their generosity in inviting me to speak on 2nd September to such an august gathering as the Property and Freedom Society – and at such a young age. The topic of the speech I gave was the so-called Glorious Revolution, although it might as easily have been titled “On Politics and Religion”, so central were these two themes to my own speech. Therefore, at the beginning of this essay I cannot help but recall an anecdote told of G.K. Chesterton. The great man was offered a column by the Illustrated London News Company and he very humbly asked on what he could possibly write for them. More…
Given that the alt-right is now getting a lot of attention in the mainstream press, this interview with Jared Taylor is worth checking out. Taylor along with Richard Spencer are arguably the most influential alt-right leaders.
This is a video of Taylor describing the alt-right
Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, responds to Hillary Clinton’s attack on the Alt-Right. He describes the political contours of the movement, as well as its major players. He notes that while members of the Alt-Right may be sympathetic to Donald Trump and Breitbart.com because of their strong positions on immigration, neither of them has spoken up for explicitly white interests. As a result, they should not be considered properly Alt-Right.
The best overview of the intellectual foundations of the alt-right that I have seen to date.
By Jakub Jankowski
The Rise of the Radical Right: The Alt-Right Neoreaction and the Trump Campaign
By Jakub Jankowski
(29th August 2016)
Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilisation is precious. This is the Alt-Right.
– Millennial Woes
Hillary Clinton’s newest offensive against Donald Trump’s campaign involves the vilification of a political movement that until recently was reputedly hiding in the ‘far reaches of the internet’ from which ‘dark conspiracy theories’ are allegedly being forged. This denunciation was aimed at an increasingly popular congregation known as the ‘Alternative Right.’ This crowd was recently labelled as ‘Trump’s Shock Troops’ by the BBC in an overt reference to Nazi Germany, and as ‘white supremacists’ as well as ‘a paranoid fringe group’ by Clinton herself, during the speech she gave in Reno, Nevada. How close is Clinton to the truth – is the ‘Alt-Right’ really solely composed of racist, intolerant, neo-Nazis and of other non-kosher superficial labels? Warm, hot, cold!
U.S. electoral politics is primarily driven by fear of the Other. The U.S. is descending into total tribalism.
Not even their own supporters are all that excited about winning.
A nationwide USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll, taken as Labor Day launches the final sprint toward the election, finds supporters of both Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump more motivated by fear about the other side claiming the White House than they are by excitement about their own candidate prevailing.
Clinton holds a 7-percentage-point lead over Trump, 48%-41%, close to the 6-point lead she held two months ago in the survey. But the proportion of undecided voters is chipping away, now below 10%. And in a four-way ballot, support for third-party contenders has ticked up, to 9% for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 4% for Jill Stein of the Green Party.
This is a pretty good summary of why the libertarian movement has failed to provide a viable alternative in the U.S., i.e. it’s just a microcosm representation of the wider established paradigm, and not an alternative paradigm. This author identifies 8 major libertarian factions, ranging from far left to far right: neo-libertarians, paleo-libertarians, neo-reactionary libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, left-libertarians, liberaltarians, and left-market-anarchist libertarians. Clearly, libertarians need an overarching paradigmatic framework and strategic formulata, like pan-decentralization, pan-secessionism, and the city-state system.
I resolve to stay “thin” this year. That’s the term from moral philosophy borrowed by libertarians to refer to a formulation of libertarianism that, roughly speaking, comes with no cultural baggage. If you can refrain from violating property rights, you’re good vis-à-vis libertarian rules, end of story.
That’s not to say there aren’t all kinds of moral and psychological suggestions we can make to each other simply as human beings—roughly speaking, “thick” conceptions of morality—just that they’re outside the scope of libertarianism proper (and deal with topics like art, music, etiquette, etc.). The temptation to get thick is immense, since property rights on their own seem dry and abstract, floating somewhere in space without moorings. I fully agree property rights-adherence isn’t something that just happens out of the blue, without people being reared in the habit and given cultural reinforcement.
It really is interesting how the police in the US has become so pervasive that it’s starting to get attention from both the mainstream Left and mainstream Right, in spite of the divisiveness that otherwise defines contemporary politics. This article also makes the interesting observation that reform efforts tend to be more successful in politically homogeneous localities.
America’s mass incarceration disaster has been a bipartisan effort. In 1970, there were less than 200,000 people in American state and federal prison. In 2014, there were more than 1.5 million.
Republicans and Democrats collaborated to create this sevenfold increase. Former US presidents Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush, as well as both parties in Congress, passed draconian federal drug and sentencing laws while state governments and local prosecutors embarked on a 30-year incarceration binge. The result of this irresponsible, cross-party consensus is that the US now has by far the largest prison population in the world, both in terms of absolute numbers and rate of incarceration. The United States has 716 people incarcerated for every 100,000 people in the population. In comparison, China’s rate is about 121 for every 100,000 people.
The prevailing sentiment of contemporary intellectuals is that the human condition has never been better. History is regarded as lengthy episode of oppression that human beings have gradually but steadily fought to overcome with considerable success. Evidence of these successes that are commonly offered include increased material consumption, better health and longer life expectancy, technological development and, above all, the ongoing triumph of “democracy” and “human rights.”
The best analysis of political polarization in the US (Red Tribe vs. Blue Tribe) that I have seen to date. Jonathan Haidt argues that political ideology and party affiliation are the major dividing lines in American politics, with race and class being a distant second, and religion and gender being an ever further distant third.
Featuring Jonathan Haidt, PhD, New York University, “What Is Happening to Our Country? How Psychology Can Respond to Political Polarization, Incivility and Intolerance”
Todd Lewis and I discuss Marxism.
The neocons throw out another jobber as an anti-Trump candidate. Read the article from Politico.Com here.
It looks to me like what is happening is that the ruling class is circling the wagons. I’ve always thought there was no way in hell the power elite would ever let a true dissident like Ron Paul, Cindy McKinney, Ralph Nader or Jill Stein become head of state. Look how far they’ve gone to eliminate uncooperative heads of state in other nations: Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, Chile,Nicaragua, Panama, Libya, Venezuela, Honduras, Iraq, etc., etc., etc. No way are the ruling class ever going to accept someone they perceive as threat to their own interests as a domestic head of state. Trump strikes me as pretty middle of the road compared to these others but apparently even he is too much for them. I suspect what really gets the goat of the power elite about Trump is his partial dissent from the global economy/American hegemony foreign policy paradigm and his conciliatory attitude towards Russia.
I think what the neocons are hoping is that no candidate will get enough electoral votes to win in which case the election will be decided by the House of Representatives which conveniently happens to be Republican-dominated. The upside is that if that happens the entire spectrum of the Left and center-left, plus most of the Right, will be united in hatred of the neocons. But the neocons’ fallback strategy is to simply throw the election to Hillary.
In other words, the right-wing of the ruling class is trying to sabotage their own party in defense of the state. They may lose the party but the state will still be controlled by those that share the ruling class foreign policy and economic consensus even if Big Oil and Agribusiness have to cede power to Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Madison Avenue for 4 years. It’s the same way the establishment parties came together to block the National Front in France.
Ironically, Trump’s economic policies are just regurgitated Republican puke: cutting the corporate income tax, abolishing the Estate Tax, and gutting the environment. He’s not even a real dissident on most issues. He gave a serious interview to Megyn Kelly a few months ago where the only policy proposals he mentioned were the decades-old Republican talking points about “rebuilding the military” and “tax cuts.” Just standard brand recycled Reaganite horseshit. That’s why I think it must be foreign policy that’s the real issue for the GOP establishment and for the political class generally. For the neocons foreign policy is the obvious issue, but I’ve even seen supposed “liberals” like Krugman attacking Trump on foreign policy lately. And denouncing Trump’s foreign policy was the cornerstone of Maudlin Halfbright’s speech at the convention. The real issue seems to be that the power elite do not think Trump will be aggressive enough in defending the hegemony of the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis against challenges from the BRICS and elsewhere. Plus, they may view him as an unstable personality that might be difficult to control.
What we now have is a Nixonized Democratic Party and a Republican Party that’s comparable to the right-wing plutocratic parties you would find in some of the most reactionary Latin American countries like El Salvador’s ARENA Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Nationalist_Republican_Alliance I spent much of my time in grad school studying the civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s and eventually wrote a book on the subject. US political parties today are a lot like what El Salvador had back then: i.e. the center-right Christian Democrats and the right-wing extremist ARENA. The Democrats are thought of as “left” or “liberal” because they have Western European-like views on social issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, immigration, etc. But on foreign policy and economics they are presently to the right of Nixon as I said above. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/…/obama-is-a…/