Letter to the American Left: Antifa is Not Your Friend Reply

By Nicholas Goroff

Occupy.Com

Though to many they may seem to be revolutionaries, primed to take the fight against whatever variety of perceived fascism, the self-proclaimed anti-fascists of “Antifa” are a millstone around the neck of the political left and possibly a greater danger to progressive and liberal values than even Donald Trump himself.

The Importance of Mutuality in the Realm of Tradition 1

By Chris Shaw

Image result for pan anarchism

Tradition is the conception of a solid society of recognised rules and customs with distributed classes of people. Generally seen as the lower and higher orders, society actually has much more complex relations of heredity and hierarchy, which take on different realms and situations. While tradition is certainly seen as the maintenance of certain orders, even in authoritarian circumstances, the reality is that forms of paternalism and natural order require acceptance by said lower orders, who are in fact important blocs of power that do not necessarily find themselves within authoritarian, top-down enforced relations but rather in localised variations of political dispute and argumentation, that can lead to forms of retribution (both violent and non-violent) to maintain mutualities. These mutualities are the real acceptance of such relations which form the backbone of actual tradition. Hierarchies are variable and can be open to acceptance, in the same way forms of property system are open to challenge instead of reliant on pure acceptance[1]. They require voluntary agreement in the realm of the social, otherwise such relations do take on an authoritarian character.

This distinction can be seen in the Hoppean conception of the origin of the state as taking on the natural orders of society by creating vested interests out of powerful families[2], and with it monopolising violence and giving itself the capacity to quell dissent. In many cases, the imposition of hierarchies and forms of society were accomplished via the state, which elevated certain forms of power over others. In the feudal era, this was much easier due to lack of education of the ‘lower orders’ and the ability to raise armies. While the peasant and working classes could create dissent, their need to take care of families and feed themselves limited their ability to maintain protracted warfare, thus allowing professional armies under the state to naturally win out in the end. Whether it be the workers rising in Ghent, or Kett’s Rebellion in 1549, both relied on maintained working class support which waned when food was scarce and lives did not return to normal. This then shows the power of tradition. Tradition is the capacity to live a normal life, whatever it may be. When rebellion does occur, its power wanes when it cannot develop tradition but only rely on radicalism, which while important, is short-lived. Of course this changes without a distinct monopolist of violence which can control routes of power[3]. Thus in framing this essay, I am taking an anarchist understanding of how such systems work without a state.

More…

Unraveling Classical Political Theory: The Roots of the Left, Part I: Classical Liberalism and Progressivism Reply

The Last Vagabond

In episode 6, Keith and Tim discuss classical liberalism and reform liberalism (often considered progressivism today), which is a philosophy that came out of the enlightenment that held the idea that citizens have inalienable rights against established systems of power, like the monarchy or the state. In fact, the American Revolution was one of the first classic liberal movements and most of the founding documents, on which the United States of America is based, such as the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, are a direct embodiment of the core principles presented in the ideology of classical liberalism.

Unfortunately today, many people, especially on the right of the political spectrum, hear the word liberalism and immediately get negative connotations in their mind when it comes to the meaning of the word, even though the slogan of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is rooted in classical liberalism. The misunderstanding derives from how classical liberalism split off in many directions, such as those in favor of a more negative approach when it comes to freedom (libertarians) and those with a more positive approach when it comes to freedom (reform liberalism/progressives). Over time, reform liberalism came to define the left, such as with past policies like the New Deal and new movements like those who follow Bernie Sanders.

Robert Stark talks to Giovanni Dannato about Solutions to Social Problems Reply

Stark Truth Radio. Listen here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Stark and co-host Pilleater talk to Giovanni Donnato. Giovanni blogs at Colony of Commodus and is the author of A Kingdom For the Introvert. Follow Giovanni on Twitter.

Topics:

What Might A Post-Western Aesthetic Look Like?
Paolo Soleri’s Arcosanti, the concept of arcology, and self contained cities
David Lynch’s Film Dune and the Game Riven
Sci-Fi Inspired By WW1: Future Best Shown Through The Past
How Singapore Went From A Fishing Village With Slums Full OF Shacks To A Thriving City-State With Skyscrapers
Singapore’s founder LEE KUAN YEW
The Human Life Bubble
The Backwardness of Consumerism and Consumer Capitalism
The 60s Revolutionary Order Has Fallen: Now What?
No Going Back to the 1950s – And What Lies Ahead
New Balance Hysteria Shows Us Meaning Beyond Markets
President Trump’s First Baby Steps (And the Big Picture)
How To Turn The Educated Against Political Correctness
Internet Benefits People Asymmetrically
Millennials as a lost generation, and why Giovanni is more optimistic about Generation Z
Discrimination and Why Nepotism Is Necessary
The need for Smart Socialism
Mercantile Diasporas
Neo-Tribalism
The Future of Alt-Right Populism
How the Alt-Right is limited mainly to the white working class and how a larger populist movement could attract progressive voters who have been neglected by the democrat coalition
What Giovanni Believes

Is Anarchism Worth It? 3

By Chris Shaw

Image result for types of anarchism

This question comes as a result of the lack of cohesiveness amongst the adherents of anarchism. Anarchists, while professing a common universality of values and beliefs, act as roving tribes when it comes to meetings between their different ideological sects. None seem to coalesce around any unifying concept, with each trying to outdo the other in how left-wing, anti-racist or intersectional they are. That’s all well and good for debate stages and internet forums, but it hardly builds a movement that can be politically and socially strong and that can challenge prevailing power structures. It leads to the question of whether anarchism, as the according ideology to so many beliefs, is really worth the time, the activism, the commitment that it is given.

More…

Chase Rachels & Derrick Broze Debate “Libertarian-Right” Alliance Reply

On March 8, 2017, authors and activists Derrick Broze and Chase Rachels debated the proposition of a call for a “libertarian-right alliance.”

—————————————————–

This is a great discussion. Both of these guys are very knowledgeable and articulate.

I find it very regrettable that so much of the anarchist and libertarian milieus have been sucked into this standard Red/Blue, Left/Right, Alt-Right/Alt-Lite/Antifa/SJW conflict, instead of carving out an independent position that attempts to rise above all of that. Many years ago I noticed for example that most hyphenated anarchists are more interested in the hyphens than the anarchism part (e.g. an-coms are communists first, an-caps are capitalists first, an-nats are nationalists first, an-fems are feminists first) and it seems to be even more that way today that it was in the past. There are exceptions like Black Flag Coalition, but otherwise libertarianism and anarchism just seem to be a microcosm of the conflicts that are present in the wider society.

While I am not an orthodox libertarian or a right-winger per se, I am interested in building a society-wide consensus against the state and in favor of pan-decentralization. My personal position on these questions is and always has been that enemies of the state should form coalitions and alliances around anti-state issues to the degree that these are feasible. This could include grand alliances centered around strategic concepts like pan-secession, general strikes, countereconomics, reformist action, civil disobedience, tax strikes, alternative infrastructure defense militias, and other activities. It could also include coalitions around single-issues (of which there are many). I also think the best standard for determining who should be excluded from tactical alliances and activist coalitions should be the necessity of excluding anyone that is militarily capable of imposing a worse system than the one we have now (i.e. overtly fascist, Islamist or communist groups capable of seizing control of the state). Over the years, I’ve worked with everyone from Alt-Rightists to Communists with varying degrees of success.

For many years I favored a kind of pan-anarchist, pan-libertarian solidarity against the state that was over and above these other things. But that doesn’t seem to be feasible. At present, I tend to more oriented towards expanding the anarchist and libertarian presence in as many different milieus as possible even when these are totally opposed to each other, e.g. more anarchist and libertarian alt-rightists, more anarchos among the SJWs and Antifa, a larger anarchist presence in both far left and far right organizations, more libertarians in mainstream groups, etc.

I don’t know that Derrick’s views and Chase’s views are entirely mutually exclusive. It’s more a case of focus and emphasis. Derrick’s approach would probably be more preferable for anti-statists with generally left-wing or center-left views on cultural questions, and Chase’s approach is probably more appropriate for those with rightward-leaning views.

Idaho Democrat Leader Brain Malfunction: “We Can’t Say Gold Is Going to Protect Us from Inflation When [It has Risen from] $27 an Ounce to $1,218 an Ounce” Reply

By: Jp Cortez

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the idea that low-ability people tend to suffer from illusory superiority. The phenomenon, first studied by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, says that people who know the least tend to overvalue their own competence, and tend to believe that they are experiencing some sort of upper-echelon level of thinking.

While the original study was conducted in 1999, we witnessed what appeared to be the Dunning-Kruger effect in action this past Tuesday on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives.

And while it’s only March, but we also have identified the front-runner for our “Aurophobe of the Year” award.  (Aurophobia is the irrational fear of gold.)

During the March 14th floor debate on Idaho’s House Bill 206, a measure that promotes sound money by removing Idaho income taxation from precious metals, Democrat Representative Mat Erpelding — the House Minority Leader — couldn’t help himself and had to share his two cents, even after asserting that he had no opinion on the bill (but then voted against it).

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have an opinion on this bill. However, I do have an opinion on facts. Facts are somewhat important,” Representative Erpelding said with an air of superiority.  “If we say that gold is going to protect us from inflation, I want to point out that in 1868, gold was $27 an ounce, and today gold is $1,218 an ounce. So, we can’t say that gold is going to protect us from inflation when you have that type of a price range over the last hundred years. So, I just want to point out that facts are important.”

Huh? The purchasing power of the dollar versus gold has fallen nearly 98% and gold therefore offers no protection against inflation?

Despite Minority Leader Erpelding’s objection, House Bill 206 overwhelmingly passed in the House 56-13. Next, sound money supporters hope to receive a hearing and a vote in the Idaho Senate.

Watch the video here.

 

Unraveling Political Theory: What is the Alt-Right? Reply

The Last American Vagabond

In part 5, Keith and Tim take a look at the recently popularized term “alt-right,” which, to those who have done any type of research, is a complex term that means many things to many different people. If one was to simply do a surface level inspection of the alt-right through an examination of mainstream media’s critique on the term, it would appear that the alt-right is nothing more than ideology based on white supremacy and an outgrowth of the neo-nazi movement. However, upon further examination of the topic, it appears that this explanation is far too simplistic and inherently incorrect when it comes to encompassing the broad meaning of the term “alt-right.”

However, some racist movements have indeed chosen to fly under the banner of the alt right, but the truth is that the alt-right has its roots in paleo-conservatism, which was a reactionary movement against the neo-cons who took control of the Republican Party. This outgrowth went on to evolve and include the reactionary movement against cultural Marxism, which is a term used to refer to political correctness. This subculture that has become much more recognizable as a result of the 2016 presidential election has gone on to become quite a force, in large part because of its mastery of the Internet, such as through memes (Kek), forums (Pol), and social media infiltration at large.

One doesn’t have to label themselves alt-right to see that some issues brought up within this sub-culture are legitimate issues that need to be discussed, such as immigration, national sovereignty, and forced multi-culturalism. However, anyone who does label themselves as alt-right should also understand that having an ideology based on preservation of the white culture is undoubtedly not going to appeal to the wider diversity within the nation, and in many ways is going to hinder them from building bridges with other movements. It’s okay to have white identity politics, just like blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have their own identity groups; but in terms of building a united front with other groups against the establishment, it could be quite difficult.

READ MORE

States Consider Removing Income and Sales Taxes from the Monetary Metals Reply

Listen to the Podcast Audio: Click Here

Precious metals markets can certainly be volatile from week to week, but over time they are a more reliable store of value than Federal Reserve Notes. Gold and silver remain the world’s most enduring and most widely recognized form of money. And, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, gold and silver coins are legal tender. Individual states thus can formally recognize gold and silver coins as legal tender alternatives to Federal Reserve Note dollars.

Both Utah and Oklahoma have passed legal tender laws in recent years recognizing gold and silver as money. The metals can be used freely as a means of payment and are free from all state taxes. More than 20 states have already removed sales taxes from precious metals transactions, with Alabama, Tennessee, and Maine now considering their own proposals to do so as well.

Other states, including Arizona and Idaho, are moving forward on legislation to exempt gold and silver bullion from capital gains taxes. Since Money Metals Exchange is located in Idaho, we would be particularly excited to see it become a haven for sound money.

Last Thursday a bill to eliminate capital gains taxes on precious metals passed the Idaho House Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Money Metals President Stefan Gleason testified before the Committee. Here is some of what he had to say:

More…

The PC Left’s Pathologizing of dissent Reply

By Aleksey Bashtavenko  of Academic Composition

Back in 2007, I was very much a young man, as I had only existed for two decades.

I knew next to nothing about politics or how the real world worked, but I was quite disturbed by the jingoist propaganda that the Bush administration spouted. From start to finish, that bore a lurid semblance to the political events that shaped my consciousness, where I couldn’t walk down the street for a half a mile without stumbling upon some sort of a monument commemorating the fallen heroes of World War II. With a sense of dread, I still recall how my first grade teacher took a classmate to task for failing to do his homework, insisting that had this been the “patriotic war”, the Nazis would have slaughtered him a long time ago. A year or so later, I recall how that same classmate was fortunate enough to enter a foreign exchange student program that took him to the U.S for a year. Upon returning to Russia, he walked in a more upright posture, made eye contact and didn’t feel in the slightest bit intimidated by his teachers. Needless to say, they hated him even more for it, as there was an air of dignity about him that the Russian politico-economic system was designed to suppress on every level.

About 15 years earlier, the USSR lost their “people’s artist”, Vladimir Vysotsky.

In the 1970s, he arrived in Hollywood to deliver a performance. Without comprehending a single word, the listeners could not help but sense the spell-binding mystique he exuded with every utterance. In his inimitable, deep and raspy voice, Vysotsky became a legend ridiculing the commissars, the absurdity of life under socialism and gross corruption of the system.

When Spassky lost his crown to Fischer, Vysotsky released a song lampooning the communist party leader who threatened to “physically crush Fischer, be it by checkmate or not”. In a similar vein, his song on clowns with down-syndrome was an obvious caricature of Brezhnev, the senile Soviet premier who presided over the infamous “era of stagnation” that is now well known to be the leading cause of the collapse of the USSR. His other less well-known performance aptly titled as “the hunt on wolves” satirized the KGBs relentless persecution of political dissidents.

More…

The Democratic Party seems to have no earthly idea why it is so damn unpopular Reply

Right now is an ideal time for the promotion and cultivation of ATS ideas. Thanks to the bizarre nature of the US electoral system, a perceived “fascist” party is the ruling party, with control over the entire federal government and most of the states, and in opposition to the centrist to center-left cultural and political majority. Meanwhile, the “liberal” opposition party is increasingly being recognized as a band of incompetent crooks even as the wider culture continues to move leftward. The left continues to become more radical, and alienated from the liberal establishment, while the right is moving further rightward after having kicked the neocons and GOP country clubbers to the curb. Probably the ideal future would be for the GOP to maintain control of the state while the culture continues to move leftward and the left becomes more extreme, thereby creating a polarization between the political majority and the state. Hopefully, Trump will be a disappointed to the radical right as well, having the effect of pushing the right in an even more radical direction as well.

By Shaun King

New York Daily News

A troubling new poll was just released showing that the Democratic Party is significantly less popular than both Donald Trump and Mike Pence. My gut tells me that Democrats will ignore this poll, or blame it on bad polling, and continue down the same course they are currently on: being funded by lobbyists and the 1%, straddling the fence or outright ignoring many of most inspirational issues of the time, and blaming Bernie Sanders for why they aren’t in power right now.

As a general rule the Democratic Party doesn’t listen well and struggles to hear the truth about itself.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, Republicans now control the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the overwhelming majority of state legislatures and governorships. This new poll from Suffolk University illustrates just how that’s possible. Here are the base results of the poll with favorable/unfavorable ratings.

READ MORE

Is the Left Moving Towards the ATS Position? 3

My long range vision for ARV-ATS has always been to develop an anarchist-led revolutionary Left that works with the radical Right for the purpose of dismantling the American empire (Rome on the Potomac). Now that Donald Trump has taken the throne as the latest clown-emperor, it would appear that substantial sectors of the Left are starting to realize the merits of the ARV-ATS position. This latest article in The New Republic is one of multiple articles of this kind that has appeared in era of Trump, not to mention the emergence of Calexit. See here, here, here, and here. And influential figures on the radical Right appear to be prepared to embrace the ATS position in at least a moderate form. I was hoping Trump would have this effect on the Left.

By Kevin Baker

The New Republic

Dear Red-State Trump Voter,

Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.

For more than 80 years now, we—the residents of what some people like to call Blue America, but which I prefer to think of as the United States of We Pay Our Own Damn Way—have shelled out far more in federal tax monies than we took in. We have funded massive infrastructure projects in your rural counties, subsidized your schools and your power plants and your nursing homes, sent you entire industries, and simultaneously absorbed the most destitute, unskilled, and oppressed portions of your populations, white and black alike.

All of which, it turns out, only left you more bitter, white, and alt-right than ever.

Some folks here in self-supporting America like to believe that there must be a way to bring you back to your senses and to restore rational government, if not liberal ideals, sometime in the foreseeable future. Everyone seems to have an answer for how to do this. Every day another earnest little homily finds its way to me over my internet transom: “Think locally, act globally,” or “Make art and fight the power,” or the old Joe Hill standby—“Don’t mourn. Organize.”

To which I say: Don’t organize. Pack.

READ MORE

Keith Preston: Trump’s claim that Obama wiretapped his phone is plausible Reply

Press TV. Listen here.

US President Donald Trump’s explosive allegation that then-president Barack Obama wiretapped him during the 2016 election campaign is “plausible” since it has taken place during previous US administrations, an American political analyst in Virginia says.

“It’s entirely credible and entirely possible and believable that the Obama administration, or at least the deep state elements that are part of the national security apparatus like the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, it could be that those organizations, the intelligence services were monitoring Donald Trump throughout the campaign,” said Keith Preston, director of attackthesystem.org.

“No evidence has been presented that that actually happened, but it’s certainly plausible, it’s certainly possible,” Preston told Press TV on Saturday.

“Certainly, there has been examples of that happening previously in American politics,” he added.

On Saturday, Trump accused his predecessor of intercepting his communications at his offices in Trump Tower in New York City before the presidential election last year.

Trump offered no evidence to support his accusations, which were made during a Saturday morning tweet.

“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”

Trump did not provide any information to back up his claim, but went on to say, “I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”

The president has also linked his predecessor to a major scandal, which has engulfed his administration regarding alleged contacts with Russian officials

An Obama spokesman rejected Trump’s claims as “simply false.”.

Experts say electronic surveillance of a US citizen by American intelligence agencies would require a warrant approved by a FISA court judge.  Presidents do not have the authority to order such wiretaps and would not even be aware of them as a routine matter.

If the president were involved in the process, it would be “scandalous and unheard of,” said Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director. Hosko called the allegations “unprecedented“ and “unlikely to have occurred in the very broad way” that Trump described.

Who and What Counts as Anarchism? Reply

From an anarcho-communist Facebook commentator.

WHO AND WHAT COUNTS AS ANARCHISM?

There’s a number of different views on who’s deemed to be a real anarchist and what’s deemed to be legitimate schools of anarchist politics.

Let’s imagine a spectrum of these views, measured in terms of “strictness” of who’s in vs out.

ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE

we have the view that anyone who calls themself an anarchist is one, along with anybody from history who seems vaguely anarchistic. So everybody from voluntaryist capitalists to primitivists to pro-market transhumanist individualists to anarchist communists to national anarchists counts as “in”.

ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE

we have the view that the only legitimate school of anarchism is social anarchism. Meaning anarchist communism (and its descendants), as it existed from its formation within the St. Imier International in the 1870s. Also including the collectivists of Spain, the anarcho-syndicalists, and anarchist social ecologists.

This may seem extreme, after all, wouldn’t this exclude the first person to call themselves an anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and even Mikhail Bakunin?

Yes it would. And supporters of this view cite the fact that while both men used the words anarchist as an adjective, and anarchy as a noun, neither ever used the term anarchism (as an -ism) and probably would’ve been against doing so.

They are therefore seen as foundational to movement anarchism, but not part of it themselves. Much like how Rousseau was foundational to Romanticism, while being dead before it became a current in European thought.

COMPARISONS

To dismiss, at the beginning, the view that absolutely anyone who calls themself an anarchist is an anarchist, I think pretty much the only person who takes this view seriously is Keith Preston and his “pan-secessionism” clique. He proposes that we have privatised cities next to fascist racial separatist nations next to anarcho-communist confederations. Not something that’s going to happen.

But even if you exclude the fascists and the capitalists from anarchism, is there not still tension between those who favour a stateless “free market” (even a socialist one) and those who favour a stateless confederation of free communes?

More…