The L.A. Riots of 1992: What Really Happened 4

http://libcom.org/history/1992-the-la-riots

A brief account of the six days of rioting which set Los Angeles aflame following the acquittal of four police officers who were filmed beating black motorist Rodney King.

“There’s a difference between frustration with the law and direct assaults upon our legal system.”
– George Bush Snr., May 3rd, 1992.

The first rocks started to fly as the four LAPD officers who beat Rodney King and the jury who acquitted them were leaving the courtroom in suburban Simi Valley. Subsequent to the acquittal, on the afternoon of April 29th 1992, thousands of people began pouring into the streets of Los Angeles. In a few hours rioting spread across the LA metropolitan area. Conditions rapidly approached the level of civil war. The police withdrew from the main areas of fighting, ceding the streets to the insurgent poor. Systematic burnings of capitalist enterprises commenced. More than 5,500 buildings burned. People shot at cops on the street and at media and police helicopters. Seventeen government buildings were destroyed.

The Los Angeles Times was attacked and looted. A vast canopy of smoke from the buildings covered the LA Basin. Flights out of LA airport were cancelled and incoming flights had to be diverted due to the smoke and sniper fire.

The rioting was the single most violent episode of social unrest in the US in the twentieth century, far outstripping the urban revolts of the 1960s both in sheer destructiveness and in the fact that the riots were a multiracial revolt of the poor. In the initial phase of the LA riots, the police were rapidly overwhelmed and retreated, and the military did not appear until the rioting had abated.

The New York Times noted:

“Some areas took on the atmosphere of a street party as black, white, Hispanic and Asian residents mingled to share in a carnival of looting. As the greatly outnumbered police looked on, people of all ages (and genders), some carrying small children, wandered in and out of supermarkets with shopping bags and armloads of shoes, liquor, radios, groceries, wigs, auto parts, gumball machines and guns”.

The 30,000 square foot military enlistment centre for all nine counties of Southern California was burned to the ground on the first night. The state portrayed the rioting as an episode of indiscriminate mayhem where rioters attacked each other like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

While most media coverage and subsequent histories have focussed on a few negative events, such as the horrific beating of truck driver Reginald Denny, in fact crimes against people, such as rape and drive-by shootings, virtually disappeared as previously atomised working people of different colours and ethnicities came together in mass collective violence, proletarian shopping [looting] and a potlatch of destruction. There were far fewer rapes and muggings during the period than there are in LA under the normal rule of law. on a conservative estimate, more than 100,000 rebel poor in the greater LA area have now collectively experienced, in arson, looting and violence against the police, the intelligent use of violence as a political weapon. The number of participants in the uprising is well into the six-figure range. We know this because there were around 11,000 arrests (5,000 black, 5,500 Latino, 600 white) and the vast majority of participants got away scot-free.

Following the lead of events in the nation’s cultural capital, mass spontaneous rioting spread to several dozen cities across the US. In San Francisco more than a hundred stores were looted and rich areas were attacked. One of the large posh hotels had its windows smashed by a gang of youths chanting “The Rich Must Die”. Protesters marched o­nto the Interstate Freeway, causing a massive tailback affecting several hundred thousand car commuters. In San Jose, students looted and attacked police cruisers. Police were shot at in Tampa, Florida, and in Las Vegas, armed rioters burned a state parole and probation office. Armed confrontations between the police and locals continued in Las Vegas for the next 18 days. In Seattle a burning police car was pushed into police ranks and there was loads of looting, smashing and burning in downtown Seattle. Similar events happened all over the US.

On May 2nd, 5,000 LAPD, 1,000 Sheriff’s Deputies, 950 County Marshals and 2,300 Highway Patrol cops, accompanied by 9,975 National Guard troops, 3,500 Army troops and Marines with armoured vehicles and 1,000 Federal Marshals, FBI agents and Border Patrol SWAT teams moved in to restore order and guard the shopping malls. Hundreds were wounded. Most of the people killed in the uprising were killed in the repression of the revolt. After much fighting and the largest mass arrest in US history the LA 92 insurrection came to a close.

Edited by libcom from an article in Anarchy – A Journal of Desire Armed, No.34, Autumn 1992. Photo by Hyungwon Kang (kang.org)

You're a Phone Call Away From Saving a Life 1

http://islaminrussiaandabroad.blogspot.com/2009/12/youre-phone-call-away-from-saving-life.html

by Ian Huyett

Last year, in a disturbing reminder of Israel’s ruthless assault on the USS Liberty, Israeli warships rammed an unarmed vessel in open violation of international maritime law. The Dignity, whose passengers included US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, was carrying food and medical supplies to the besieged population of Gaza. Imprisoned in the Gaza strip, 1.5 million Palestinian civilians have suffered unimaginable terror at the hands of an occupier that has made clear it has no regard for the sanctity of life.
For decades, Israel has used it’s powerful lobby to manipulate and control American foreign policy at the expense of our tax dollars and lives. Our pitiful government has looked the other way while Israeli agents have conducted campaigns of espionage and terrorism against American citizens. The Israeli regime is no more a friend to the American people then it is to the people of Gaza. It’s in the best interest of all nations to unite against Israeli policy.
 
As you read these words, UK politician George Galloway and a humanitarian convoy of 250 vehicles, crewed by 500 courageous people from 20 countries around the world, is stranded in Aqaba, Jordan. Just as Israel intends to use the United States to disable the potential threat of an awakening Iran, it is using the government of Egypt to prevent these nonpartisan activists from delivering medical supplies to the victims of the world’s first silent genocide.
If the Egyptian government cannot stand up to Israeli pressure, it can’t be expected to stand up to cries for justice from around the world. Contact your local Egyptian embassy and demand that the convoy be allowed to pass.
A nation establishes embassies to better international relations. Tell the government of Egypt how said relations might be effected if Egypt not only allows tragedy to occur, but denies relief to those who’ve managed to survive it.

Updated News Digest December 27, 2009 2

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Community Organizing and National-Anarchism presentation by Andrew Yeoman

Tribal Anarchism Video Series Parts One, Two, Three, Four

Quotes of the Week:

“Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.”

“The system isn’t stupid, but the people in it are.”

“Punishment is now unfashionable… because it creates moral distinctions among men, which, to the democratic mind, are odious. We prefer a meaningless collective guilt to a meaningful individual responsibility.”

People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates.”

                                                                                                            -Thomas Szasz

The Troops Protect Our Freedom, and Other Lies I Learned in School by Kevin Carson

America Under Barack Obama Nat Hentoff interviewed by John Whitehead

Uncivil Liberties: The Empire’s War On Its Citizens by Carolyn Baker

Relocating Guantanamo by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama in the Shark Tank by Ralph Nader

From Bush to Obama: A Seamless Transition on the War by Ralph Nader

Vices Are Not Crimes by Murray Rothbard

Who Mourns the Murdered Mundanes? by William Norman Grigg

Is Revolution in the Air? by Justin Raimondo

Stunning Statistics About the War That Everyone Should Know by Jeremy Scahill

Pakistan’s Refugee Disaster by Stewart J. Lawrence

New World Order: How the 1989 Panama Invasion Set the Course for the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy by Ted Galen Carpenter

The Case Against Iran Sanctions by David Henderson

Elliot Abrams and “Neocon-ing” Obama by Robert Parry

U.S. Turburlence Buffets Pakistan by Eric Margolis

Time to End the Neocon Con Game by Bruce Cameron

Weapon of Monetary Destruction by Lew Rockwell

Automatic for the People: The AK-47 by C.J. Maloney

PIGS Murder Mentally Ill Man by William Norman Grigg

Afghan Affair More Than “Nitpicking” by Linda McQuaid

A Fistful of Dynamite by Daniel McCarthy

The Travails of the Young War Criminal by Gwynne Dwyer

One War Obama May Curtail by Kelley B. Vlahos

Motivation for Jihad by Charles Pena

PIG Brandishes Gun on Snowball Throwers by William Norman Grigg

PIGS Engage in Gang Assault on High School Student by William Norman Grigg

Rush Limbaugh Is a Turdball from the Huffington Post

Spanish Anarchist Arrested for Letter Bomb from Infoshop.Org

A Left-Environmentalist Expresses Skepticism of Global Warming  by David Crowe

The Thin Blue Line Is Cracking Up by Aaron David Ward

Obama, You Should Have Listened to MacArthur by Eric Margolis

The Recession Is Over, But the Depression Has Just Begun by Edward Harrison

The Nullification-10th Amendment Movement Is Growing by Thomas Woods

Blow It Out Your Ass, Supreme Court!! 

The Awards by Justin Raimondo

Mondragon Collective Opens Sacco and Vanzetti Grocery Store in Winnipeg from Infoshop.Org

The New Prohibitionists  by Caleb Stegall

Sexual Politics in the Age of Obama by David Rosen

America’s Party  by Pat Buchanan

War Against Christmas 2009: A Jewish Perspective by Marcus Epstein

From the Great Society to the Great Betrayal  by Rob Freeman

Libertarians and Junk Science by Kevin Carson

God of War? by Jeff Taylor

The Humane Vision of Ivan Illich by Chase Madar

Losing the Bill of Rights by Jacob Hornberger

Bring Back the Bad Guys by Jeff Huber

Gun Sales Up, Murder Rates Down 

Sean Hannity: Paid Shill for the Merchants of Death by Martin Hill

Hyperinflation and Rioting in the Streets John Williams interviewed by Phil Maymin

The Empire Recruits Worldwide by Rick Rozoff

Does the New World Order Leave Anywhere to Run? by Janet Daley

Dr. Mengele Reappears in Israel by David Kramer

10-Year-Old Busted for Distributing Peppermint Oil by David Kramer

My Christmas Prayer for the Little Town of Bethlehem by Ron Holland

French Kids Protest School Dress Codes from Infoshop.Org

Disappointments in Samarra by Alexander Cockburn

What It Takes to Build A Movement by Mark Rudd

The Year’s Best Books by Ralph Nader

Palestinians on the Brink of Explosion by Nicola Nasser

War and Peace by Pat Buchanan

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                -Taki Theodoracopulos

50,000 U.S. Troops Have Quit Their Jobs Michael Prysner and James Circello interviewed by Scott Horton

The Bipartisan Empire Glenn Greenwald interviewed by Scott Horton

Political Prisoner Denied Medical Care Candace Gorman interviewed by Scott Horton

The GULAG by Matthew Raphael Johnson

The Middle Ages by Matthew Raphael Johnson

The New Right vs the Political Left Alex Kurtagic interviewed by Tom Sunic

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

Holiday in Cambodia by the Dead Kennedys

Emerald by Thin Lizzy

Great Big Coffin/Looking for Mary  by Screaming Lord Sutch

Ladys Boy by Twisted Sister

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

U.S. Military Suicides Outnumber Out Number Soldiers Killed by Enemy in 2009 

Evangelical Church Opens Doors to Gays 

Jimmy Page’s Soundtrack to Kenneth Anger’s Lucifer Rising 

Bill Ayers: Americans Must Rise Up Against War 

Bill Ayers: “Life in a Bubble Will Explode in America’s Face” 

Rapper AKIR: America Is Definitely a Police State 

Ron Paul on “Foolish” Troop Surge, “Audit the Fed” Bill and Competing Currencies

Communists Living the American Dream 

First World War in Color 

William McKinley 1892 Campaign Speech (in memory of Leon Czolgosz)

Israel’s Neo-Nazis 

The Haight Street Kids 

Saving the Indians 

Asian-Americans and Poverty 

The Military-Industrial Complex Always Gets What It Want 

Las Vegas Teacher Accused of Denying Holocaust 

U.S. Set for Drastic Changes as White America Becomes a Minority in 2042 

Dying Detroit 

Merry Christmas and a Rockin’ Yule from a National-Anarchist

Sixty Percent of Russians Nostalgic for the Soviet Union 

Distributism: The Roots of the Catholic Worker Movement

Economics of the Catholic Worker Movement

The Fraud of “Representative Democracy” 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

“The king is most wounded by ridicule.” -Thomas Hobbes

Why the Radical Left Should Consider Secession 26

Kirkpatrick Sale of the Middlebury Institute recently observed that there is presently “more attention being paid to secession than any time since 1865” and predicts that “one of the American states will vote for its independence in the next 10 years.” Neo-secessionist sentiments are frequently stereotyped as a characteristic exhibited primarily by “right-wing extremists.” Yet there are serious reasons why genuine progressives should consider secession. Among the most compelling reasons why the Left should consider dissolving the U.S. into multiple nations, regions, or city-states are:

-Break-up of the U.S.A. means an end to the American empire that has killed millions of people throughout the world over the last sixty-five years, including perhaps two million Iraqis, three million Southeast Asians, hundreds of thousands of Central Americans, half a million Timorese, thousands of Afghanis, and many, many more.

-Without the support of the U.S., international capitalist organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. would be much less powerful and influential.

-The demise of the federal regime would mean an end to U.S. aid to Israel, and a fighting chance for the Palestinians.

-The collapse of the U.S. federal system would mean an end to federal corporate-welfare, bank-welfare, and, above all, the death of the military-industrial complex.

-No more federal regime means no more DHS, FBI, CIA, DEA, BATF, Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Indian Affairs, federal drug war, federal mandatory minimums, or the national police state built up around the war on terrorism. What could be more successful at overturning the “terror war” legislation of the last eight years than complete disintegration of the federal government itself?

-An end to federal corporate welfare means a severe weakening of Big Pharma, agribusiness, or local developers utilizing federal money in efforts at gentrification.

-The disintegration of the U.S. means not only the end of federal drug prohibition but an end to U.S. support for the international drug war and the America-centric structure of international drug prohibition, thereby allowing other nations to develop more progressive policies on this matter.

Some may object that progressives have at times appealed to federal power against local reactionaries (for instance, in cases of civil rights, abortion rights, and church/state separation issues) and that dissolution of the federal regime may also weaken gains in this area. However, it should be considered that the majority of the U.S. population resides in the 75 to 100 largest urban, metropolitian areas. If these areas-New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, Miami-were all independent city-states or micronations along the lines of Monaco, Luxemborg, or Singapore, genuine progressives would be in a much superior political position than at present. The major U.S. urban areas tend to be the most diverse culturally, racially, ethnically, and religiously. It is also in these areas where the majority of racial minorities, LGBT people, persons with countercultural values, and those with left-leaning political views tend to be concentrated. The majority of the underclass persons fed into the prison-industrial complex also originate from the large cities. It is in the major cities where most abortion services are located and where most abortions take place.

If these larger urban areas were separated from the states in which they are presently located and from the federal system, urban progressives would no longer need to share space politically with rural, small-town, or suburban reactionaries, conservatives, or religious fundamentalists. Therefore, it would be immensely easier for independent city-states of this kind to enact, for instance, single-payer health care, same-sex marriage, stem cell research or a living wage. It would also be easier to protect abortion rights from the influence of current state legislatures or the federal government. Likewise, it would be much more possible to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, gambling and other “consensual crimes” along the lines of New Zealand, Portugal, or the Netherlands at present. Such changes would severely weaken and undermine the police state and prison-industrial complex. The likely weakening of corporate power following the demise of federal and state corporate welfare would also provide a more level playing field for activists to take on landlords, developers, bankers, and other plutocratic interests on a municipal and regional level, and perhaps initiate economic alternatives like cooperatives, collectives, communes, LETS, mutuals, land trusts, and so forth. Meanwhile, social conservatives and other non-progressives who dissented from this prevailing liberal-libertarian-left paradigm could likewise achieve sovereignty for themselves in their exclusionary suburban enclaves, homogenous rural counties and towns, or sparsely populated red zones. Surely, this would be a better state of political affairs than the present system. If indeed secessionist sentiments are likely to grow in the years and decades ahead, why should progressives be left out?

A Subjective Interpretation of Hostility Between Entities in a Capitalist Society Reply

by Valerian of Inland Empire National-Anarchists

I wanted to write this article because for one thing I haven’t been active on this blog as I should and also because I’ve been thinking about this particular subject for a long time, especially since I opted for a world-view that I currently hold. This is not scholarship, a thesis, or a standard theory that I am trying to create; rather, this is just a commentary that I hope to shed light on since it relates to the Modern World as a whole but also because it’s highly reflective of the area I live in. Writing in the form of a commentary allows more freedom of expression and intellectual activity but at the same time it lacks any objective credibility in the eyes of 3rd parties because it doesn’t appeal or point to outside reference points or 1st person sources.  Though I don’t use any sort of references like this in the article I will say that my personal influences are Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Nouvelle Droite, Julius Evola,  and other intellectual forces and those influences will manifest themselves in particular ways in this article. I do highly recommend you read about my influences and look no further then the links that are to the right in this blog. Without further ado, here are my reflections.

The beginnings of hostility

Hostility, in a general sense, can be a position, emotion, idea, and view that sets itself in opposition to another position, emotion, idea, and view. The opposition doesn’t necessarily have to be embodied in any entity (human, cat, horse, spider, etc.) but can be inherent within the oppositional view itself; for example:

View A: Abortion is wrong because you’re murdering a fetus that has a soul and has inherent worth.

Opposition to View A: Abortion is not wrong because a fetus is still a part of the woman and the woman should have a right to get rid of a “thing” in her body she doesn’t want. The soul is also “non-existent” and therefore does not have inherent worth.

This is just one of many examples of oppositional views that are inherent in the Cosmos and especially more narrowly in society itself. Every view that is upheld always has an oppositional view that is directly opposite of it. Hostility is the manifestation of that opposition at various levels of intensity and degree. For this example, I am going to use a measurement of this hostility in 3 levels that in a sense corresponds to real world degrees of manifestation but it not necessarily an absolute measurement but just a way to systematize it.

A and B disagree about view C; A is for C and B is against C.

Level 1 manifestation of hostility

A and B disagree about C but still communicate and correspond with one another and they never let C be a subject of discussion between them.

Level 2 manifestation of hostility

A and B disagree about C and in turn stay away from each other and cease all communication and correspondence.

Level 3 manifestation of hostility

A and B disagree about C and in turn look to overpower, submit, eliminate on another. In a sense go to war with one another.

This is the nature of the cosmos itself and this view has many forms and manifestations in the philosophies of the Orient and Occident, Lao Zhu and Heraclitus, respectively, mentions this in their respective philosophies. An opposite is already manifested in relation to every  entity before existence itself is actualized. Another example:

A lion seeks to kill a gazelle and the gazelle seeks to prevent its elimination. The lion doesn’t rationalize or seek to systematize why he acts in this manner but it is inherent in his behavior. Hence, it is prior to its existence or else it could never come to manifestation.

Overcoming of hostility

An entity will seek to overcome hostility by a variety of means; by a dialectic process that involves both oppositional forces that in turn will create a 3rd force, a synthesis; an overpowering and submission of one force by another; a submission of one force to another; and the most fluid of them all, a unification of one force to another because of inherent unity between two forces.  The 1st and 4th means to an overcoming is the process of culture, race, ethnicity, commonalities, and consubstantiality itself. The 2nd and 3rd means is a process of warfare and violence itself; this is the process that is manifested to a high degree in a capitalist society itself.

Capitalism and its manifestation

Capitalism is an economic system which derives from the Enlightenment and in turn informs and influences the participants that live within the system. The Enlightenment posited man as an abstract with inherent universal qualities as the starting point for its manifestation in the temporal world. The universal qualities it seek to impose on man from the start is that man is a self-interested creature that seeks its own good and is endowed with natural reason from the start. Culture and ethnicity to them are just “accidents” and do not have any importance in their conceptions  and philosophy. Since Capitalism manifests itself all these presuppositions of man, the participants in Capitalism will manifest these qualities in turn. The Enlightenment is a falsity from the start because it creates a system out of abstraction and those manifestations that philosophers of the Enlightenment witnessed were ones that were infused by their own system. In fact English society, which a good portion of Enlightenment thought came from, manifested qualities that were pseudo-Capitalistic and Liberal which led to the universal abstraction of these values onto all humans and peoples around the world. The Anglo-Saxons themselves already lived in a culture of small government, individualism, and commerce that “laid the ground” for the Enlightenment itself.  From this chain of causality Capitalism and Liberalism in its various manifestations came into fruition. Hence a “culture”, system, and environment was developed that reflected these qualities and in turn qualified the participants in a mode of operation that corresponds with the environment.

Manifestations of hostility within Capitalist Society

In a specific sense, this relates to American society but in a  narrower sense, Southern California. The Enlightenment itself, when taken to a logical conclusion, manifests a society where culture, ethnicity, and in extreme forms, race, is seen as a non-factor and that individual gain and supremacy is the ultimate, albeit within a system of boundaries, laws, and other edicts that within themselves are Enlightenment based. Individuals are the real foundation of a capitalistic society and relationships are reduced to contracts, formal alliances, passing gestures, and superficial leanings. In this environment, individuals are “atomized” and the system is only structured by “universal” abstractions, a “culture” of individualism, and a market economy that participants have no choice but to participate in because it’s inherent within the system; alternative systems can be created but that will be for another article. The unifying principles that are not inherent within the system itself will be sought after through other channels: i.e. subcultures, common interests, race, ethnicity, culture, philosophy, etc. These principles will be held by various networks within the larger Capitalistic system and because the market economy itself is based on “competition” between various actors and groups, these differentiated groups and participants will be opposed to one another because of the amplification of  “competition”, which is really just a euphemism for warfare. Here is a good example:

Participant A likes Death Metal and hates Rap.

Participant A finds a network of participants that share in his fondness for Death Metal and hatred of rap; this network is Group A.

Participant B likes Rap and hates Death Metal.

Participant B finds a network of participants that share in his fondness for Rap and hatred of Death Metal; this network is Group B.

Group A and Group B live in a town that is part of the Capitalistic system.

The town is not defined by any common, unifying principles (race, ethnicity, culture) that infuse the members of the town.

Group A and Group B are not unified by any principles they both share in.

Group A and Group B are hostile to one another based on the opposition that both groups carry.

In Capitalism, groups, participants, networks, and other entities live in different realities from one another which in turn ceases any unity between these social forces. These “realities” inform, nourish, influence, potentialize the actions and directions of these different social forces. These social forces, because they follow different world-views, can not share in the same reality with one another and because there is no underlying unifying principles between them their will be a level of hostility between them. Liberalism actually seeks to create a unifying system that prevents differentiated social forces to come at war within one another but because Liberalism is qualified by chaos within it’s principles, i.e. individualism, multiculturalism, market competition, distrust of ethnocentric doctrines, etc., chaos has no choice but to manifest itself within reality. Alienation between these two forces creates an environment that is, at different levels, chaotic. Another example:

Group A has a world-view where Concept A is a supreme principle.

Group B has no understanding of Concept A, which in turn is utterly alien to Group B.

Within this alienation of understanding, Group B has no choice but to have an interpretation of Concept A.

Within the interpretation, there is a hostility to Concept A that Group A sees as absurd in turn is opposed to that interpretation.

Since there is no unifying principles (race, ethnicity, culture, religion, philosophy) between these groups then there is opposition between them, which is a result of chaos within the Liberal system where abstractions take precedence over real unity.

This chaos is typical of the Modern World and in a narrower sense to Southern California and it shouldn’t be a surprise for the population why there is so much tension, angst, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, crime, conflict, hostility, and chaos itself in the region. Southern California, as a region,  is not qualified by any transcendental principles which all members look towards; Christianity is manifested in different forms and denominations; Islam is making a presence in the region; a good portion of the population has no transcendental principles or philosophy that they hold onto;  alienation is created between these groups, chaos in turn is the underlying principle of this region as a whole.

With many different races, ethnicities, and cultures inhabiting a specific region, all these unified groups are in many different manifestations going to be alien to one another. It can be seen in the tension and nervousness of differentiated participants when they exchange correspondence and communication; their world-views do not correspond to one another. Another example:

Participant A and participant B exchange a monetary transaction at a restaurant.

Participant A believes in world-view C and Participant B believes in world-view D.

C and D will be manifested through various actions and behavioral traits.

Participant A and participant B will interpret these manifestation differently because their world-views do not correspond to one another.

These interpretations will create a sense of confusion and misunderstanding  between Participant A and B.

A synthesis can occur but because there is many disunities between the participants the synthesis itself will be interpreted differently by the participants. A unified interpretation of the Cosmos, with race, ethnicity, and culture as underlying factors, will mitigate and modify the conflicts that are manifested between participants because the degree of correspondences and manifestations will be able to unify with another and synthesize with one another. Greater degrees of unity and synthesization will be actualized as the commonalities are more in common between participants within any environment that is not marked by chaos but by order.

In this example I will use 4 manifestations of unity as measurements: Race, Ethnicity, Religion, and Taste.

Race will be A

thnicity will be B

Religion will be C

Taste will be D

Participants will be E and F

E and F share A,B,C,D=Unity is the greatest

E and F share A,B,C but not  D=Unity is great

E and F share A and B but not C and D=Unity is less

E and F share A but not B,C, and D=Unity is  lesser

E and F do not share A,B,C,D=Unity is non-existent

If E and F have no unity than synthesis will be non-existent because there is not a unifying system that both participants share and agree on and therefore make oppositional forces contained within an ordered, dialectical process.

The degrees of participation between entities in opposition and unity in the Cosmos is differentiated at greater and lesser levels. By bringing oppositional forces into a unified, integrated world-view with underlying principles that unite participants in the highest degree of manifestation this will allow creative energy, synthetic creations, and many more manifestations to be harnessed and nourished by the participants. By bringing participants into an environment where oppositional forces are given free rein and where chaos is the foundation for the environment then the participants will be in constant opposition through their actions with one another and synthesis and creative power is weakened and in some cases, non-existent.

Conclusion

Unity is something that is inherent and something that is sought for and realized through entities with one another. Hostility is the creation of alienation between forces that do not share a unifying principle. Capitalism itself is an environment, system, ideology that infuses hostility between participants because of the underlying principles that make the system itself. By living in an environment where hostility is manifested more abruptly and underlying order is lost then the environment itself manifests chaos and derision within many of the facets. This is the Modern World, this is what I am opposed to.

 

 

A Former Bail Bondsman Assesses the PIGS Reply

These comments are from a man who was a bail bondsman for 10 years, and acquired extensive experience dealing with police, courts, and district attorneys offices:

In my 55 years, I have had a few contacts with LEOs, sometimes as a victim and a few times as a minor suspect/traffic violator. Mostly, my exposure to LEOs has been in my role as a bail bondsman for over 10 years back in the late 80s. I have no personal axe to grind, and if I did, it’d be a quite old one. But I still pay attention and I have observed a marked deterioration over the years of the honor, dignity and humanity of police officers everywhere. Having to deal with them on a day to day basis was a large part of why I quit the bail bond business 20 years ago. My opinion then was that most of the people I was bailing out of jail were better human beings than the cops I knew at the time, and it’s only gotten worse.

In my own experiences, my status as victim or defendant didn’t seem to make much difference in the way I was treated or the professionalism displayed by the cop(s) involved. Ideally, it really shouldn’t. Having said that, about 60% of the time, the cops were either totally disrespectful assholes or corrupt, lying, arrogant bullies. 20% of the time, they were merely useless, incompetent and disinterested cowards(like the ones who watched me from the comfort of their cruiser while I got beat half to death in a parking lot by two guys, then just drove away), or the one who I had to literally beg to take fingerprints from the sprung bedroom window in my burglarized house. (I’m sure those prints never made it farther than the nearest trash can and I ultimately had to track down the perp myself with tricky “reward” posters for a particularly valuable piece of merchandise.)

Another 20% of the time, the cop(s) displayed the honesty and professionalism expected of them and it’s a sad testament that those were the ones I really remember because of their rarity. Unfortunately, with one exception, the last time that occurred was about 1985.

There is a problem with the cops nowadays that I lay squarely at the feet of the militarization that comes from our “drug war” mentality and a generation of kids who grew up watching S.W.A.T. and other popular entertainment that lionized law enforcement while demonizing the majority of the citizenry. There is a whole generation or two of people who grew up conflating the roles of police and the military. They didn’t understand the difference before they joined, and they either still don’t understand it, or don’t accept it after they graduate the academies.

Years ago, many cops entered the field as a service to communities that they, and generations of their families grew up in. A lot of them were following family traditions and it wasn’t unusual to see 3 generations of the same family on the beat in the same town or even neighborhood. Police work was a matter of family honor and tradition. Sure, there was still corruption, maybe even more than there is now. But compared to today, it was petty, at least at the street level. “Testilying” has become a fine art, a dance between DA’s and LEOs that 95% of gullible juries still swallow whole, and it’s more blatant and results in more serious consequences than ever before. Before, excepting the organized, racially motivated incidences, police violence typically took the form of Officer Jones delivering a beating to a local thug to elicit a confession or to teach him a lesson. And the thug usually knew he deserved it and the two would be on speaking terms the next weekend. Now it involves explosive violence, pursuit rage, lethal weapons and multiple assailants; and still that same old impenetrable Blue Wall refuses to yield.

We are a transient and mobile society now. There is an “us against them” mentality. Cops look on everyone as potentially hostile scum and jump to conclusions and generalizations with even more frequency than during the bad old days of the ’60’s when minorities were routinely abused and having long hair was tantamount to a “Harrass Me” sign pinned to your forehead.

I am convinced that today too many cops enter police work for all the wrong reasons and, with few exceptions, the departments do an abysmal job in weeding out the control freaks and those with anger management and other psychological problems. Maybe this is due to recruitment problems or maybe it’s the influence of police unions. The bad part of this is that, over time, it’s becoming the norm. This militarized, violent, “us against the world” mentality has been institutionalized. Cops do not see themselves as public servants charged with protecting a majority of the citizenry from predation by a minority of criminals. They see themselves as sharks circling around a vast school of “trash” fish, waiting for the first opportunity to thin the ranks. Or a pride of lions encircling a herd of gazelle with the aim of dispatching the ones they see, in their subjective and prejudiced opinions, as detrimental to the herd. And the ends justify any means. Planted evidence, testilying, coerced confessions, subornation of perjury, illegal searches, whatever it takes to nail a suspect they just “know” is guilty. In too many cities, the cops are seen by the citizens as no less than an occupying force. Even many of the totally law abiding are beginning to feel this way. Their level of disgust continues to rise every time they hear of a pack of flak-jacketed, jack-booted, helmeted storm troopers bashing down the door of some pathetic, unarmed crack-whore, or worse yet, a totally innocent citizen who happens to share a similar address to the one provided by some burned out informant making an illusionary attempt to cut a deal. Or maybe they watch as a middle aged woman on the side of the interstate frantically rushes to re-pack a van full of cargo, in a rainstorm, after being tricked into thinking she was legally obligated to consent to some trooper’s fishing expedition.

Too many cops today become cops as a power trip. Thousands of punks want to become police officers just because they’re too cowardly for military careers and too stupid to be good criminals.

For anyone else who thinks a college degree is helpful, think again. In my state, a degree is required to become a State Trooper. It is not required for my county’s deputies or my city’s police. Florida state troopers are perhaps the worst, most abusive, rednecked goons I’ve ever had the misfortune to know. And vice cops, most of which have degrees, are some of the most morally bankrupt, corrupt and despicable cowards you can imagine. Yes, cowards! Don’t believe the propaganda. Cops who answer domestic calls encounter 10X the danger of vice cops, or especially the jack-booted drug cop thugs. Your typical vice cop would tremble in his boots to answer a domestic disturbance call or to pull someone over in traffic. After dealing with these people for over 10 years, the only cops that I have any consistent level of respect for are homicide detectives. Most of them have some native intelligence and got off the street before they became cynical assholes or drank themselves to death.

Updated News Digest December 20, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Community Organizing and National-Anarchism presentation by Andrew Yeoman

Tribal Anarchism Video Series Parts One, Two, Three, Four

Quotes of the Week:

Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society.”

“If repression has indeed been the fundamental link between power, knowledge, and sexuality since the classical age, it stands to reason that we will not be able to free ourselves from it except at a considerable cost.” 

“Prison continues, on those who are entrusted to it, a work begun elsewhere, which the whole of society pursues on each individual through innumerable mechanisms of discipline.”

“The strategic adversary is fascism… the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.

 “Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism.”

                                                                                      -Michel Foucault

2010: The Year of Severe Economic Contraction by Mike Whitney

The Strange Consensus on Obama’s Nobel Address by Harrison Bergeron 2

How Bush Redefined American Freedom by James Bovard

The Federal Bureaucracy-Plutocracy by Robert Higgs

Tortured in the “Dark Prison by Andy Worthington

The Crybaby Thugs of Maricopa County by William Norman Grigg

The Rush for Iraq’s Oil  by Patrick Cockburn

The Israeli Stranglehold  by Paul Craig Roberts

All U.S. Government Employees Must Be Pro-Israel by Stephen Walt

George Kennan, Yes! Reinhold Niebuhr, No! by Grant Havers

Possible Unintended Consequences of Regime Change in Iran by Stephen Walt

The War Democrats by Justin Raimondo

Fat City by Pat Buchanan

How Islam Beheads Democracy by James Jackson

We’re Watching Big Brother by Kevin Carson

Paul Gottfried: A Life in the Right by Karen De Coster

Anger With Federal Government Not Enough by Chuck Baldwin

Starve the Iranians? No! by Ron Paul

Do Antiwar Libertarians Hate the Military? by Laurence Vance

The Bill of Rights is Dead: The Feds Killed It by Kevin R.C. Gutzman

Pain Relief for Cancer Victims 

A Review of Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry by Richard Hotse

Leonard Zeskind’s Blood and Politics by Hunter Wallace

King Alfred the Great by Troy Southgate

The Looming Racial Chasm by Kevin MacDonald

The Financial Engine of the Left by Kevin MacDonald

The ADL: Managing White Rage by Kevin MacDonald

Why I Broke Up with the Anarchist Community from Infoshop.Org

Serbian Anarchists Arrested for “International Terrorism” from Infoshop.Org

Freedom for Quail, Pheasants, Hens, and Boar  from Infoshop.Org

D.C. to Pay $8.25 million in Lawsuit Over Mass Arrests from Infoshop.Org

Homeowner Spraypaints “Help!” “Foreclosure!” Onto House from Infoshop.Org

Meet the Vermont Independence Campaign Candidates from Second Vermont Republic

Read Orwell and Huxley to Understand America by Jim Quinn

The New World Order in Science by Henry Bauer

Secession and State Militias by Russell Longcore

Why I Will Let My Children Drink Alcohol by Cassandra Jardine

Turning Children Into Orwellian Eco-Spies by Frank Feredi

Shakedown in Copenhagen by Pat Buchanan

The Feds Are Addicted to Pot by Paul Armentano

Time to Rethink AIDS by Henry Bauer

Modal Libertarians: A Movement for 12-year-olds? by Justin Raimondo

Critical Questions for the Patriot Movement from Phoenix Class War Council

Dakota People Occupy Fed Land from Infoshop.Org

Anarchist Heroically Defies Grand Jury from Infoshop.Org

Venezuelan Anarchist School Founder Dies from Infoshop.Org

Turning Trick, Cashing in on Fear by Alexander Cockburn

The Sovereignty of Muslim Nations: A Casualty of U.S. Foreign Policy by Ali Khan

Pot Specialists to Study New Strains by Fred Gardner

The Tragedy of Rural Health Care by Jim Goodman

Windows Into Non-Western Cultures by Charles Larson

Faces of the Emerging Power Elite (thanks, Ean)

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                -Taki Theodoracopulos

The Police State Continues to Grow Will Grigg interviewed by Scott Horton

Free Speech and Historical Revisionism Carolyn Yeager interviewed by Tomislav Sunic

More Land War in Asia Tom Engelhardt interviewed by Scott Horton

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

Paper Money/I Got the Fire  by Montrose

Willie the Pimp by Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart

Up by Black Oak Arkansas

Black Juju by Alice Cooper

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Battle of the Bulge: Eisenhower’s Biggest Folly? 

Single-Payer Health Care Plan Dies in the Senate 

White Americans’ Majority to End by Mid-Century 

The Psychology of Social Status 

Catalans Vote for Independence 

Australian Government to Introduce Internet Filter 

Obama Awarded the Nobel Because He’s a Liberal, Democrat, and Black 

Israel is a Semi-Theocracy 

Indian Gangs Grow on Reservation 

Citizens of the World, Divide! 

Population Boom Threatens Africa 

The Pathology of the Rich Socialist 

Racial Groupings Match Genetic Profiles, New Study Says 

Self-Styled Vampire Jailed for Threatening Judge 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

“The king is most wounded by ridicule.” -Thomas Hobbes

The Tribal Nature of Politics 4

The Tribal Nature of Politics: Popular Accounts of the Health Care Reform Bill

by Keith Preston 

The health care reform bill recently passed by the U. S. House of Representatives is clearly one of the most controversial public issues in the United States at present. Issues of this type tend to be debated according to preconceived ideological affinities, cultural norms and partisan loyalties rather than empirical analysis of relevant facts and data. Public debate concerning health care reform conforms to this pattern, as evidenced by the fact that of the 435 members of the House only one Republican voted in favor of the bill while only thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill. It is rather implausible that such a divide along narrow partisan lines would have emerged were the issue to be debated according to the standards of rational discourse rather than mere tribal loyalties. Clearly, this division is rooted is pre-existing perceptions and presumptions on the part of the individuals, groups, and organizations who participate in the conflict.

 A vast array of individuals, groups and organizations exist who have voiced strong opinions concerning health care reform. Because of the vastness of sources of opinion on this question, it is most likely best to evaluate the content of public debate on the basis of arguments and justifications for various perspectives offered by politicians and other influential political figures, as it is these figures that presumably speak for much larger bodies of opinion-holders, e.g. voters, contributors, activists, lobbyists, “interest groups,” “concerned citizens,” and so forth. The arguments in favor of healthcare reform are the mostly widely understood and recognized. Proponents of health care reform will point out the number of Americans who lack health insurance, the high costs associated with the provision of health care, the “double whammy” inflicted on persons who lose their employment and simultaneously lose their employer-provided health insurance, examples of individuals who have suffered severe damage to their health from lack of available or affordable care, and other related matters. Because such arguments are well-known, and not particularly controversial or disputed in and of themselves, it is perhaps most interesting to observe the opinions offered by opponents of health carereform, or at least the particular health care reform currently being advanced by the House of Representatives, and to examine the justifications for these opinions offered by their proponents.

The most predictable opponents of the health care reform bill are the conservative Republicans, and their various supporters in the media and in the private sector. The Republicans and their allies argue from the perspective of core tenants of the ideological framework officially espoused by conservatives. The values of this ideology ostensibly include a distaste for bureaucratic proliferation, suspicion of the efficacy of the state as an instrument of social reform, hesitance to raise taxes, and fiscal discipline when it comes to government budgetary considerations. Health care is not an issue like, for example, abortion or homosexuality where some people consider intentional termination of a pregnancy or same-sex relationships to be grave moral wrongs while others regard such practices as harmless, desirable, necessary, or as a matter of important personal liberties. Virtually no one denies that health care is a “good” in its own right. Therefore, conservatives and Republicans frame their opposition to the health care reform bill not on grounds of simply opposing health care per se, but on the grounds that the health care reform bill will actually diminish the quality or availability of health care in the United State, or produce unacceptable costs or consequences in other areas.

An illustration of the kinds of arguments and justifications offered by the conservative Republicans and related individuals, groups, and organizations is provided by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal written by Karl Rove, a former advisor to President George W. Bush. According to Rove, health care reform is “unnecessary” and will increase the cost of government-subsidized health care to the taxpayer. Greater efforts by government to provide health care will also undercut and “crate” private insurance systems, thereby having the effect of “forcing most Americans onto the government plan.”  Health care reform proposals are also “too expensive” and will have the effect of placing government bureaucrats “in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors.” Further, the health care reform proposals offered by the Democrats are a “bait-and-switch tactic” designed to obscure a more radical goal of a “single-payer, government-run health care system.” Rove does not deny the need for health care reform of some kind and says: “Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American.” (Rove, 2009)

Implicit in Rove’s views and, presumably, the views of others who share hisperspective, whether policy-makers and opinion leaders or lay activists and members of the general public, is a worldview informed by a particular set of ideological and cultural values. Modern American conservatism is at least on a primordial level influenced by the wider classical liberal tradition represented by John Locke, Adam Smith and other similar thinkers. This tradition regards bourgeoisie property relations and market processes assacrosanct, and does so with a strong preference for efficiency, utility, and economic discipline. Rove’s comments also reflect a certain bias towards the interests and norms of the middle to upper classes. He is concerned that the interests and preferences of consumers in the private heath insurance and private health care markets, or the economic interests of private health care and health insurance providers, will be undermined by proposed health care reforms. He is also concerned about the cost to taxpayers (mostly middle to upper income persons), and fiscal costs to the U.S. economy and the federal budget. Rove also expresses concerns about the role of bureaucracy in the doctor-patient relationship in a public health care system. Little is said in Rove’s editorial about those persons (mostly lower class and lower middle class) who do not have access to health insurance and health care because of its cost prohibitive nature. Nor is there any mention of the bureaucratic nature of many private heath care and health insurance providers, and the impact of these on the doctor-patient relationship.

An article by Paul Waldman in the liberal magazine American Prospect heaps ridicule on the kinds of arguments made by conservatives and Republicans such as Rove. Waldman dismisses Republican arguments against health care reform with epithets like “dumb” and “despicable.” Opponents of health care reform are referred to as “liars, knaves, and fools” and are characterized as motivated by bad faith, hypocrisy, double standards, special pleading, and deliberate obscurantism. This kind of rhetoric is fairly in keeping with the frequent tendency of those with a left-wing outlook to regard their opponents as not merely in error but in sin. Those who are not ostensibly on the side of the poor, oppressed, downtrodden, disadvantaged, etc. are not merely people with different opinions, interests, value judgments, perceptions, or experiences, but are somehow evil, immoral, unethical, greedy, lacking in virtue, or possessing malevolent intentions. (Waldman, 2009)

Patrik Jonnson of the Christian Science Monitor (whose political stance is more or less middle-of-the-road) discusses the question of whether health care reform is “unconstitutional.” He cites arguments advanced by “right-wing” groups who claim that health care reform exceeds the prerogatives of Congressional authority specified by the Constitution. These groups rely on somewhat arcane legal doctrines concerning the so-called “commerce clause” found in the Constitution, as well as provisions for the taxing powers of government, and on the strand within the American political tradition that places a heavy emphasis on “states’ rights.” Such arguments are of an “appeal to authority” nature. Specifically, they appeal to the perceived cultural authority and supposed political and legal authority of the U.S. Constitution as originally drafted and established centuries ago. Such beliefs indicate a kind of political fundamentalism, perhaps akin to biblical literalism in the religious realm, and are probably taken about as seriously by educated elites and established legal scholars. However, these kinds ofbeliefs do appeal to the values of certain conservative subcultures. (Jonnson, 2009)

Timothy Noah of Salon.Com provides an interesting overview of opposition to the health care reform bill from the political Left. Some of this liberal opposition is purely pragmatic. For instance, Noah gives the examples of former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and New York Times columnist Bob Herbert who argue that health care reform should play a secondary role to other policy matters of perceived importance such as ending the war in Afghanistan or reducing unemployment. However, there are others from the liberal or left-wing perspective, which are in opposition to health care reform for more substantive reasons. One of these is the Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, arguably the closest thing there is in the U.S. Congress to an actual socialist. Kucinich and others with comparable views argue that the health care reform bill actually strengthens large, private insurance companies and that its provisions actually amount to a “corporate welfare” program for the insurance industry. While conservative critics such as Karl Rove argue that the health care reform bill will lead to “socialized medicine,” critics from the Left argue precisely the opposite, i.e. that the health care reform bill essentially eliminates the possibility of a genuine “national health care system” of a Canadian, British, or Western European model. (Noah, 2009)

Still another reason cited by Noah for left-liberal opposition to the health care reform bill is the inclusion of provisions barring coverage for abortion-related services. A perspective of this type is offered in a statement from the National Organization of Women:

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women’s fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women’s health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman’s fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

  • Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
  • Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
  • Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases. (O’Neill, 2009)

What is relevant about each of these perspectives concerning health care reform is the way in which each of the contending parties frames the issue within the context of the group norms, self-interests and language of their particular political tribe. This appears to be equally true of conservatives, libertarians, liberals, moderates, socialists, and feminists. The “justice,” efficacy, or benevolence of any proposed health care reform plan is evaluated within the context of the morality of the tribe. Reform is “good” if it serves and advances the tribe.

Bibliography:

Jonnson, Patrik (2009). Is the House Health Care Reform Bill Unconstitutional? Christian Science Monitor, November 5, 2009.

Noah, Timothy (2009). Lefties Against Reform: A Taxonomy of Left-Liberal Opposition to the Health Care Bill. Salon.Com, November 10, 2009.

O’Neill, Terry (2009). NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access. National Organization of Women, November 8, 2009.

Rove, Karl (2009). How to Stop Socialized Health Care: Five Arguments Republicans Must Make. Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2009.

Waldman, Paul (2009). The Ten Dumbest Arguments Against Health-Care Reform. American Prospect, July 28, 2009.

On Paleocons and Pagans 4

The following brainstorming session between Keith Preston and David Heleniak was pulled, with slight editing, from the discussion page of AttacktheSystem.com.

KP: Have you seen this latest from Gottfried?

http://www.takimag.com/article/christian_heresies/

How would you reply?

DH: I disagree with him that Peter Gay’s book on the modern pagans of the Enlightenment is incorrect.  Rather, Gay is correct: the Enlightenment was fundamentally anti-Christian.

More…

Updated News Digest December 13, 2009 6

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

“And what physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure.”

“And one should bear in mind that there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer than to introduce a new order to things; for he who introduces it has all those who profit from the old order as his enemies; and he has only lukewarm allies in all those who might profit from the new. This lukewarmness partly stems from fear of their adversaries, who have the law on their side, and partly from the skepticism of men, who do not truly believe in new things unless they have personal experience in them.

“And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.”

                                                                                              -Niccolo Machiavelli

***Community Organizing and National Anarchism*** presentation by Andrew Yeoman

The Antiwar Right: Our Time Is Near by Justin Raimondo

RAND Corporation Blueprint for a “Stability Police Force” by William Norman Grigg

The Thin Blue Whine by William Norman Grigg

Noam Chomsky Deplores a Rogue Nation: The U.S.A. by Susan Seligson

Making the State Irrelevant Part Two: Circumvention by Kevin Carson

Making the State Irrelevant Part Three: Undermining Its Legitimacy by Kevin Carson

The Alternative Economy as a Singularity by Kevin Carson

Honest Statism Beats a Fake “Free Market” Every Time by Kevin Carson

Yeswecanistan by William Blum

Wall Street Snaps Its Fingers by Andrew Cockburn

What the U.S. Elite Really Thinks About Israel by Jeffrey Blankfort

The Drug War Killed My Son by Gary North

Empire=Bankruptcy and Collapse Charles Goyette interviewed by Scott Horton

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Cult of “Expertise” by Justin Raimondo

Surging Into Disaster by Eric Margolis

Imperial Democrats Line Up for War by John V. Walsh

The Left’s Hysterical Obama Worship by Glenn Greenwald

The Wrong Prize at the Wrong Time by Gabor Steingart

Obama Bows to the Pentagon Gareth Porter interviewed by Scott Horton

The Right and War by Daniel Larison

This Sure Seems Like Vietnam by Helen Thomas

What Is This, East Germany? Becky Akers interviewed by Scott Horton

Corrupt America Goes Third World  by Ximena Ortiz

Five Good Reasons to Avoid a War with Iran by Philip Giraldi

Who’s Dumber, Teabaggers or Liberal Mayors? by James J. O’Meara

IRS Sells Off Indigenous Land from Infoshop.Org

Obama’s Imperial War: An Anarchist Response by Wayne Price

The Left Fell Into the Climate Morass by Lew Rockwell

Why Import Workers Now by Pat Buchanan

Desert Farce by Taki Theodoracopulos

Drunk Driving Is Not a Crime by Mark Crovelli

Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen by Chris Clancy

Occupy Schools, Not Countries! from Infoshop.Org

The Jacksonian Way of War by Patroon

Know Your Limits  by Ray Mangum

Academic Liars for the State by Gary North

The Christmas Truce of 1914 by Gary Kohls

Victory in Iraq? by Lew Rockwell

War Isn’t So Easy After All by Patrick Cockburn

George F. Kennan on the Escalation in Afghanistan by David Bromwich

Afghanistan: No More Good War by John J. Mearsheimer

The Rise of the Antiwar Right by Reihan Salam

War, War, and More War by Ted Rall

Don’t Believe a Word the Pentagon Says by Per Bylund

New State to Secede from India by Weaver

The Unbearable Likeness of Being Part of an Empire by Thomas Naylor

 Jared Diamond’s Noble Savage Collapse by Robert Singer

Sympathy for the Devil Worshippers by Andrew O’Hehir

Nepalese Maoists Plan Unity in Diversity by Dhruba Adhikary

Zomia, the Anarchist’s Shangri-La by Drake Bennett

The Climate Change Rope-a-Dope by Walter Williams

Another Reason to Secede by Russell Longcore

We Live in a Crystal Meth Economy by David Calderwood

Ticket Scalpers Are Heroes by Briggs Armstrong

First They Came for the Holocaust Deniers by David Kramer

Science Fiction Author Beaten By PIGS by William Norman Grigg

The Afghan “Experiment” by Justin Raimondo

Mr. President, War Is Not Peace by Norman Solomon

Torturing People to Death Scott Horton interviewed by Scott Horton

Israel’s Tyranny in the West Bank by Ellen Cantarow interviewed by Scott Horton

No-Sama Bin Laden by Philip Giraldi

Iran: No Sanctions by Robert Dreyfuss

How George W. Bush Redefined American Freedom by James Bovard

Return of the Antiwar Right by Jack Hunter

Our Murderers in the Sky by Scott Ritter

Ingroup-Outgroup Self-Serving Bias by TGGP

Some Thoughts on the Prison-Industrial Complex by Greya Niteshade

An Overview of Anarchism in Jordan Today from Infoshop.Org

Fear and Loathing on the Streets of Greece by Barnaby Phillips

Trash Can Troopers from Infoshop.Org

The PC War on Christmas Is No Myth  by James Fulford

Ron Paul’s Moment by Pat Buchanan

The Unemployment Solution by Virgil Goode

Not Even a Peanut by Alexander Cockburn

 Obama of Wall Street by Matt Taibbi

The Bush-Obama War by Chuck Baldwin

Queers and Trannies Hate God from Infoshop.Org

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic interviews Kevin MacDonald (and Part Two is here)

Hot Rails to Hell by Blue Oyster Cult

The Forgotten Genocide Ann Morrison interviewed by Tom Sunic

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Florida Must Pay to Cover-Up Neo-Nazi Defendant’s Tattoos 

Berkeley City Council Sends Hangars as Part of Abortion Message 

Ernst Junger: Warrior, Waldgaenger, Anarch 

Woman Accused of Hitting Man with Steak 

The Trotsky Legend Debunked 

Exploding Chewing Gum Blows Off  College Student’s Jaw 

Communist Rebels Gain Strength in Rural India 

Liberals Are a Useless Lot 

Super Earths May Be Superior at Fostering Life 

Hubble Telescope Finds Galaxies From Infancy of Universe

Jackson Rathbone to Play Black Metal Murderer in “Lords of Chaos” 

Distributism vs Socialism 

The Sex Life of the Ancient Greeks Laid Bare in All Its Glory 

Why Women Don’t Have Sex Scandals 

State Schools Don’t Want to Push Gifted Students Because They Don’t Want to Promote Elitism 

How Psychotherapy Keeps Our Communities Sick 

The Myth of the “Old Right”

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

“The king is most wounded by ridicule.” -Thomas Hobbes

North American New Right 9

Readers and supporters of AttacktheSystem.Com and American Revolutionary Vanguard should consider becoming involved with the North American New Right. The NANR Facebook page can be accessed here.

Articles by and about the New Right can be accessed here.

The online broadcasts of Dr. Tomislav Sunic, a leading scholar of the New Right, can be heard here.

The platform of the NANR is posted below. I wasn’t personally involved in writing the platform but it’s more or less the same ideological framework of ATS/ARV, though perhaps more moderately stated.

-For as much decentralization as possible to the local, state, and provincial levels as a reflection of the great regional, cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of North America, up to and including the right and necessity of regional secession. Based on current economic and demographic trends, we foresee the eventual fragmentation and breakup of Canada, Mexico, and The United States of America in their present forms, and the emergence of new nations, autonomous regions, and ethnostates in place of these existing polities.

-For an end to economic globalism and a return to local and regional based economies, with a premium on independence, self-sufficiency, and diversity rather than corporate based control and monoculture. We would like to see the present system of transnational capitalism replaced with an economy organized along Communitarian, Distributist, and Syndicalist lines, with family farms, small and medium sized businesses, joint partnerships, and co-ops as the foundation.

-For Non-Interventionism in Foreign Affairs and an end to all Imperialist Wars and ‘Police Actions.’

-For an end to Global Capitalist spurred Mass Immigration and its never ending quest for cheap labor at any price, and total opposition to anti-Western ideologies of Political Correctness and enforced Multiculturalism.

-For a system of internal improvements, public works projects, universal health care for all citizens, and a social safety net to prevent mass unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. Some of these services could be provided by non-governmental community or regional based institutions, and we are open to new ideas or suggestions in this area.

-For sensible environmental protections and ecological stewardship. We believe we are entering the age of Peak Oil and stark limits on sustainable economic and population growth.

-For moderate social conservative positions on most moral and social issues. We believe heterosexual marriage and a stable family unit are a bedrock of any healthy society.

-For an end to prohibition and for full legalization of most narcotics…and an end to the prison-industrial which costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year on wasteful and constitutionally questionable efforts to stem narcotics consumption.

-Our primary influences are The Distributists, Red Tories, Communitarians, the economists List and Carey, Samuel Francis, Patrick J. Buchanan, Russell Kirk, John Attarian, Michael O’Meara, Guilliame Faye, Alain De Benoist, and similar thinkers.

-We are skeptical about Mass Democracy, Unrestrained Populism, and the unconstrained egoism and chaos which results from Lassiez-Faire and Free Market economics. We value tradition and heritage, but not in the reactionary sense, as is the case with many Paleoconservatives. We represent a school of Conservative thought beyond Neoconservativism, Paleoconservatism, and the blind market worship and extreme indvidualism of The Libertarians.

-Our Values are centered around Community, Family, Region, and Nation.

Updated News Digest December 6, 2009 2

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

    I Like this quote I dislike this quote“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.”

“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”

“Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.”

“Most wars are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.”

“What “multiculturalism” boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”

                                                                                     -Thomas Sowell

Left and Right, United Against the State by Henry Porter

O=W by Bill Lind

Neocons Applaud Obama as “War President” by Eli Clifton

The Obama Puppet by Paul Craig Roberts

Afghanistan: The Roach Motel of Empires by Zoltan Grossman

Show Some Courage and Pull the Plug by Andrew Bacevich

We Managed to Make the Taliban Look Good by Nir Rosen

Hezbollah’s New Manifesto by Franklin Lamb

Obama is Not the Leader I Had Hoped For by Jim Hightower

What Is Obama Thinking? by Robert Higgs

The Drug War is a Dead Letter Without the Police State by Kevin Carson

Making the State Irrelevant by Kevin Carson

The Shame of Medicine: The Case of Alan Turing by Thomas Szasz

The First Ever International Legal Case on Secession (hat tip to Jason Sorens)

The Coming Hyperinflationary Collapse from Secession Plebis

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me by Philip Giraldi

The Power Struggle Behind Obama’s Speech by Gareth Porter

Obama and the Dying Empire by Fran Shor

A “Necessary” War-for a Gas Pipeline by Gary Leupp

The Israel Lobby Celebrates Espionage by Grant Smith

Obama Believes His Own Lies by David Bromwich

Here We Go Again by Robert Scheer

A Tragic Mistake by Bob Herbert

Obama’s War Speech: An Unconvincing Flop by Justin Raimondo

Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation by Murray Rothbard

Judicial Terrorism  by William Norman Grigg

America’s Criminal Class  by William Norman Grigg

Pentagon Kangaroo Courts by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Marijuana Is Safer Than Drinking by Mark Thornton

Resist D.C. Through Nullification by Matthew Shea

Mob Rule: We’ve Had Enough by Don Cooper

Handguns for Home Defense by Chuck Hawks

If Only We Could Read All Their Emails… by Lew Rockwell

CATO Institute: Court Libertarians by Laurence Vance

Southern Baptist Warmongering Assholes by Laurence Vance

The War on Kids by Anthony Gregory

Libertarian “Tolerance” by Tom DiLorenzo

PIGS Subject Child to Electro-Shock Torture by William Norman Grigg

PIGS Turn Crybabies by William Norman Grigg

Baltimore Mayor Convicted of Embezzlement by Robert Lang

AIDS Skepticism is Growing by James Foye

Why We Sang Sheriff Joe Arpaio Off the Stage from Infoshop.Org

How We Are Part of the Sweatshop Economy from Infoshop.Org

Insanely Large Food Not Bombs Event in New York from Infoshop.Org

 Christian Heresies by Paul Gottfried

The Drum Roll of an Exit Strategy by Pat Buchanan

Reactions to Obama’s War by Justin Raimondo

Jailed Mom Symbolizes the Rot of War by Kelley B. Vlahos

The Real Story of Iraq’s WMDs Scott Ritter interviewed by Scott Horton

The Terror War and the Bill of Rights by Petra Bartosiewicz

U.S. Public Opinion Turns Towards Military Non-Interventionism by Jason Ditz

Jury Nullification: Why You Must Know What It Is by Russ Emal

Fourth Generation War Escalates in the U.S. by Michelle Malkin

Prefabricated Fascists by William Norman Grigg

The Death Penalty for the State’s Counterfeiters? by Lew Rockwell

The Difference Between Obama and Bush from Manuel Lora

Obama Adopts the Bush Doctrine by Jack Hunter

The Desparate War Cries of a Besieged President by Alexander Cockburn

Vietnam-Lite by Pete Escobar

Obama Steals Bush’s Speechwriters by Matthew Rothschild

The Same Old Pax Americana by Leon T. Hadar

Obama with Blood on His Hands by Nicolas J. S. Davies

The Bogey of Isolationism by Daniel Larison

Defining Isolationism Down by Justin Logan

Fragile Prosperity? Fragile Peace? Notes on the U.S. from Libcom.Org

Rebellion by Thomas Naylor

Juvenile Injustice in a Philly Suburb by Linn Washington, Jr.

Western Society is Racist? You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet Craig Bodeker interviewed by Greg Johnson

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic on the European New Right (see Part Two here)

Ain’t It Fun by the Dead Boys

Against the New World Order by Matt Johnson

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Equality Snoopers Keep Files on Your Sexuality

Obama Ecstacy Pills Hit the Street 

Soviet Commander: U.S. Faces Similar Afghan Fate 

No More Middle Class?

How the Afghan War Is Being Financed 

Kucinich: Afghans Want to be Saved From Americans, Not by Americans 

Are the Effects of Pornography Negligible? 

An Unorthodox Method of Retribution to a Child Rapist 

CNN Finds Modern Day Slaves in U.S. 

Bill Lind on the Role of Gangs in the Fourth Generation World 

Is American Ungovernable? 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

“The king is most wounded by ridicule.” -Thomas Hobbes

PC Leftoid Therapeutism Goes Insane 1

The University of Delaware forces students to undergo PC brainwashing under the guise of therapy, or “treatments.” Read all about it.

This is the “totalitarian humanism” I have been warning about in the past. The totalitarian Left has spent decades working to gain control of the universities. Now, what’s going to happen when they finally gain control of the state, the police, the legal system, the army, etc.?  This is the Cultural Marxist Revolution in full operation.

[Update: Apparently, exposure has forced the university to drop the program. See here. But they’ll be back. These cretins view this as a Long March.]

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan)

Updated News Digest November 29, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

“That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane individual has ever given his assent.”

                                                                                          -Aldous Huxley

I don’t fight for lost causes, I fight for causes not yet won!”

                                                                                        -Chris Donnellan

“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion… while Truth again reverts to a new minority.”
                                                                                            -Søren Aabye Kierkegaard

“The only kind of freedom that the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters, and that is precisely the kind that we mainly have.”                    

                                                                                     -Henry Louis Mencken

“The doctrine of equality! There exists no more poisonous poison: For it seems to be preached by justice itself, while it is the end of justice.”

                                                                               -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

“Democracy…is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”

                                                                                             -Plato

“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

                                                                                     -Alexis de Tocqueville

Who Will Protest Obama’s War? by Justin Raimondo

Fourth Generation Warfare Comes to a Town Near You (hat tip to BANA)

Why They Hate Us by Stephen Walt

WASPs and Foreign Policy: The Empire Didn’t Begin with the Neocons by Paul Gottfried

Americans’ View of the World from David Kramer

The Nature of Modern Imperialism by Alan McKinnon

The Real Unemployment Rate is 17.5% by Jeff Cox

Neither Capitalism nor Communism: For a Third Position on Health Care

Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance by Jeff Cohen

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black: Corrupt U.S.-U.K. Criticize Afghanistan by Eric Margolis

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s Trial Will Convict Us All  by Paul Craig Roberts

The Department of Gomer Pyle by Don Cooper

Support Your Local Sexual Predator by William Norman Grigg

Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America by Kevin Carson (see Carson interview)

Mission Creep: Counter-Insurgency in Salinas by William S. Lind

The American Coup D’etat of 1947 (hat tip to Ray Mangum)

55% of Americans are Populist, 7% Support the Political Class from Rasmussen

The Anarch vs the Anarchist by Wayne John Sturgeon

Libertarian and Marxist Class Analysis by Lew Rockwell

Another World Was Possible by Kevin Carson

The Federal Reserve and the Power Elite by Charles Burris

Uber-PIG Joe Arpaio’s Amerika  by William Norman Grigg

The Democrats’ War Tax by Justin Raimondo

Letter of Imprisoned Revolutionary Anarchist from Infoshop.Org

America’s Supermax Prisons Do Torture by Kiilu Nyasha

The Next Liberal Fad: A Stolen Generation of Black Children? by Steve Sailer

How Israel Became a Night Unto the Nations by Yoel Marcus

Obama’s Worsening Civil Liberties Record by Glenn Greenwald

If Obama is a Pragmatist, Then What Was Bush? by Nick Baumann

The American Cause  by Daniel Larison

Dumb and Dumber Wars by Jeff Huber

Terror Lists Won’t Save Us by Ivan Eland

Are Conservatives Coming Around on Civil Liberties by Jacob Hornberger

The Extreme Secrecy of the Federal Courts by Glenn Greenwald

Battlefield in the War of Ideas by Eugene Robinson

A Reasoned Argument Against Mass Immigration by Brenda Walker

Is the Church Militant Back? by Pat Buchanan

My Thanksgiving Prayer by Chuck Baldwin

Census Worker’s Death Was Suicide-Not “Hate” by Robert De Brus

Greek Anarchists Attacked with Explosives from Infoshop.Org

Family and Friends of Victim Protest Outside Home of Murderous PIG from Infoshop.Org

A Good Reason Not to Celebrate Thanksgiving by Red Phillips

The Case of Lynn Stewart by Marjorie Cohn

The Bush-Blair Conspiracy by Dave Lindorff

Climategate? by Dr. Tim Ball

Glaring Proof that Hitler Made It Out of the Bunker from David Kramer

Obama Rejects Landmine Treaty by Desmond Butler

WASP Establishment and the Holocaust by Charles Burris

Obama Sells Out to the Neocons by Patrick Krey

Returning to a Secret Country by John Pilger

The Cost of War Is Higher Than You Think by Philip Giraldi

What Exactly is the Job in Afghanistan? by Jeff Huber

Obama Supporter Quits Gitmo Post by Glenn Greenwald

The Empire Has No Idea What It’s Doing Gareth Porter interviewed by Scott Horton

Japan’s Native People Fight for Survival from France24

Philip Blond: Red Tory Philosopher by Michael White

Sarah Palin is George W. Bush in a Skirt by James Edwards

Secession and State Militias by Russ Longcore

One Thing Stops Mass Murderers-A Gun by Vin Suprynowicz

Decentralization and Operational Secession by Gary North

Eco-Fanatics Devastate Tribal Peoples 

Is Global Warming Settled Science? by James Taranto

Israel’s Illegal Settlements in America by Grant Smith

The Auld Triangle Goes Jingle Jangle by Alexander Cockburn

Planning for Poverty? by Carl Ginsburg

Obama as LBJ by Franklin Spinney

The Devastating Consequences of the Corporate Health Insurance Bill by Shamus Cooke

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic Discusses Carl Schmitt

Iggy and the Stooges with James Williamson for the First Time Since 1974

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Anti-Egalitarian International 

Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy

Renters Becoming Latest Victims as Foreclosure Crisis Widens 

Wall Street’s New Gilded Age by Niall Ferguson

Russian Homeless Resort to Cannibalism 

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons by Ian Angus

The Second Wave of the Financial Tsunami 

Life Without Father and Disappearing Dads 

America’s Economic Pain Brings Hunger Pangs 

America’s Shadow Economy Is Bigger Than You Think 

15 Signs American Is Coming Apart at the Seams 

The Rise of Vertical Farms 

Homelessness in New York City at an All-Time High 

An Alternative to Globalization 

Bodies Go Unburied in Detroit 

The Pending Collapse of the U.S.A. 

Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody-Violent Deaths Now Follow Evictions 

Reagan Did Not End the Cold War 

Avoiding Mass Starvation 

The Influence of Nietzsche

Former Soviet States: Battleground for Global Domination 

Global Warming Rigged?

More Than 200,000 Animals Sacrificed in Nepal Festival 

Man Discovers Charles Manson Is His Real Dad

If You’ve Done Nothing Wrong You Have Everything to Worry About

Inmate Pushed Judge to Order Electrolysis for Transgender Surgery

The Inevitable Failure of Suburbia 

Nine Points of Inland Empire National-Anarchists 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

The Coolest Band You’ve Probably Never Heard of Performs Live in 1977

The PC Left is the New Moral Majority 1

So says a free speech attorney. This statement is particularly pertinent:

“Just when the decency police and moral values group have been all but defeated in the courts–both of law and public opinion–a new threat has emerged from our left flank: political correctness,” he continued. “The leftist thought police are now wanting to impose their view of propriety on modern cultural discourse. We’re now seeing objections to racial slurs and sexist video game content that feminists and minority groups take offense to. Now without taking a position on the propriety on that content in modern video games, this trend is just as damaging to free expression rights.”

Walters pointed out legislation pending in New York that aims to prohibit sales to minors of games that have various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes, derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons as setting a dangerous precedent.

“Think about that for a minute. Would we ever in a million years tolerate the government passing a law that movies cannot have profanity, racial jokes, or derogatory language? That would eliminate practically every movie made,” he said.

The good news is that this should produce plenty of rebellious youth eager to join an anti-PC “alternative-anarchist” movement. PC is the theocracy of liberalism.

H. L. Mencken: Anarchist of the Right? 2

by Anne Ollivier-Mellio

[Keith: I translated this from the original French using online translation technology, so it’s a bit of a rough read in places. I eschewed further editing, so as to avoid additional deviations from the original.]

Mencken: anarchist of the right? Oxymoron or mere provocation? Is there not some irony in wanting to classify it, his whole life, tried to remain unclassifiable, shuffling cards, prohibiting anyone from the catalog? Described as skeptical, iconoclastic satire, turns literary critic, columnist and editor, is found at the crossroads between journalism and literature, philosophy and publishing. And if the breadcrumb to the contemporary reader to find his bearings in this maze, was simply politics? And if Mencken was, among other things, one of the most famous of American anarchism? Of course, not anarchism left of Emma Goldman (1870-1940) or Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), his Russian mentor, but anarchism synthesizing large American values and that of the right.

In his book on the right-wing anarchists in France, François Richard identifies three trends in anarchist thought. The anarchism of Max Stirner Gross (1806-1856), German thinker who rejects the generally accepted data humanistic tradition and promotes excessive individualism. Anarchism left inherited the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which seeks to empower people and the exercise of political power by all at the price of radical and violent actions (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin), and finally a Right anarchism or libertarian aristocracy, founded on a critical (or rejection) of democracy, a rejection of the egalitarian premise of 1789, a duty to revolt, hatred of intellectuals and a fierce defense of individual liberties (Richard 56). Very well represented in French literature, de Gobineau of Marcel Ayme through Leautaud, Celine, Bernanos or Anouilh, anarchism plunge right he also rooted in a uniquely American tradition of anti-statism, individualism extreme and fierce defense of individual liberties? 
 
In any case, what seems to support David De Leon in The American as Anarchist, work in which he studied the different forms of radicalism in the United States, and concludes that there is a current anarchist and right of current anarchist left the United States. We look for us to show that right-wing anarchism is perhaps one of the keys to better understand and perhaps try to classify the unclassifiable Mencken, without reducing or freezing his thought. By choosing this angle of attack will then be examined in turn led to his defense of individualism and freedoms, including freedom of expression, his critique of democracy in general and particularly the United States, its glorification of ‘individualism and opposition to the state. I finally try to evaluate ideas in light of the American libertarian tradition. To Mencken, the starting point for any discussion on freedom of thought remains the Founding Fathers. During the revolutionary period, they are the true defenders of individual freedoms. They do not believe in an egalitarian democracy, contrary to popular wisdom says, but want to establish a republic. They are wary of people, the populace (the mob) but rely on an enlightened minority, able to defend individual freedoms and equality with men before the law. In his essay on George Washington, Mencken writes: “George Washington Had No belief in the infallible wisdom of the common people, but Regarded as inflammatory dolt them and tried to save the Republic from them” (Chrestomathy 220).
 
To Mencken, love of freedom requires courage, ability to be autonomous (self-reliant) and entrepreneurship, qualities which are often destitute people. And to quote William Graham Sumner, famous Darwinist professor of economics at Yale, too, in the late nineteenth century clearly distinguishes democracy and republic. The republic is a form of self-government whose goal is not equality between men but civil liberties. It requires that we be vigilant and we will beat it when freedoms are under threat (Douglas 71). Mencken fully supports the ideas of Sumner, he considers the people too passive and too little attention to assaults on their liberties. When people fight, “he said, he does not name the key principles such as freedom, but to meet practical needs, immediate and material.  
 
Beyond principles, the reality will Mencken’s struggle for freedom of expression, a priority throughout his life. Certainly, we see expressed in his columns on topics as diverse as Puritanism, morality, religion, sex and politics. It withers mercilessly American heroes like Lincoln or Roosevelt. But he forgets the satire and irony, and rallying as soon as the individual freedoms of others, especially freedom of expression is threatened. Witness his stance in favor of the writer Theodore Dreiser, when it becomes the target of American censorship after the release of his 1915 book Genius (Bode 59-60, Hobson 151, Williams 73). In 1917 he took up the cause of the socialist Scott Nearing, dismissed from the University of Pennsylvania, because of its pacifist positions. He has no personal sympathy for Nearing but would primarily defend freedom of expression of this teacher, even a pacifist and socialist.  It is clean, Mencken later said, and if I had a son, I wish he could meet him.  In 1916 and 1917, he also takes a stand against censorship suffered almost all radical magazines (whether of the literary magazine The Seven Arts, was forced to cease publication after the release of anti-war articles Randolph Bourne, or The Masses, a magazine more politicized directed by Max Eastman, also censured by the Wilson government in autumn 1917). The fierce defense of freedom of expression animates still in the thirties when he denounced the dismissal of a teacher, Mr Blows, accused by the board of the university to be communist, or when it intervenes to support the visa application of anarchist (left!) Emma Goldman, then in exile in Europe. The anarchist deported to Russia by the U.S. government in 1919 after thirty-three years ago in the United States, was denied a visa by the authorities because of his ideas deemed seditious.
But freedom of expression has meaning only if one is willing to fight for his defense.
 
But Mencken, if committed on a personal level, doubts that his compatriots are capable of such a struggle. The people, in his view, unable to stand up for a cause as noble as freedom, because he strayed into its idiotic belief in democracy. The second theme occupies a prominent place in the political writings of Mencken. Plus an opponent of democracy, especially criticizing the excesses of the American system, he said officials from the tyranny of the majority of the emergence of movements such as fundamentalism or Prohibition or the pervasiveness of what ‘ he calls the moral puritan.
 
 The first aspect of his critique of democracy as political system is structured to reflect on Puritanism in the United States.  His target is not the Puritanism of New England in the seventeenth century because it does not arise as a historian of ideas but slayer this moral code (much more than Victorian puritan) still present in the United States at the turn of the century. His denunciation of the Puritan morality (rather than religious practice) is akin to that formulated by Van Wyck Brooks a few years ago in a book entitled Wine of the Puritans (1908). Both vilify this narrow moral code which stifles the individual and his instincts and weighed like a leaden pall over the entire American literature. “I’m against Puritanism to the last gasp,” he wrote to Dreiser in 1919 (Epstein 50). To Mencken, Puritanism and Democracy are intrinsically linked because they represent two sides of the same idea (Chrestomathy 183, Douglas 83). Both are rooted in hatred of the poor man for those who are superior. The Puritan as a Democrat (it must be understood by the individual in a democracy) are afraid of being surpassed by his peers. He believes so strongly in equality of men that do not tolerate those who want to advance, rising above the common lot.  And to sum up his thoughts in a phrase famously: “Democracy is a condition of life In which people are set to worrying Whether somebody, somewhere is enjoying things that they are not and take action to see that they do not. That is what Puritanism is also “(Douglas 83). Thus, the Puritan as the Democrat, fears excellence, hates art and those who create it, and hope that everything is measured against its own mediocrity. Precisely this race to the bottom that Mencken deplored in American society.
 
The mistake of the Americans is the belief that all men are equal in talent and ability, whereas the term gender as used by the Founding Fathers, refers only to equality with men before law. Hence the reluctance of the average American (the average man), obsessed by the idea of egalitarian democracy, to accept the geniuses, intellectuals and men of emergency. Besides Mencken believed in the existence of men of superior intelligence. Like Nietzsche, to whom he dedicated a book in 1908, he hates morality and bourgeois lifestyle (the booboisie!), And sees egalitarian drift of American democratic system the sign of the decline of a civilization. Progress (in whatever form) can only come from a creative elite and not the man in the street, whose goal is to ensure that their material comfort (12-13 Notes on Democracy ).
 
In his articles on democracy, Mencken did not yet pose a political philosopher, but a mere observer of American life. Its almost anthropological study leads him to conclude, as did Nietzsche, that democracy, more than any other political system, encourages the standardization of tastes and moral conformity and discourages the contrary originality, excellence and Imagination (Douglas 100).  To justify his position, he draws his examples from American history, and especially the withers Jacksonian period (1828-1836: under President Jackson that all white men become eligible to vote) and the populist movement (movement in the 1890s, denounced the plutocracy and demanded more rights for the masses), according to him responsible for the spread of democracy and its abuses.
 
But most of the examples from the past, the First World War Mencken offers food for thought on the evils of American democracy. In April 1917, the United States entered the war, and the Wilson government therefore seeks to silence all opposition to the conflict, they are pacifists, socialists or anarchists. One by one, all the radical magazines (whether more politicized journals as The Masses – 1911-1917 – or more interested in art as The Seven Arts – 1916-1917) fall under two laws , the Espionage Act and Sedition Act (passed in 1917 and 1918) and must stop their publication. Mencken, however, reluctant to support what he called “the red ink fraternity” (that is to say, radical intellectuals, Forgue 68), while denouncing censorship and the U.S. government. But he also openly condemned the democracy, the American people and his lack of courage. Indeed, public opinion strongly opposed the war until the end of 1916 (the Democratic Party had not he contributed to Wilson’s re-election hammering, “Wilson kept us out of the war ?), had continued to support Wilson after the outbreak of war the United States. The American people had accepted without hesitation Wilson’s argument that “this [was] a war to make the world safe for democracy”, even though individual liberties were shamefully violated and crushed the opposition. Is it just asks Mencken in a letter to Socialist Louis Untermeyer in 1917, about the inherent love of the American people for freedom? No, such a passion does not exist. He continued: “It is only an aristocracy that is ever tolerant. The masses are invariably cocksure, suspicious, furious and tyrannical. This is in fact the central objection to democracy: that it hinders progress by penalizing innovation and non conformity » (Forgue 109). 
 
Mencken remains convinced that only an aristocracy (elite) is capable of defending freedom of expression and to see a major issue (since it only has the affluence that allows it to be selfless and act for the defense of principles), while the masses, too preoccupied with defending an egalitarian democracy, have recently demonstrated their inability to react when individual liberties are at risk. Thus, the war had shown that one of the greatest dangers to democracy remained much the emergence of a “tyranny of the majority”, a term used by Alexis de Tocqueville [1] but that sums up perfectly the feeling of the Mencken early twenties. The mistake the Americans since the late nineteenth century had been pushing democracy in the extreme, to the point of forgetting the republican principles of the Founding Fathers: the equality of all before the law – not equal all at birth – and the duty of politicians to defend the res publica, that is to say the public, the public good, without seeking to flatter the masses by illusory promises.
 
But if this harsh criticism of democracy can Mencken put together a Micberth (born in 1945, this writer and pamphleteer, is considered one of the leaders of the French right-wing anarchism. His critique of the contemporary including democracy leads to write: “Equality: not know, I know some constant amount, while others laziness, filth, vice and demean themselves poor, Richard 57), his apology for the ‘individual approaches also the right-wing anarchists. He has repeatedly criticized this “tyrannical majority” herd instinct “Democratic man is quite unable to think of himself as a free individual, he must belong to a group or shake with fear and loneliness, and the group, of course, must have its leaders, “he wrote in 1926 (Chrestomathy 157). Mencken was an individualist who opposes any allegiance to a group or party. He reproached Dreiser, where it feeds yet sympathetic, his left drift (during WWI) but he will acknowledge especially to serve a group, the radical intellectuals of Greenwich Village. A decade later, he sent the same complaint to the many intellectuals who look to the communist movement. This is not the fascination of these intellectuals to the communist ideology that shocking (he wrote in effect: “If I were younger and on my own, I would be sorely tempted, I suspect, to take a look at Russia . Though most communists [are] laughable, communism [is] at least an interesting idea … quite as sensitive as democracy, “Hobson 387), their subservience to the group, their renunciation of individual combat. Individualism is indeed a fundamental value for Mencken.
Yet this desire to be free and independent group does not make him shut up in an intellectual ivory tower. Instead, he led many battles individually, refusing, like many right-wing anarchists, “to bend at all considered particularly despicable conformism” (Richard 47).
Among the battles Mencken include that he is waging against what he calls comstockery.  Comstock was a member of Congress who had pushed through a law in 1873 – known as the Comstock law – prohibiting “the mailing, transporting or importing of anything lewd, lascivious or obscene” (Parrish 143). The influence of the Comstock Act on American morality was still strong in the twenties and comstockery become a favorite target of Mencken, who committed to showing the absurdity, hypocrisy and anachronistic. Many papers in his Chrestomathy under “Morals” in the form of attack more or less veiled moral code of the legacy of the nineteenth century ( “The Lady of Joy,” “The Sex Uproar,” “Art and Sex , 48, 54, 61). It says for example these lines tasty:
 
One of the favorite notions of the Puritan mullahs who specialize in pornography is that the sex instinct, if suitably repressed, may be “sublimated,” as they say, into idealism, and especially aesthetic. That concept is to be found in all their books, they ground it upon the theory that the enforcement of chastity by a huge force of spies, stool pigeons and police would convert the Republic into a nation of moral aesthetes. All this of course is simply pious fudge. (61)
 
But his struggle against the moral hypocrisy and narrow is matched only one he waged against Prohibition (passed in 1919, it remains in force until 1933) or against Southern Methodist in the United States (185 ) and fundamentalists [2]. Ultimately, Mencken never stop, his whole life, fighting through American society. Like the anarchists of the right, he acts independently of any group or party, for his crusade is personal. Like them, he believes that “fertility intellectual and moral greatness inevitably require a personal attitude of opposition towards what might be called the socio-cultural consensus” (Richard 48).
 
Finally, Mencken conducts a final battle which relates to certain anarchists right: not content to criticize democracy, we have seen, he also accuses of having contributed to the increased role of federal States United, a phenomenon he sees as responsible for a large drift of American political system. The federal government had gradually acquired more responsibilities throughout the nineteenth century the Civil War who played a significant role in this development), but mainly in the twentieth century through the Progressive movement (1901-1914 ) and the New Deal (in the thirties) he sees his role increase dramatically. The progressive movement is driven by reformers from the middle class. Given the inequalities of American society led since the Civil War, by a minority of plutocrats, the middle class American is looking for solutions to improve the plight of the poorest in order to minimize social protest. This improvement is through better social protection and distribution of wealth more equitable, the federal government should be able to put in place. After a moment the arguments progressives rallied during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1908), Mencken never stop criticizing the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson from 1912. He believes, like the English philosopher William Godwin, the function of government should be duplicated and limited to protecting the individual against the attacks of his fellow citizens and foreign policy. He writes: “The government is in essence not a mere organization of ordinary men like the Ku Klux Klan, the U.S. Steel Corporation or Columbia University, but has transcended organism composed of aloof and impersonal powers, wholly devoid of self interest “(Douglas 118).  For him, the increased federal role that inevitably affects the autonomy and individual freedom, so dear to Americans. In the thirties, he did not condemn the New Deal, in which he receives one of the most serious damage to American values (independence and anti-statism). Overall, he believes that the independence and autonomy of the individual decrease as the role of government increases. 
 
But this criticism added another complaint: the government, in its current form, Mencken wrote in the thirties, only serves the interests of the people, the populace, the man in the street, at the expense of ‘aristocracy of the elite, the superior man. His essay on the nature of government begins to elsewhere in these terms: All government is a conspiracy against the superior man, its permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior in law against the man who is superior in fact, if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both.( Chrestomathy 145)
 
Found in his analysis of Government (145-153) the same distrust of the masses, the same fear that the autonomy of the individual harmed, and even condoning (suggested) of the elite – is ie the exceptional men but also all those who seek to rise, to grow in short, out of their mediocrity. Should we conclude that as an anarchist Mencken was right, as suggested by the somewhat provocative title of this study? If one refers to the definition given by Francois Richard in his book, Mencken seems to refuse, like the French right-wing anarchists, democratic and egalitarian assumption that the underlying. Like them, he sees the revolt as a duty as much moral and intellectual. This revolt is both “an act of self defense intelligence, an infallible test of the quality of people” (Richard 47).  He said he agreed that “without the virtue of disobedience, which alone can defeat the Democratic regimentation, there is no dynamic life possible, realization of being in its totality” (Richard 51) . Consciousness must stop guide the individual to dictate his conduct, and civil disobedience can be a virtue. For thus it never ceases to proclaim, there are good and bad laws, and these deserve only contempt and disobedience (for example, he criticized the arrest of radicals during the First World War and segregation in Baltimore After the Second). In addition, he poses as the defender of the individual, the cornerstone of the social system.
Far from any ideology, doctrine or party, the touchstone of action remains, for Mencken, his personal convictions, first and foremost, the idea that human equality is a delusion, and that only an aristocracy (of outstanding men) is capable of advancing society.  Finally, he deplores the increasing federal role, including when it tries to curb unemployment and fight poverty and distress of Americans during the Depression. Yet despite what appears to bind to anarchism right, Mencken remains a figure difficult to assess in the context of American intellectual.
 
In his book, De Leon is trying to show that Americans are all, in essence, libertarian (as he deems less provocative than that of “anarchist”). It seeks to explain the causes of what may seem in the eyes of an outsider, an anomaly of history, and proposes a taxonomy of the various currents libertarian (anarchist) in the United States. It firstly analyzes anarchism on the right, in its most extreme form is to deny the existence of the state.  This tradition makes the individual and autonomy the cornerstone of the social system. This current anarchist, who may well live with the capitalist system, is represented by Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) or by philosophers Transcendentalists, Thoreau and Emerson. In an essay remained famous, “The American Scholar” (1837), it is also to consider the individual as a “sovereign state” (De Leon 9).
De Leon then studied what he calls the leftist anarchism (including Johann Most and Emma Goldman are probably the most famous representatives in the U.S.) that it offers an alternative to capitalism. This second course offers a critique of institutional authority, calls the local decision-making and wants to promote solidarity and mutual assistance, where the term “anarchism” community “. If it is ruled not want to classify Mencken in the latter course, it is not necessarily easier to classify in the first. Certainly, it could hardly be indifferent to the words of Benjamin Tucker accusing the government of attacking bloated civil liberties. But would it not also a William James applauded the aftermath of the Dreyfus Affair when he wrote: “We, intellectuals, must all work to keep our precious birthright of individualism … Every great institution is perforce a means of corruption” (De Leon 45)? And would not it also agrees with this phrase from the sociologist C. Wright Mills, who said in the fifties: “I can not give unconditional loyalties to any institution, man, state, nation or movement. My loyalties are conditioned upon my own convictions and my own values » (De Leon 14) ? Neither James nor Mills were however anarchists in the strict sense, Americans are reluctant to adopt any form of authority, where individualism and spirit of independence and self-reliance are important values. Perhaps we should then conclude, like De Leon, the American is in essence an anarchist who, in various forms, continues to express its rejection of centralized power and its commitment to individual liberties, or his civil disobedience? In light of this analysis, Mencken appears to be the solitary figure in the American cultural landscape.  Anarchism of Mencken, he is undoubtedly more individualistic and community, would it ultimately more typically American, the less original they had assumed at the beginning of the study? 
 
Perhaps then we should try to appreciate this singular spirit differently. In his calls for civil disobedience, Mencken arises heir to Thoreau (author of an essay entitled “Resistance to Civil Government” (1849), in which he criticized the war (1846-1848) that the United States have waged against Mexico and its citizens called for civil disobedience). In his criticism of big government and state prerogatives, Mencken echoed Benjamin Tucker.
Finally, his stubborn defense of individual liberties including freedom of expression can bring both the anarchists of the right than a Emma Goldman, for which he also had the greatest respect. Its originality is perhaps something else. His impassioned defense of American values – freedom, autonomy and anti-statism – if sincerely held, is not exceptional, but it is imbued with his reading of youth. For Mencken, as we know, spent his childhood and adolescence, that is to say, the 1890s, to devour books.  His insatiable curiosity has led Mark Twain to Nietzsche, from Henry Adams, William Sumner and Herbert Spencer – the father of social Darwinism. It would take too long to explain here in detail the impact of these thinkers and writers on Mencken. Nevertheless Mencken’s anarchism, it is undeniable, is strongly imbued with the ideas of Nietzsche on democracy and its nihilism, printed by the social Darwinism of Spencer, influenced by the great liberal economic theories – laissez-faire – in short, all influenced by the dominant values of America where he grew up. And perhaps eventually the ability to make a synthesis between the great American values and common ideas in vogue at the turn of the century, making this Mencken empêcheur think in circles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
· Bode, Carl. The New Mencken Letters . New York: The Dial P, 1977.
 
· Cain, William E.  “A Lost Voice of Dissent.HL Mencken in Our Time. “Sewanee Review. (Spring 1996): 229-47.
 
· De Leon, David. The American as Anarchist . Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
 
· Douglas, George H. HL Mencken, Critic of American Life . Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1978.
 
· Epstein, Joseph. “Rediscovering Mencken”. Commentary (April 1977): 47-52.
 
· Forgue, Guy Jean, ed. Letters of HL Mencken . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961.
 
· Hobson, Fred. Mencken, a Life . New York: Random House, 1994.
 
· Mencken, Henry Louis. Notes on Democracy . New York: Octagon, 1977.
 
· —. A Mencken Chrestomathy . New York: Vintage, 1982.
 
· Parrish, Michael E. Anxious Decades, in America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941. New York: Norton, 1992.
 
· Richard, François. Les Anarchistes de droite . [1991]. Paris : PUF, 1997.
 
· Williams, William HA HL Mencken Revisited. New York: Twayne, 1998.
NOTES
[1] In Democracy in America, it analyzes the U.S. political system as he had seen during his trip to the United States in 1831. In the chapter entitled “The tyranny of the majority”, he explains how the desire to create a democracy eventually led the U.S. to plebiscite the majority opinion to stifle all dissent, protest or simply original.
 
[2]In the twenties, they defended a literal interpretation of the Bible, going to ban the teaching of Darwinian theory – evolutionary – in some states. Scopes, a biology professor who had agreed to defy the fundamentalists and teaching Darwin’s theories in Tennessee, was tried in 1925. The Scopes trial – or Monkey Trial – was an opportunity for Mencken to deploy all its verve and fun of the fundamentalists and their figurehead, the old populist politician William J. Bryan ( Chrestomathy 246).

     

© Cairn.info 2009

Updated News Digest November 22, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”

“The first forty years of life give us the text; the next thirty supply the commentary on it.”

“We can come to look upon the deaths of our enemies with as much regret as we feel for those of our friends, namely, when we miss their existence as witnesses to our success.”

                                                                            -Arthur Schopenhauer

War: Our Chief Industry by Justin Raimondo

Obama and Liberal Chickenhawks Michael Hasting interviewed by Scott Horton

FIRE TO THE PRISONS  Issue # 7 

Edward Abbey, Conservative Anarchist by Bill Croke

A Short Discussion With a Stranger by Luke SD

Police State U.S.A. by Tom Engelhardt and Alfred McCoy

Internet Under Siege by Philip Giraldi

Pathology and Ideology: Hasan and Anarchist Assassin Leon Czolgosz by Evan Matthew Daniel

The Trial of the Century by Justin Raimondo

Israel Lobby Still Pushing Iran War by Philip Giraldi

Why Do They Hate Us? Israel!! Ray McGovern interviewed by Scott Horton

History Promises Disaster in Afghanistan for Blind America by John MacArthur

The Myth of Racist Kids (thanks, Ean!)

A Visit to Christiania by two Tasmanian National-Anarchists

Inspiration from Maine by Christopher Ketcham (thanks, Peter!)

War After Economic Bust? by Ryan Huang

Why the Democrats Now Dominate American Politics by Peter Beinart

Red Taliban by Siddharth Srivastava

Cultural Marxists Attempt to Censor Heidegger by Patricia Cohen

Black-On-Black Slavery from the BBC

The Seattle Quality of the Copenhagen Mobilization by Naomi Klein

The Stag Party Is Over by Mike Payne

Newt Gingrich Takes Out Another Contract on America by Harrison Bergeron 2

New Publications on Greece’s 2008 Revolt from Infoshop.Org

The Principality of Hutt River 

Class Struggle in the Service Sector from Infoshop.Org

Confronting the Prison-Industrial Complex from Angola 3 News

Crisis of the Capitalist System: Where Do We Go From Here? by Immanuel Wallerstein

We Need Health Care, Not Insurance by Carol Miller

Shining a Light on the Roots of Terrorism by Ray McGovern

Doctors Light Up by Norm Kent

Torture Resisters Arrested at Fort Huachuca by Brenda Norrell

The Ayn Rand I Knew by Ralph Raico

Reading the Af-Pak Tea Leaves by Jeff Huber

Obama’s Fractured Israel Policy by Daniel Larison

Obama Is Haunted By Gorbachev’s Ghost in Afghanistan by James Fergusson

Ex-Islamic Radicals on What Motivates and Impedes Extremism by Glenn Greenwald

To the Brink and Back Again  by Johann Hari

The New State Solution by Chris Hedges

Israeli Racists and the Demographic Demon by Uri Avnery

Why the McKrystal Plan Will Fail by Conn Hallinan

Obama’s China Junket by Mike Whitney

The Bogus Success of the Surge by Ray McGovern

The Historic Right to Nationhood by Ron Ridenour

A First Look at the Military Commissions Act by Joanne Mariner

With Enemies Like This, Who Needs Friends? by Kevin Carson

Why Anarchists Should Hurrah the Recession by Alex R. Night

First U.S. Marijuana Cafe Opens in Portland by Tom Johansmeyer

How to Buy a Used Firearm (and why you should) by Chuck Hawks

The U.S. Military Threatens the Entire Planet by Rick Rozoff

Against the Armies of Multiculturalism and Social Justice by Walter Block

Obama, Don’t Lecture China On Censorship by Dave Lindorff

Teuton and Gaul Will Never Fight Again by Eric Margolis

A Case for Secession-Introduction by Patrick Samuels

Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting by Doug Samuels

And You Thought Getting Into Harvard Was Tough by David Kramer

NEVER Call the Police for Help by William Norman Grigg

More Green Will Cost You More Green by David Kramer

Palin Drinks the Neocon Kool-Aid by James Ostrowski

Palin’s Paradox by Christopher Manion

Crooked Cops Shooting Fish in a Barrel by Karen De Coster

NEVER Ask the Police for Help, Continued by William Norman Grigg

Rothschild/Warburn Mouthpiece ADL Mouths Off by David Kramer

NEVER Talk to the Police: They’re Trained to Lie by William Norman Grigg

Afghanistan, Iraq Near Bottom of Corruption Index by Jim Lobe

The View from China by Robert Dreyfuss

Our National Cognitive Dissonance by Jeff Huber

I Fought the Law…And I Won by Steve Bierfeldt

An Anarchist’s Story: The Life of Ethel MacDonald by Chris Dolan

Steel Workers Consider Worker-Run Cooperatives by Andrew McLeod

Arianna’s PC Delta Force by David Nathan

Let’s Get Fiscal by Mike Whitney

Fear in Nicaragua by Danny Weil

Rush to Judgement on Terror Trials by Walter Brasch

Some Thoughts on Obamastan by Alex R. Knight

Common Sense Isn’t Common Anymore! by Dave Chappell

Father Abraham Had Many Sons by Thomas Knapp

Magazine Editor Questions Global Warming, Hysteria Ensues by James Delingpole

Sick of Military Double Speak? by Laurence Vance

PIG Tases 10 Year Old Girl 

Hitler, Bush, and Obama by Jacob Hornberger

Leviathan’s Orphans by William Norman Grigg

The War on Switzerland by Mike Rozeff

The Recession Creeps Across the Land by Stephen Carson

Private School Students Learn About Martial Law by William Norman Grigg

Lou Dobbs is Antiwar Now! by Karen De Coster

The Gitmo Trial: Why Now? by Justin Raimondo

Hey, I Know! Let’s Have a Show Trial! by Arthur Silber

Ditch Tribunals Entirely by Anthony Romero

Obama’s Extrajudical Killers by Nat Hentoff

Is Our Children Learning? by Pat Buchanan

It’s Show Trial Time! by Alexander Cockburn

Secession from Obamamerica by Zach Jones

It’s a War on the Poor! by James Brittain

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic interviews Paul Gottfried

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody

Potential for Criminal Behavior Evident at Age 3 

Ernst Junger 

National Liberal Part-The Third Way 

Red Toryism: A Lesson for the Left? 

American Indians Object to Loss of Identity 

Is France’s Identity Debate a Call to the Far Right? 

Mark Steyn and the Limits of Neoconservatism

Journal: Loyalty? from John Robb

Fort Hood: Pre-Westphalian Loyalties or Postal Rage? by John Robb

PIGS Taser Unarmed Man to Death 

Are There More Universes? from New Scientist

Somali Woman Stoned for Adultery 

U.S. Residents Fight for the Right to Hang Laundry 

When the Left Was Right from American Conservative

Conservative Ralph Nader by Jack Hunter

Wendell Berry: Against the Death Penalty

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage 

Top Ten Evil Human Experiments 

Strategies and Tactics at the World Trade Organization 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Are Men More Intelligent Than Women? 4

John Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn say yes, but Adrian Farnham says no. What do you think? Does it matter?

My position on this has always been to promote meritocracy. Whether women (or blacks or Mexicans or some other group) are on average less intelligent or not, if someone from a group whose average intelligence is lower than others can still rise according to their own abilities, then what does it matter? For instance, if women, blacks, or others are individually capable of being great scholars, scientists, inventors, or artists, and no one prevents them from doing so, then what else is there to be concerned about?

Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! 7

by David Graeber

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life.

* If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent — which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short:
anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an
anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society — at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public
relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

“It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others…” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.
Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over
the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no”, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but
second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.