Tonight SnakeIsNinja (the pro-socialist side) will defend the proposition that abolition of Private Property is feasible and explain how it might be achieved, against Mathoma (who argues against socialism) who will contend that it is not feasible or achievable.
Tasnim News Agency
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – An American political analyst described the extremist Wahhabi ideology dominant in Saudi Arabia as a driving force behind the killings of Shiites in the kingdom’s besieged town of Awamiyah in the Qatif region.
“The Wahhabi ideology is very convenient for the Saudis because while the Saudi regime is primarily motivated by geopolitical concerns, and expanding its own political influence in the region, the Wahhabi ideology creates a pretext for these massacres of the Shiite people in Yemen and Qatif,” Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of attackthesystem.com, told the Tasnim news agency.
The Stark Truth. Listen here.
Robert Stark and co-host Sam Kevorkian talk to Zoltan Istvan about his proposal for a California State Basic Income. Zoltan is a Trans-Humanist and futurist writer, philosopher, and journalist. He was the Transhumanist Party’s candidate for president in 2016, has written for Vice, Newsweek, the Huffington Post, and Psychology Today, was a reporter for the National Geographic Channel, and is the author of The Transhumanist Wager.
Zoltan’s campaign for President
Zoltan’s Run for California Governor as a Libertarian in 2018
Zoltan’s proposal for a California state-wide Basic Income
How Automation and Artificial Intelligence will make a Basic Income Necessary
The estimated proposal of $56k per household in California
Residency restrictions on the Basic Income
How the Basic Income would replace existing social programs
Is monetizing federal land the way to pay for a basic income
The environmental concerns in monetizing Public Lands, how no National Parks would be touched, and the clause that says the land must be maintained
How Gene Editing will impact wildlife conservation in the future
Using drones to track non-violence criminals in lieu of incarceration
Liberty Might Be Better Served by Doing Away with Privacy
The California High Speed Rail and Driverless Cars
A major national precious metals dealer has just opened its gold-backed scholarship fund for 2017 applicants. Funds will be awarded to students who understand that gold is money and are able to clearly articulate the many failures of the inflation-creating Federal Reserve System.
Money Metals Exchange, a national precious metals dealer recently ranked “Best in the USA,” teamed up with the Sound Money Defense League, setting aside 100 oz of physical gold, currently worth almost $130,000, to help outstanding students pay for ever-rising education costs.
“The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies have jacked up education costs, and our company is proud to help students who understand this problem as they cope with this unfolding disaster,” said Stefan Gleason, president of Money Metals Exchange. “Because of abusive and ongoing devaluation of the Federal Reserve Note, we expect the gold that we have set aside to fund the scholarship program will grow in nominal value dramatically over time.”
This scholarship will be open to high school seniors, undergraduate students, and graduate students with an interest in economics, specifically the tradition of the Austrian school. However, one does not have to be an economics major to apply.
The ongoing devaluation of the Federal Reserve Note “dollar” pushes up the nominal prices of assets, goods, and services across America.
Central planners have further contributed to the problem of skyrocketing education costs through easy access to government-subsidized loans which are usually awarded regardless of merit or creditworthiness. Colleges and universities can spend frivolously and raise their tuition costs aggressively. Meanwhile, students frequently leave college with debt that exceeds a home mortgage.
Essays will be reviewed by a blue ribbon committee of professors, economists, and executives of Money Metals Exchange and Sound Money Defense League. The panel will select two (2) undergraduate winners and two (2) graduate winners. All four (4) articles will be published on one or both organizations’ websites. The four (4) winners will also have the opportunity to win the People’s Choice Award which goes to the student whose article attracts the most interest from social media (Facebook, Twitter).
Jp Cortez, Assistant Director of Sound Money Defense League, said, “Last year was a huge success. We had well over one hundred entries from students. Applicants are excited at the prospect of having their essays read and graded by some of the most notable sound money economists and thinkers in the world.”
From The Guardian.
German police have arrested two Chinese tourists for making illegal Hitler salutes in front of the Reichstag building that houses the German parliament.
Berlin police officers say they detained two men, aged 36 and 49, after they were seen striking the Nazi-era pose and photographing each other with their mobile phones.
They face charges for “using symbols of illegal organisations”, the police said in a statement, and were released after posting bail of €500 (£450) each.
Germany has strict laws on hate speech and symbols linked to Hitler and the Nazis, who ruled between 1933 and 1945.
The Reichstag is a powerful symbol in Germany. It was destroyed by fire in 1933 by an arsonist thought to have been paid by the Nazis, who then blamed the blaze on the Communists and used it as an excuse to severely restrict civil liberties.
From The Washington Post.
I’ve always thought that those were inept analogies for exactly the reasons outlined here. There are some well thought-out arguments coming from the restrictionist side, but those most certainly aren’t amongst them.
By Ilya Somin August 6 at 4:18 PM
If you follow debates over immigration, it is hard to avoid arguments for restrictionism that analogize a nation to a house or a club. Such claims are ubiquitous in public debate, and are sometimes advanced by professional political philosophers as well. The intuition behind these analogies is simple: As a homeowner, I generally have the right to exclude whoever I want from my property. I don’t even have to have a good justification for the exclusion. I can choose to bar you from my home for virtually any reason I want, or even just no reason at all. Similarly, a nation has the right to bar foreigners from its land for almost any reason it wants, or perhaps even for no reason at all. All it is doing is exercising its property rights, much like the homeowner who bars strangers from entering her house. In the words of a leading academic defender of this theory, “My right to freedom of movement does not entitle me to enter your house without your permission… so why think that this right gives me a valid claim to enter a foreign country without that country’s permission?”
Todd Lewis is joined by Keith Preston to analyze whether the thesis of Thaddeus Russell that true freedom is embodied in libertinism.
By John W. Whitehead
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
—William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”
Things are falling apart.
How much longer we can sustain the fiction that we live in a constitutional republic, I cannot say, but anarchy is being loosed upon the nation.
We are witnessing the unraveling of the American dream one injustice at a time.
Day after day, the government’s crimes against the citizenry grow more egregious, more treacherous and more tragic. And day after day, the American people wake up a little more to the grim realization that they have become captives in a prison of their own making. No longer a free people, we are now pushed and prodded and watched over by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked armed guards who care little for the rights, humanity or well-being of those in their care.
Owning and running a successful gun shop involves a lot more than first meets the eye. With many legal requirements and laws that need to be followed to attracting and keeping local customers, you need to know what you’re doing before you go jumping in head first. You need to have the knowledge and understanding of what it takes to make a successful business, and then understand all your guns and ammo. Follow these top tips and you’ll be up and running in no time.
As with any shop, customers want to come in and feel welcomed and know what help is available if needed. Most successful gun shops are local ones, with local custom. Building a rapport with your customers will make them want to come back, as they will have the trust that they are buying from the right person. Purchasing a gun is a very important decision and should not be taken lightly – people look for those who know their stuff about guns and can make a purchase simple and easy. This is very important to think about when hiring employees, you need someone who is good with people, not just someone who looks good on paper and knows their stuff.
Check out the fist three episodes of this series as well.
The Stark Truth. Listen here.
How We Get to an Alt-Center
Combining The Alt-Right and the Alt-Left
How both the Alt-Left and Alt-Right are populist but attack the elements of the establishment most pertinent to their interests
The Alt-Left as an upper middle class reaction to the problem of Elite Overproduction
Joshua’s observation on the success of Germany’s specialization based economy
The medium is the message and the information economy
What Explains the Trump-Sanders Crossover Vote?
The cultural divide between the Alt Left SWPL’s and the Alt-Right, and the importance of embracing the creative class
Alt-Right Drift Towards “Leftist” Policies
The Alt-Right Is Green: Not A Pepe Meme
Steve Bannon wants to raise taxes on the very rich
Defining the Alt-Center: Neo-Tribalism
Thoughts On Replacing Traditional Marriage In A Post-Scarcity Society
I am very much in favor of this. Perhaps the most important precedent that Trump has set is the increased blending of celebrity culture with politics and government. This has the effect of delegitmizing the state by making affairs of state look ridiculous. The objective should be to have the most ridiculous people possible running for and winning offices. For instance, an ideal presidential election might pit Kanye West and Kim Kardashian the Democratic ticket, and Ted Nugent and Phil Robertson on the Republican ticket.
By John Henrickson
couple weeks ago I was talking to my boss about the 1998 summer blockbuster Deep Impact. I saw it in the theater with my dad maybe a month after I turned 10. At one point in the movie, it is revealed that the climactic meteor strike will be but the first layer of destruction. The second and far more consequential form of annihilation, we’re told, will come from a wave that will form in the Atlantic Ocean after “impact,” wiping out New York City and much of the East Coast before the waters finally recede somewhere in the Midwest. In retrospect, this chain of carnage seems both obvious and logical, but at the time, it blew my 10-year-old mind.
Trump is the meteor and we’re still waiting for the wave. Trump’s fiery alien presence started zooming toward us just over two years ago, his perceivable distance narrowing by the day. The vast majority of commentators diminished Trump as but a singular, errant event, forgetting about the wave. Those using apocalyptic phrases or adjectives were denigrated as alarmists. And then it came, and we all became nostalgic for normalcy, and the wave still hasn’t wiped out New York City but it’s growing in strength by the day, the hour, the tweet.
So Kid Rock in the senate makes sense. Just like Congressman Buddy Carter’s Wednesday plea for somebody to “go over there to that senate and snatch a knot in their ass” makes sense. Just like Congressman Greg Gianforte’s body slam of reporter Ben Jacobs makes sense. Trump’s impact with the earth was the catalyst, but all these other elements are rising in unison to create the wave, and, as waves do, it will get bigger before it gets smaller.
We have over a year left until an actual election, so my first order of business is to get people engaged and registered to vote while continuing to put out my ideas on ways to help working class people in Michigan and America all while still calling out these jackass lawyers who call themselves politicians.
(He does not elaborate on his “ideas on ways to help working class people in Michigan and America.”)
THE TENTH ANNUAL H.L. MENCKEN CLUB CONFERENCE
THE FUTURE OF THE RIGHT: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
NOVEMBER 3-4, 2017
To register, please click here.
Friday, November 3rd
5:00-7:00 PM – Registration and Reception
7:00-10:00 PM – Banquet
Moderator – James Kalb
Presidential Address: Who Might Succeed the Conservative Establishment? Contenders: The Altright and the Populist Right – Paul Gottfried
Guest Speaker: Liberty and the Deep State- Tom Woods
Saturday, November 4th
9:00-10:30 AM- Panel: The Significance of the Trump Presidency after Almost a Year
Peter Brimelow: The Festering Immigration Problem
Marshall de Rosa: Trump and the Constitution
David Gordon: Does Trump Have a Foreign Policy?
10:45 AM-12:15 PM- Panel: The Altright: Its Appreciable Strengths and Continuing Glaring Weaknesses
John Derbyshire: Where the Altright Has Been Spot On
Keith Preston: The Altright Among Other Rights
Paul Gottfried: The Altright and Its Weakness
12:30-2:00 PM- Lunch: Carl Horowitz: Why Have Corporations Become Bulwarks of the Cultural Marxist Left
2:30-4:30 PM- Panel: The Future of the Grievance Culture
Michael Hart: Partition As A Way Out
Ilana Mercer: Exceeding the Limits of Tolerable Grievances
Robert Weissberg: The Future of the Academic Jungle
Robert Paquette: Fighting Political Correctness on the Frontlines
6:00 PM- Reception and Banquet
Guest Speaker: The Media and The Right- Richard Pollock
By Debbie Bookchin
Only a global confederation of rebel cities can lead us out of the death-spiral of neoliberalism towards a new rational society that delivers on the promise of humankind.
I am the daughter of two longtime municipalists. My mother, Beatrice Bookchin, ran for city council of Burlington, Vermont thirty years ago, in 1987, on an explicitly municipalist platform of building an ecological city, a moral economy and, above all, citizen assemblies that would contest the power of the nation state. My father is the social theorist and libertarian municipalist, Murray Bookchin.
For many years the left has struggled with the question of how to bring our ideas, of equality, economic justice and human rights, to fruition. And my father’s political trajectory is instructive for the argument that I want to make: that municipalism isn’t just one of many ways to bring about social change — it is really the only way that we will successfully transform society. As someone who had grown up as a young communist and been deeply educated in Marxist theory, my father became troubled by the economistic, reductionist modes of thinking that had historically permeated the Marxist left. He was searching for a more expansive notion of freedom — not just freedom from economic exploitation, but freedom that encompassed all manner of oppression: race, class, gender, ethnicity.
A review of Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, by Theodore John Kaczynski. Fitch and Madison Publishers, 2016.
By Keith Preston
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is a work by Theodore John”Ted” Kaczynski, otherwise known as the “Unabomber” terrorist, a former mathematics professor who sought to fight what he regarded as the excessive encroachment of technology by blowing up those who invent and market it. Kaczynski has been imprisoned since his 1996 arrest, and this book was completed during the course of his incarceration while serving multiple life sentences.
As the title suggests, this work seeks to provide an answer to two primary questions. Why must the “technological system,” as Kaczynski refers to it, be abolished? And how might such abolition be achieved? Kaczynski devotes a considerable portion of the book to revolutionary strategy. I found this to be the most compelling part of the book, as I am likewise interested in revolutionary theory, even if I cannot abide Kaczynski’s ideological framework. More…
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance tries to understand the concept of “institutional racism.” Racism is said to be what holds back blacks and whites in American society, but there just don’t seem to be enough racist people or deliberately racist practices to explain large gaps in achievement. The culprit must therefore be institutions, or the structure of society. Jared Taylor shows why this explanation makes no sense, and explains what the real problem is.
Are blacks more likely to be arrested for drug offenses despite using drugs at the same rates as whites? Conventional wisdom has it that the war on drugs is inherently discriminatory, but a closer look at black crime statistics undermines explanations that rely exclusively on racial bias or police discrimination. Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, discusses several empirical studies that support a more nuanced understanding of differential arrest rates for drug-related crimes, one that avoids the pitfalls of the typically reductive explanations that emphasize systemic anti-black discrimination by a hopelessly racist police force.
By Shaun King
New York Daily News
Are you familiar with the 10,000 hour rule that Malcolm Gladwell shares in his book, “Outliers?” It basically states that it takes about 10,000 hours of time and effort in a field to become an expert in it. I’m now nearing my 10,000 hours on police brutality and injustice in America. Going on four straight years, it’s dominated my life as I’ve studied not hundreds, but thousands of cases from top to bottom. I’ve written over a thousand articles on the topic. I’ve organized, agonized, strategized, fundraised, recorded, presented, brainstormed, protested, researched, counseled, and dreamed about how we can solve this crisis — or at least drastically improve it.
And in all of those hours, in all of those cases, I’ve never seen what I’m seeing in Minnesota at this very moment surrounding the horrific police killing of Justine Damond — an Australian immigrant and yoga instructor who was just weeks away from getting married when she called 911 to report suspicious noises outside of her Minneapolis home. The police showed up. Justine, in her pajamas, went outside to meet them, but was fatally shot by one of the reporting officers.
All of that is textbook police brutality. I could name a dozen cases off the top of my head where a family called 911 for help but ended up being victimized by the police instead. Everything about what happened to Justine Damond is normal in America — except the demographics.
She’s white — a sweet, popular, peaceful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed white woman at that.
By Napp Nazworth
Almost daily I encounter messages saying that conservative Christians should stop “pretending” to be victims of discrimination. I encounter these messages about as often as messages arguing in favor of discriminating against Christians. Why the cognitive dissonance?
“Christians haven’t been discriminated against like blacks, gays and Muslims, and they aren’t being persecuted like Christians in China or the Middle East,” I often hear in response, which is both true and beside the point. Discrimination doesn’t have to be the worst ever for it to still be a cause of concern.
Here are a few examples of Christian discrimination.
Christians who post biblical yet unpopular views on social media can be subject to business losses or unemployment. Steve Tennes posted a message consistent with his Christian views to his Facebook page and because of that his business was excluded from the East Lansing farmer’s market.
It’s acceptable to exclude Christians from governmental positions. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen voted against a Trump appointee due to his orthodox Christian beliefs. When the Department of Education recently hosted a panel discussion on fatherhood, LGBT groups protested its inclusion of conservative viewpoints.
By Eliel Cruz
The photo blog series Human of New York recently shared a portrait that has the LGBT community involved in a debate on discrimination. The series was started four years ago by photographer Brandon Stanton and captures diverse street portraits of New Yorkers, all different ages, races and backgrounds, accompanied by a quote or a snippet from each subject’s story. Brandon leaves the quote or accompanied life snippet up to the subject — this sometimes leads to controversial and shocking statements. A snippet that got many people talking was from a gay man. According to HNY, he said
I know this isn’t going to be a popular opinion, but I’m gay, and I don’t think there’s nearly as much discrimination as people claim. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve experienced discrimination. But it hasn’t been a huge factor in my life. I feel like a lot of people bring discrimination on themselves by getting in people’s faces too much. They like to say: “Accept me or else!” They go around demanding respect as a member of a group, instead of earning respect as an individual. And that sort of behavior invites discrimination. I’ve never demanded respect because I was gay, and I haven’t experienced much discrimination when people find out that I am.
He was right on one thing: It was not a popular opinion.
Validating his experience is important. We should never ignore the testimony of experience a gay person puts forth. But the fact discrimination hasn’t been a huge factor in his life is a blessing, not the norm. There are many of us who can’t say the same, no matter how much we wish we could. His experience is his own, but it’s not the rule — it’s the exception.
A discussion of the internal workings of contemporary British politics. Meanwhile, American politics could probably be summarized by a single song.
By Sean Gabb
Ludwig von Mises Centre
I have been asked to write a weekly column on British politics. Since I am writing for a largely American readership, and since Americans mostly know little of what happens outside their own country, and since American politics are presently in themselves of consuming interest, I think it would be best if I were to begin with a brief overview not only of what is happening here, but also of what has been happening.
David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010 at the head of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The Conservatives had won more seats than any other party in the House of Commons, but fallen short of an overall majority. Whether he governed the country well during the next five years is beside the point. What matters is that he governed effectively within the assumptions of British politics.
He went into the 2015 General Election with the aim of getting an overall majority for the Conservative Party. His main difficulty was not in beating the Labour Party, which was in no position to beat him, but in making sure that millions of disaffected conservatives would vote Conservative and not for the UK Independence Party (UKIP).
Britain had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. This was a controversial change of national strategy, and it had split the Conservative Party. Membership raised fundamental issues of sovereignty and of economic policy. Without ever going away, this split had been of little practical importance between 1979 and 1990, while Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister between. Once she was gone, it had re-emerged with growing force, to cripple the government of her successor, John Major.
An interesting discussion of the church/state separation issue. I generally agree with the arguments made by this author.
By Millennial Transmissions
Libertarianism Without Adjectives
I’m not a very “principled” person. I am in the sense that my actions are guided by a number of principles defined loosely and amorphously, but I’m not dogmatic, I don’t subscribe to Kant’s categorical imperative, I’m not a utopian or an idealist. I’m a realist and a pragmatist before I’m even a libertarian.
I was recently considering a conversation between Penn Jillette and Glenn Beck on the subject of libertarianism. If you haven’t watched it, I urge you to, it’s very good viewing. Penn Jillette was one of the guiding lights that lead me out of my socialist slumber, and Glenn Beck himself makes some great contributions too. They don’t just discuss libertarianism; a friendly conversation about atheism also takes place. Glenn Beck raises an example:
“In Pennsylvania, a mostly Catholic Italian town had to relocate their nativity scene…it was outside of city hall…because of an outside atheist group, the ‘Freedom from Religion Foundation’, they came in and threatened legal action. Thomas Jefferson, in his writings, was proud that city hall was being used for meetings, church meetings on Sundays, four different ones. He thought that was not a problem…it’s not freedom from religion it’s freedom of…if I can put a menorah and everything else on the town square, why do atheists get so pissy about this…as long as it’s not the endorsement of one religion?” (lightly paraphrased)