Friends of Attack-the-System.Com, Sean Gabb and Keir Martland, discuss the pantomime that is the European Union referendum and whether a “Brexit” is really a good idea after all.
Friends of Attack-the-System.Com, Sean Gabb and Keir Martland, discuss the pantomime that is the European Union referendum and whether a “Brexit” is really a good idea after all.
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.
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.
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.
A map of future secessionist enclaves?
View at the New York Times
By Russell D. Longcore
Yep. You read it right. DumpDC is endorsing Hillary for 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.
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.
These are the folks that anarchists should be paying attention to, not “social justice warriors” or American libertarian kooks.
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.”
Dr. Michael Hart is the author of the article How Peter Brimelow Caused Me To Rethink Immigration on VDARE.com, 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.)
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.
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. http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if…/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. https://attackthesystem.com/2015/07/21/anarchy-lives-rojava/”
Getting secessionist measures on state and local ballots would be an excellent activist strategy for adherents of the pan-secessionist tactical position of any ideological stripe.
The race for the presidency in 2016 is already heating up, but one group in the Lone Star State is hoping for a bigger battle on next year’s ballot. The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) is launching a tour of 21 cities across the state over the next month to build support for Texas independence. “This tour is in support of the new initiative we’ve launched to gather enough signatures on a petition so that we can force a referendum on Texas independence onto the Republican primary ballot in 2016,” says TNM President Daniel Miller.
The push for secession in Texas is nothing new, with various groups promoting it over the years and even longtime Congressman and former Presidential candidate Ron Paul speaking out on the subject earlier this year. Miller tells KTRH that the TNM has been around for more than a decade and is seeking to bring the movement to the mainstream. “To place this on a ballot so that people can go to the polls and vote for it, and express their will to the politicians and elected officials here in Texas,” he says.
Miller cites a Reuters survey from last year that showed support for secession nationwide is much higher than many thought. “The breakdowns were about 54% of Republicans, roughly 50% of independents and 35% of Democrats,” he says. “So we know that right now support for Texas independence is higher than it’s ever been, and it just continues to grow.”
As to the question of why should Texas break away from the union, Miller turns it around and asks why not. “Is it the skyrocketing debt, is it the lack of respect for sovereignty, is it the excessive regulations that come out of the federal government?,” he asks. “What exactly is it that’s attractive about staying?”
Caity and Dan shift their gaze towards the Scottish National Party (SNP) and their scary authoritarian policies. We chat about the Named Person legislation and the dangers of the state getting involved in family life, the rise in armed police and stop-and-search powers in Scotland.
We move on to the mainstream media scaring the shit out of people, all the ‘free’ shit that politicians try to peddle, how podcasting is not therapy, the infuriating the vagueness of manifesto pledges and the complete nonsense of having nuclear weapons in Scotland.
Don’t worry, we also mention the sinking ship that is the Scottish Labour party and their negative campaigning tactics (which have left them in the state they now find themselves) plus a look at their ten pledges, cheap boob jobs in Prague and zero hour contracts.
We figure out the best and most artistic way to spoil a ballot paper, how social media desensitises people to government surveillance, getting finger printed at Disney Land, why nothing is free and we finish on the liberating feeling when you realise that all political parties are the same and voting is bullshit.
Download (right click save as)
The New Republic
The electoral map divides the country neatly into blue states and red states. But blue states include vast conservative stretches; and most red states harbor liberal enclaves, too. In recent years, as partisan polarization has grown, some political minorities in these disaffected areas have proposed a radical solution: state partition.
It has happened before. Maine, for instance, was once part of Massachusetts. And while none of the current movements really has a shot, the eleven instances mapped here (including that to grant the District of Columbia statehood) have at least attracted the support of elected officials.
What would happen if all of them succeeded? Each new state would get two senators and its share of electoral college votes. We ran the numbers and recalculated the 2012 presidential race.
In this bizarro United States, the GOP would have a structural advantage in the expanded Senate, and Barack Obama would have had a tighter fight against Mitt Romney in the electoral college (which he won, in reality, 332–206).
The Washington Post
Secessionist movements are all the rage these days. A handful of counties in Colorado tried to secede from the rest of the state earlier this year. There’s an attempt to create the State of Jefferson (northern California/southern Oregon) via ballot initiative in 2014. And there’s plenty more.
What would the U.S. look like if all of the secession movements in U.S. history had succeeded? Well, Mansfield University geography professor Andrew Shears built a map to answer that question. (It covers secession movements through the end of 2011.)
Interesting seeing a headline like this in the voice of the ruling class.
New York Times
Its monthly meetings are called joint sessions of congress. Members have minted their own silver and gold currency and carry ID cards warning police officers they are diplomatic representatives of the nation of Texas. Its vice president, a retired telephone company worker, sent a letter in 2011 to the governor of Oklahoma, informing her that she faced indictment because her state’s counties and territories were “trespassing inside the geographical boundaries” of the nation.
Video from the Mises Institute’s recent conference on secession.
Some thoughts I originally posted in an online discussion concerning the various libertarian by-ways”
There’s a big rivalry right now between the paleolibertarians, left-libertarians and “mainstream” LP/Cato/Reason type libertarians.
The paleos and the leftists view the latter tendencies as establishment brown-nosers, and the mainstreamers view the radicals as utopians, sectarians, or tin foil hatters. The mainstreamers and the paleos views the leftists as communists, and mainstreamers and the leftists view the paleos as fascists.
The way the dynamics of opposition movements always play out is that they tend to split off into reformist and revolutionary camps, and socially conservative and libertine/bohemian/countercultural camps. The historic socialist movement was the same way. More…
By Keith Preston
In the essay, “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America,” written in 2006, I made the following observation:
Ultimately, we may at some point be able to combine the Green, Libertarian, Populist, Constitution, Natural Law and other minor parties into a single party,… I would suggest calling such a party the “Federalist Party” for several reasons. First, there is precedent for this from American history. Second, it accurately describes what the internal structure of the party should be. Third, it provides a model for the general types of institutional arrangements we should seek to develop. Perhaps our party flag could be an anarchist black flag with the snake from the “don’t tread on me” Gadsen battle flag embroidered on it.
In the sparsely populated Karoo desert in the heart of South Africa’s Northern Cape, the spirit of apartheid lives on.
I spent a few days in Orania, a town established in 1991 where no black people live.
I was part of a BBC crew, including Zimbabwean journalist Stanley Kwenda, who were accredited to visit.
And during that time, I did not see any other black people in the town of 1,000 – an unusual experience in modern South Africa.
It is an Afrikaner-only town, where only Afrikaans is spoken, because of fears about “diluting culture”.
“We do not fit in easily in the new South Africa. It [Orania] was an answer to not dominating others and not being dominated by others,” says Carel Boshoff Jr, the community leader.
For a century and a half, the idea of secession has been systematically demonized among the American public. The government schools spin fairy tales about the “indivisible Union” and the wise statesmen who fought to preserve it. Decentralization is portrayed as unsophisticated and backward, while nationalism and centralization are made to seem progressive and inevitable. When a smaller political unit wishes to withdraw from a larger one, its motives must be disreputable and base, while the motivations of the central power seeking to keep that unit in an arrangement it does not want are portrayed as selfless and patriotic, if they are considered at all.