Commentary: Is America still worth it? Reply

By Will Rahn


Something people will increasingly ask down the road: In a wildly diverse nation of over 300 million people, would it not make more sense to have, say, three countries with a 100 million people each? Or how about 300 countries with a million people?

On the far-right, there are already those who pine for a breakup of the United States akin to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. On the far-left, we’re hearing some secession talk too, particularly when it comes to the possibility of CalExit or a Second Vermont Republic.

And it’s not just the far-left, mind you: the Trump-supporting billionaire Peter Thiel, one of the country’s more powerful if eccentric business leaders, recently said he thought the secession of California would be a good thing.


Calexit: Is Secession the Answer? Reply

By Keith Preston

American Renaissance

American political culture has come to be defined by enormous divisions. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt notes that present day political polarization is wider than at any time since the Civil War. Social science research finds that more Americans would oppose their son or daughter marrying someone of the other political party than would oppose marriage outside of their race, religion, or social class.

The Right and Left are coming to regard one another not merely as competitors, but as threats to the nation or even as personal enemies. Polarization has been sharpened by the election of Donald Trump. Indeed, the reaction of the Left has often been one of panic, hysteria, or terror. One leftist blogger professed to be as terrified on the night of Mr. Trump’s election as he had been when he was once arrested and put in jail. Intense polarization of this kind inevitably leads to talk of secession.

I have a fair amount of personal experience with this question. For nearly 20 years, I have advocated dissolving the US federal system through regional and local secession movements from across the political spectrum. Although I am a left-wing anarchist, I have also tried to build bridges between those opposed to, or under attack by, the US power elite from across the political and cultural spectrum–including racial nationalists.

The Trump victory has been a particular stimulus in California, where progressives have suggested that much of the rest of the nation is so out of touch with the values of their state that California should consider seceding. A group called “Yes California” has formed for the purpose of placing an initiative on the state ballot in 2019 approving California’s exit from the United States. This project has come to be known as “Calexit” as a nod to the “Brexit” referendum.


Brexit, Texit, and the Panarchist Case for Panarchy Reply

By DangerNixon



Jacob Levy recently wrote an essay airing his teary-eyed dismay that so many of his libertarian friends are cheering on Britain’s bow down from EU membership. This comes to no surprise, since BHL seems to be bent on presenting us with the “libertarian case” for anything from a swollen welfare apparatus to mandatory sex-reassignment surgery. There are a few basic theses in this article, for instance, that the EU is not a regulatory monster and that all the all other EU member states are economically freer than Britain (an assertion that not even his own citation really backs up).  One point I would like to extract from Levy’s article and complain about in length, though, is his idea of secession. Namely, Levy claims that secession obviously cannot be a libertarian position, because, uh, like, what if the new country isn’t as libertarian as the parent nation, dude? From the article:

“There’s no reason for us to start with some enthusiastic assumption that secession is always better and that more-local, more-homogenous levels of government are friendlier to freedom than larger and more pluralistic ones. Nor is there any reason to assume that removing a level of government just makes its whole system of regulation stably disappear; we need to think about what’s likely to replace those regulations at the nation-state level.”



The Great Divide—and Secession? Reply

By Kirkpatrick Sale

Of all the phenomena the 2016 election year has demonstrated, none is greater than the proof that this nation is deeply and probably irretrievably split into two political camps with very, very little in common.  It is more than blue states and red states, it goes deeper: it is truth, jobs, security, and intelligence on one side and lies, coddling rich, porous borders, and stupidity on the other.  And vice versa.

Perhaps the greatest evidence of this rift at this moment is to be found in Texas.   A Public Policy Polling survey on August 16 found that 61 per cent of the people who support Trump there have vowed that if Hillary Clinton is elected president they will push for Texas to secede from the union.  Nothing less: secession.

And the interesting thing is that Texans have been thinking about secession for a number of years recently, and a Reuters poll in 2014 found that 36 per cent of the population would be for secession and another 18 percent were not sure, making the anti-secession crowd a minority of 46 per cent.  And if anti-Clinton sentiment is real, her victory in November would likely solidify the secession movement further.


American Secessionists Dream of Declaring Independence Reply

By Clare Foran

The Atlantic

Secessionists across the United States are taking heart. The United Kingdom’s historic vote to leave the European Union last month has sparked interest in the far-fetched idea that U.S. states might win independence from Washington, D.C. Separatist groups are especially optimistic that Americans will be open to the idea of secession amid a presidential election that has witnessed a groundswell of populist discontent.

“Momentum is on our side,” Daniel Miller, the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, an organization that describes its mission as the political, cultural, and economic independence of Texas, said in an interview. “The Brexit vote has shown not only that  the people of Texas should become an independent nation, but that it is 100 percent possible.” Following the U.K. referendum, the group put out a call for Texas Governor Greg Abbott to support a “Texit vote.”

The improbable dream of secession is alive and well across the country and across the political spectrum. In the wake of the Brexit referendum, calls for secession everywhere from Alaska to New Hampshire have cropped up on social media. On top of that, U.S. secessionists report a flood of inquiries from people interested in supporting a separatist cause.

Louis Marinelli, the president of Yes California Independence Campaign, says his group, which wants to establish an independent Republic of California, saw a three-fold increase in supporters and volunteers since the Brexit referendum.  Marinelli, who founded the group after he got fed up with Congress’s failure to pass immigration reform, doesn’t love the fact that people always seem to bring up the Civil War when he starts advocating secession. He believes the U.K. referendum makes for a promising counter-example. “It will be a good thing for the cause of self-determination in America to be able to point to a peaceful and legal secession,” Marinelli said.

There are limits to any comparison between the U.S. and the U.K. Still, the decision U.K. voters made to split from the E.U. is unprecedented, and certainly stands as a challenge to the political status quo. That alone is enough to encourage U.S. secessionists, however unlikely their aspirations. American secessionists cheered the prospect that Scotland might break away from the U.K. when it held an independence referendum in 2014, but that didn’t succeed—Brexit did.


Is the realignment happening already? (UK) Reply

Is the realignment happening already?
By Keir Martland
(26th June 2016)

At about midnight, the globalists in the Parliamentary Labour Party began their coup. Blairite Hilary Benn told socialist anti-interventionist Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn that he had no confidence in his leadership and the latter had no option but to give him the sack. Today we have seen a string of resignations, with half the Shadow Cabinet allegedly ready to resign to remove Corbyn. At the moment, Corbyn seems ready to put his own name forward to fight off the leadership challenge, but this may change if it becomes apparent that he doesn’t have the confidence of his Parliamentary Party. You do need the support of your MPs if you are to lead your Party.

The challenge to Corbyn is very interesting. What may be happening is a long overdue realignment in British politics. Of course, all of this is taking place following a vote from the British people to leave the European Union, and following Jeremy Corbyn’s own insistence that this vote should be respected. Since roughly 90 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party are determined to keep Britain in the European Union, this cannot have been taken well by people like Hilary Benn.  More…

Meanwhile in the Lone Star state, a secessionist #Texit campaign gains steam after the #Brexit vote Reply

By Jen Hayden

Daily Kos

El Paso, UNITED STATES:  A sign welcoming residents of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico into El Paso, Texas is posted near the bridge that separates both cities 15 April 2006. Hundred of businesses have developed in El Paso  as Mexican residents that live in Ciudad Juarez cross the border to get appliances, clothing and other supplies.  AFP PHOTO / HECTOR MATA  (Photo credit should read HECTOR MATA/AFP/Getty Images)

Are y’all sitting down? The Texas Nationalist Movement says they are flying high after the vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. From Daniel Miller, the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement:

From the looks of it, the British people have chosen to take control of their political and economic destiny. The forces of fear have lost. It is now important for Texas to look to #‎Brexit as an inspiration and an example that Texans can also take control of our destiny. It is time for Texans to rally with us and fight for the right to become a self-governing nation.

They went all in on a fancy logo and hashtag:

Texit logo

Bless their hearts

It appears the movement has gained a little momentum in recent days. From Vocativ:

Vocativ analyzed use of the phrase “Texit” since the beginning of 2016, finding that use of the phrase exploded when the Brexit results were announced on Friday, June 24. As of publication, more than 5,800 people on Twitter used the phrase, a five-fold increase from the day before. 1,745 people tweeted about Texit between 7:00 and 8:00 AM London time, the hour when the final results were announced, with more than 3,000 Texit tweets posted in the hours since.

And Texas isn’t the exclusive home of secessionists:


Remain: The Left Has Lined Up with the Establishment Reply

By Tom Slater

Spiked Online

“Brexit is a fake revolt’, writes Paul Mason in the Guardian this week: ‘Working-class culture is being hijacked to help the elite.’ A withering article in Vice agrees. ‘Brexit is the upper classes in revolt’, writes Sam Kriss. ‘They see an undemocratic and unaccountable EU elite ruling by diktat and an unfounded sense of their own superiority, and they think: hey, that’s our job.’ Among nominally metropolitan, left-wing Remainers – or, in Mason’s case, Abstainers – this has become the overriding narrative: that Brexit is the establishment.

It’s also utter balls. Let’s run through the list of those who back Remain: there’s the prime minister; all the major political parties; every major world leader; the IMF; the Bank of England… Oh and, after this morning, we can add to that the entire British capitalist class. In a letter in The Times, 1,700 of the UK’s leading business leaders back Remain, and prominent among them are the CEOs of JP Morgan, HSBC and Goldman Sachs. You know, those fatcat bankers we hear so much about.


If We Are Going to Take Down the Establishment: Progressives, Libertarians, Anarchists, and Non-Voters Need to Unite 3

It looks like ATS ideas are becoming increasingly closer to the mainstream. I am seeing more and more writing like this all the time.

By Tim Bryant

The Last American Vagabond

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars

Anyone paying even the slightest attention to the 2016 Presidential Election can see that this election cycle has been marred and corrupted up on a variety of fronts. On one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, a notorious insider and lifelong crook that is currently under criminal investigation by the FBI, and on the other hand you have Donald Trump, a reality TV character that says whatever’s on his mind, making it hard to pinpoint any real fundamentals to his policies, as well as creating polarizing political theatre for the public to eat up. These are the choices we’re given; you really can’t make this stuff up.

For those who have been awake for years, the ridiculousness of this year’s election is not all that shocking, as it has been on display for decades for those who cared to look behind the scenes. However, for a large majority of the population, this year’s election seems to be a major catalyst in waking them up to the obvious illusion that the United States of America is still a free and democratic society, the two supposed cornerstones of the “greatest country in the world.”


Brexit as a Means to True Secession Reply

By Chris Shaw

I’ve made it clear that I don’t see the EU referendum as particularly important. The major economic questions surrounding the modern world, from banking fragility and capital creation, to huge levels of private and sovereign debt and politico-economic centralisation are not remotely addressed within this debate, except maybe on the peripheries. If we leave, economic and political power will simply be moved from unaccountable elites in Brussels to those in Westminster and its parasitical institutions. Democracy is not important in this debate as some have emphasised, as realistically the kind of representative democracy we have has led to many of the ridiculous problems the UK faces today, from failing social systems to a debt-led economy. Representative democracy relies on mass ignorance and the ability to debate non-issues among non-representative parties.

The only important area this debate touches on is the concept of secession. By voting to leave, we are hopefully seceding from the EU. This is more hopeful when the powers that be (Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, etc.) have proposed leaving the Single Market, thus actually decreasing our involvement in the EU instead of simply renegotiating it through EFTA or the EEA. Such proposals are potentially important and even radical, particularly when put in the frame of a “people’s choice” which is currently defining this referendum. This reinterprets what were meant to be the realities of the referendum (that of a debate about how good or bad the EU has supposedly been), and has instead reoriented it toward questions of what constitutes nationality and the character and ownership of a nation.

By doing this, questions of power and where it is held are raised. With this comes the potential for a wider debate over the whole concept of how we shape our polities and economies. Fundamentally, a discussion of this sort allows for a move away from the corporatised economies and centralised governance structures which cast the current paradigm.


Is Revolution Brewing? Reply

By William S. Lind

Traditional Right

Virtually all the reporting about this fall’s presidential election focuses on the candidates and the question of who is going to win nomination and election. That is to be expected. But it misses what really matters.

The likelihood that either the nominating contests or the election itself will bring change is small. The machinations of the bosses in both political parties to keep the anti-Establishment candidates from being nominated (Trump in the Republican Party and Sanders in the Democratic) become increasingly open. They are likely to succeed in both cases. In the improbable case that one party nominates its anti-Establishment contender, the entire Establishment will come together to demonize him, frightening the public into voting for more of the same. The model will be Lyndon Johnson’s campaign against Barry Goldwater in 1964. Presumably we will see television ads showing little girls picking flowers snatched away to be white slaves in the harem of either a plutocrat or a socialist.

Should a miracle happen and both Trump and Sanders be nominated, the Establishment would be undone. I would cheer madly, but I would also expect to see the Virgin Mary hovering over the White House.

In fact, the contests don’t much matter. What really matters has already happened and the Establishment cannot undo it. In both parties, the peasants have revolted.



Former Pat Buchanan Adviser Prepares Third Party Vessel For Donald Trump Reply

Meanwhile, the neocons are planning a third party strategy of their own.

If either of these two third party schemes were to become a permanent reality, it would essentially render the Red Tribe incapable of gaining a national electoral majority, which would ensure permanent Blue Tribe dominance. However, the Blue Tribe would increasingly be faced with dissension, division, and insurgency within its own ranks. The goal of the Grey Tribe should then be to build a critical mass using the libertarian-populist tripartite strategy that ATS has formulated. The goal is to grow all anti-state and anti-stystem movements everywhere, along with the overarching strategic concept of pan-secessionism, until they collectively become the majority and a consensus develops for pan-decentralization.

By Alex Pfeiffer

Daily Caller

A former Pat Buchanan adviser has launched a petition that threatens to launch a new political movement if the Republican Party fails to nominate Donald Trump.


DumpDC Is Endorsing Hillary Clinton For President 1

By Russell D. Longcore

Yep. You read it right. DumpDC is endorsing Hillary for President.

Our Next President?

Our Next President?

Now, let me lay out my argument so you can see the genius of this position.

Remember that the overarching reason for the existence of DumpDC is to promote state secession from the United States of America. So if you are reading this article, expecting me to promote the health and wellness of the USA, stop reading right now. You will not find that here.

The accepted premise for the every-four-year presidential dance is to find the best person to be President. Isn’t it? But out of 320 million people, there are usually only about 20 or less that take it seriously enough to commit to becoming a potential candidate. Most assuredly, these candidates cannot be the best the nation has to offer.

Are these few people TRULY the best, most qualified candidates to become President of the United States? How do Americans determine who is best? How does each political party determine who is best?

There seems to be a separation here between perception and reality. Most VOTERS think that the President is the leader of the entire Washington government, the embodiment of the Executive branch of the Constitutional government, the leader of the political party from which he/she springs, and the leader of the nation. And who would be the best person to occupy this Oval Office chair? Wouldn’t it be the person who sticks most closely to the Constitution, our founding document?

Let’s not bullshit each other here. Let’s acknowledge the reality of how DC works. The elected officeholders in Congress and in the White House all take an oath of office in which they swear to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Then they spend most of their time violating that Constitution.

They vote to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually that are authorized nowhere in the Constitution. They enact unconstitutional laws. They created gigantic bureaucracies that over time have mushroomed into the liberty-stealing, money-wasting, entitlement-growing leviathans we have all come to despise.


Questions About Gun Control After UCC Shooting 1

A gunman killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg Oregon before being killed by responding sheriff deputies. This is a sad, horrific incident, and my heart goes out to the families of the deceased.

President Obama was quick to say that “This is something that should be politicized” in reference to stricter gun control laws and has even gone on to cite Australia’s outright ban on guns and subsequent confiscation as an example of what might be done here in the US. Before I can entertain support for such policies, there are a series of issues and questions that I would like to have addressed.

  • Mother Jones cites 572 fatalities in 71 mass shootings from 1982 to July of 2015. Adding UCC that makes 72 mass shootings and 582 fatalities. From 1984 to 2014 there have been 608,478 homicides in the United States. Based on these numbers, mass shootings have accounted for .09% of homicides in the United States. Should we be crafting nationwide policy based on terrifying, spectacular, but extremely rare incidents such as mass shootings?
  • More…

The Kurds’ Democratic Experiment Reply

These are the folks that anarchists should be paying attention to, not “social justice warriors” or American libertarian kooks.

By Carne Ross

New York Times

Across an empty and arid plain, south of a town in eastern Syria called Tell Brak, there is a long berm marking the front line of the war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. A levee of gravel about 20 feet high was raised by excavators operated by men and women who were often killed by distant Islamic State snipers. Every few hundred feet, there is a sentry point or dugout for a platoon of the Kurdish militia known as the People’s Protection Units, or Y.P.G., that holds the position.

Along this stark boundary, the Kurds are there not only to fight against the Islamic State, but also to defend a precious experiment in direct democracy. In Rojava, the Kurdish name for this region of eastern Syria, a new form of self-government is being built from the ground up.

After the authority of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad collapsed at the start of the Syrian revolution in 2011, the Kurds took advantage of the vacuum to set up government without a state. There is no top-down authority, even within the military. One Y.P.G. commander gently corrected me when I addressed him as “general.”


The Road to Panarchy: An Interview with Joe Kopsick Reply

The Agrarian Aquarian

Interview questions asked by Wayne Sturgeon, February 3rd, 2015
Responses by Joe Kopsick, April 4th to 9th, and mid-September to September 21st, 2015
The Road to Panarchy: An Interview with Joe Kopsick
Sovereignty Without Territory
Government Without Monopoly
Emigration Without Movement
Please could you introduce yourself and how you came to promote and understand Panarchism?
I was born in 1987 in Lake Forest, Illinois to an attorney and a homemaker. I grew up in Lake Bluff, Illinois, attended Lake Forest High School, and from 2005 to 2009 I attended the University of Wisconsin at Madison and achieved a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Political Science. After moving around for a few years, I settled on Portland, Oregon for a year and a half, in February 2015 I moved back to Lake Bluff, and in September 2015 I moved to Orlando, Florida.
While in college, my areas of study included American government, Israeli government, classical and radical political theory cartography, and shamanism. My hobbies include playing guitar and piano; recording music and making mash-ups; writing songs, poetry, and rap; and visual art (including graphic design, acrylic painting, and glass and Lego mosaics).
A Democrat until the age of 13, I became interested in Ralph Nader and the Green Party during the 2000 presidential race. It was at this time that I became very interested in political statistics, the electoral college, and various political issues; and during that election I constructed my first political ideological survey. I supported John Kerry in 2004 but remained a Green at heart. In 2007, while still in college, I watched the presidential debates and discovered Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul.
Following Ron Paul’s suggestions, I studied the work of Lysander Spooner, expanded my research into libertarianism and constitutional law, both at college and in my spare time. In 2010 I settled on Agorism, studying the works of Agorists Samuel E. Konkin, J. Neil Schulman, and Wally Conger, and other free-market theorists such as C. Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert P. Murphy.
Having studied some Karl Marx, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Gustave de Molinari, and Max Stirner in a radical political theory class in college, my attraction to Panarchism (and Polyarchism) developed out of a desire to reconcile free markets with fair markets, find a truly voluntary socialism or communism, and reconcile non-territorial expressions of market-based political theories (namely, Agorism and voluntaryism) with non-territorial expressions of Marxism (namely, the National Personal Sovereignty of Austromarxist Otto Bauer) and non-Statist expressions of collectivism (such as consensus-based and unanimous democracy).
But this was as far as I could get by myself. The work of John Zube and Will Schnack have been very helpful. I don’t know where I would be without John Zube’s astute cataloguing of anarchist thought and his consistent voluntaryist approach to political and social problems. Neither would I – not a student of economics, mind you – know where I would be, without Texas anarchist Will Schnack’s application of economics to anarchist theory, most notably in his formulation of “Geo-Mutualist Panarchism”, which is a union of the theories of geoist Henry George, mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and panarchist Paul Emile de Puydt. I believe that Will Schnack’s ideas are a “great leap forward” for anarchist political and economic thought, as they make possible the application of real mathematics and science to what is otherwise a disorganized, biased, and maligned stream of thought; that of anarchist and radical political theory.
              Could you please define Panarchism?
          Panarchism refers to a state of being in which all people are leaders, or at least potentially so. Panarchism does not mean that all people are leaders, nor does it mean that everyone must follow some leader (even one they choose), nor does it mean that rules or rulers are supreme or sovereign.
In a Panarchist society, each person would be free to follow the path which their own free will and desires have laid down as the course for the rest of their life, provided of course that their attempts to achieve their wishes do not infringe on the life, liberty, and personal (i.e., bodily) autonomy of others.

“Restoring America”: A New Book Calls for Radical Decentralization of the United States Reply


Dr. Michael Hart  is the author of the article How Peter Brimelow Caused Me To Rethink Immigration on, and his books Understanding Human History and The Newton Awards: A History of Genius in Science and Technology  have been reviewed here and here.(He’s also spoken at the American Renaissance convention, which is where the photo above comes from.)

Now he’s got a new book, published by called Restoring America. Here’s Restoring America is about:

Secession? Peaceful secession? Why would patriotic American want to do that? How, in any case, is it possible? Michael Hart lays out the answers in clear expository prose, pinned to reality at every point by historical precedent and scientific fact. The heart of his argument is a separation of the U.S.A., at county, not state, level into a rump “blue” nation purusing current federal policies and a new “red” American Federal Republic (A/F.R.)–‘a constitutional republic, with civil liberties fully protected.’ The A.F.R. will begin with a new Declaration–Dr. Hart provides a full text–followed by a new Constitution containing clauses to prevent the evils that today threaten our liberties.

Thoughts on Electoral Politics, Reform and Revolution Reply

These were some thoughts I originally posted during a social media discussion on the current Presidential candidates.

I lean towards the view that U.S. Presidents are similar to corporate CEOs in the sense that, yes, they have their own objectives and interests, BUT their primary job is to serve as chief executive for the Power Elite (see C. Wright Mills and William Domhoff) just like a CEO is the front man for the Board of Directors and major shareholders. The President’s task is to implement whatever policies reflect the general consensus of Power Elite opinion. For instance, I think the major banksters poured money into getting Obama elected initially because the Republicans had become such an ineffective embarrassment. A president who defies Power Elite opinion to too great a degree will be severely undermined if not destroyed (see Salvador Allende). In other words, it doesn’t matter that much who the actual man is, he can’t really act outside the context of ruling class consensus in any particularly significant way.

The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is the ruling class factions they represent. The Repugnicans tend to represent the right-wing of the ruling class, e.g. old monied WASP elites and the Sunbelt insurgents that emerged following WW2 in the South and Southwest (Texas oil, for example) plus the neocons (right-wing of the Jewish elite, which is about 30% of the plutocracy). The Democraps tend to represent newer more high-tech industries (Silicon Valley and Hollywood, for example), elites among traditional minority groups, urban cosmopolitan technocrats, what Orwell called the “New Class,” etc.

I don’t think there’s any hope for a third party to actually win the presidency. Presidential elections are cost prohibitive to third parties. The media would vilify any competitive third party candidate and ballot access laws are highly restrictive as well. The exception might be a mega-billionaire who buys their way in like Ross Perot.

Trump is only worth about $4 billion. To run a credible, successful campaign, he’d need to spend $1 billion. I doubt he has that much liquidity, or that he’s be willing to spend it if he did. When Perot ran for Prez in ’92 it cost about $100 million to run a credible campaign. That’s increased about 10 tens since then, making a self-funded campaign cost prohibitive to everyone except Bill Gates, George Soros, or Warren Buffet. For Trump to be a successful candidate, he’d need real backers. Plus, the media would be overwhelmingly opposed to him, which he would have to spend extra to counter.

The main reason to prefer Democrats over the Republicans is that the neocons are not as deeply embedded in the Democratic apparatus, although that could change as many of them seem rather sympathetic to Hillary, and she’s not above doing their bidding.…/5460484

I think Webb, Sanders, and Chafee are all superior to Hillary, though it would be an uphill battle for any of them. The Republicans are a collection of freaks and sociopaths. Ironically, Trump is their best candidate because he’s the least in bed with the neocons as his comments about McCain and Krauthammer indicate.

The Holy Grail in this is to figure out how to break the power of the banks and the military-industrial complex. One way might be a Gorbachev-like situation where an reformist head of state sets a process in motion that inadvertently has the effect of unraveling the system. Another might be a Ba’athist or Chavez style coup by reform oriented military officers. Another might be secession by regions and localities similar to the secession by the Soviet republics towards the end of the USSR (or some combination of all of these).

If electoral politics is to be the answer, I think the way to do it would be for a populist mass revolutionary movement to work to obtain dominance in the majority of state and local governments, while bypassing the federal system, and then withdrawing from the federal system altogether, thereby engineering a Soviet-like collapse. From there the next step would be to initiate an Iceland-style crackdown on the banksters, and withdrawal of foreign troops to local military bases. For this to happen, the military would have to either come over to the side of the revolutionaries or merely dissolve by means of internal fracturing. Meanwhile, the System would fight tooth and nail to survive, of course, either by attempting a coup of their own, attempting to pacify or buy off the radicals with a carrot rather than a stick, or attempting to play off different groups against one another in a divide and conquer strategy. There would need to be some contingency plans for resisting all of this, and there would need to be a pre-existing alternative infrastructure in place to fill the power vacuum when the system collapsed. Needless to say, there is currently no movement or group in the US that would be capable of doing any of this.

I can just imagine Americans trying to pull off something comparable to what is presently going on in Rojava. What a basket case that would be.”