Updated News Digest February 13-14, 2010 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

United Anarchism Vs United Nationism 

Fall of the New World Order

The Tyranny of “Tolerance”: Resist Politically Correct Fascism to the Death!!!

Quotes of the Week:

“Kirk called conservatism ‘the conservation of a particular people at a particular place at a particular time.’  While I don’t generally call myself a conservative, there’s a good deal of value here.  Yet I don’t share the paleos’ commitment to particularity to the point of denying abstraction outright.  Some principles are unconditionally valid.  Yet they apply differently to different peoples (and persons) at different places and different times.  For instance, one may be an anarchist (or socialist or small-d democrat, etc.) and take this to be an unconditional value, but only an idiot (though there are certainly plenty of these) would say we have to model anarchy in 21st century America strictly on the basis of Civil War era Spain.  I suppose this is largely the point of tribal anarchy, panarchy and “anarchism without adjectives.”

                                                                                     -Ruhollah James

“After almost ten years of Americans whining about 9/11 [something that happens in the rest of the world almost weekly, usually due to American or American-financed bombing], lately amplified by the shrill, effeminate shrieks of Bloomboig’s New Yoikers about the “terra-trial” [held quite successfully and safely in London and Madrid], how refreshing to hear the words of “The Hero of the XXth Century” [Yockey]: ” I owe my life to pure chance. What difference does it make if I sit or stand?

                                                                                              -James J. O’Meara

It Is Now Official: The U.S.A. Is a Police State by Paul Craig Roberts

Secession Is in the Air by Kirkpatrick Sale

Secessionist Sentiment Is Rising by Pat Buchanan

Wars Sending U.S. Into Ruin by Eric Margolis

Left Behind: Liberals Get a War President of Their Very Own by Murray Polner

The Hypocrisy of Politically Correct Vermont Neoliberals by Thomas Naylor

That Magical Water’s Edge by Kevin Carson

Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order by Josh Eboch

Nullification and Interposition by Clyde Wilson

What Has “The Union” Ever Done for Colorado? It’s Time for Secession! by Mark Crovelli

Secession: A Solution to the Washington, D.C. Debt Threat by Ron Holland

I Don’t Mean to Say I Told You So, But…. by Stephen Walt

The Orange Revolutions, Peeled by Justin Raimondo

The Bosnian Threat to the Empire by Nebojsa Malic

Destabilizing Pakistan: Echoes of Cambodia by Pratap Chatterjee and Tom Engelhardt

Obama Surge Driving Thousands From Their Homes by Chris Floyd

Obama, the War President by Helen Thomas

The Terror-Industrial Complex by Chris Hedges

Where Has the Antiwar Movement Gone? by Ryan Jaroncyk

Another Election Goes the Wrong Way for Uncle Sam by Neil Clark

Repeating Pentagon Lies Over Gitmo Recidivism by Andy Worthington

AP Article Fuels Iran War Hysteria by Jason Ditz

North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il Makes Denuclearization Pledge by Jon Hershkovitz and Ben Blanchard

The Media’s Tall Tales Over Iraq by Brendan O’Neill

Fear of Peace Will Be the Death of Israel by Bradley Burston

The Apartheid Will End When Israelis Have to Face Its Costs by Tony Karon

The Lessons of Iraq Have Been Ignored-The Target Is Now Iran by Seumas Milne

The Middle East No Longer Matters by Jay Hatheway

Why Does Sarah Palin Want More War? by Karen Kwiatkowski

Same Empire, Different Emperor by Laurence Vance

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Think Things Through by William Norman Grigg

Middle-Class Rage by Jack Douglas

The Financial Crisis Versus Students by Christian Eubank and Peter Schiff

You Have No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Police State of America by Declan McCullagh

Out of the Mouths of Our New World Order Masters by David Kramer

The Green Gestapo Is Here by William Norman Grigg

Global Depression: The Real Problems Will Start in Japan by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The Role of the Organic Homo by James J. O’Meara (see related commentary by Alisdair Clarke and Keith Preston)

Remembering Plaxico by Manuel Lora

Guns, ID Cards, Weed: Nullification Is on the Rise by Michael Boldin

Obama, Hands Off China: Get Your Own House in Order by Chris Clancy

CIA Abets in the Murder of Christian Missionary by David Kramer

Cop Does a Good Deed by William Norman Grigg

Feds Attempt Espionage Into Internet Viewing Habits of Citizens by David Kramer

The Kid, the Pimp, and the Spineless Media by Kelley B. Vlahos

Some Thoughts for the Coming Year and Beyond by Kevin Carson

You Must Be This Tall to Overthrow the Government by Roderick Long

News Flash: “We No Longer Control Our Government” by Kevin Carson

Give the Commons Back to the People by Francois Tremblay

Tea Partiers Versus Ron Paul by Brian Doherty

The Bankrupt PIGS of Europe by Pat Buchanan

Anarchism and Voluntary Cooperation by Barefoot Bum

An Anarchist’s Strategy to Dismiss Every Foreclosure in Florida from Matt Weidner

Visiting a Modern Day Slave Plantation an interview with Nancy A. Heitzeg

Crime Pays: How NYC Bosses Rob the Working Poor by Michelle Chen

Property Is Theft?  from Infoshop.Org

Institutionalizing Howard Zinn by Ralph Nader

LaGuardia and the Truth About Marijuana by Fred Gardner

Sarah Palin’s Lapel Pin by Stonewall

The Secret to Long Life: “Right Tribe” by Christopher Donovan

The State Is a Deadly Virus by Butler Shaffer

Who Shows Up at Tea Partys? by James Ostrowski

Secession: The Ignorance of Chris Matthews by Thomas DiLorenzo

Sarah Palin Drinks the Neocon Kool-Aid by Lew Rockwell

PIG Jokes About Murdering Citizens Exercising Their Right to Bear Arms by William Norman Grigg

How to Beat the War Party by Justin Raimondo

Liberty Versus Patriotism by Ivan Eland

America’s Veterans: The Anatomy of Homelessness by Monica Nilsson

The Mythical Potency of Terrorism Fear-Mongering by Glenn Greenwald

Leon Wieseltier, Anti-Semitism, And Israel by Daniel Luban

Bombs Away: Conservatives Embrace War by Doug Bandow

Specks and Beams in U.S. Foreign Policy by Jacob Hornberger

 Lebanon Backs Hezbollah Against Israel by Jason Ditz

Obama Copying Bush-Era Detention Policies by Thomas Eddlem

The Cold War Is History by Doug Bandow

Obama’s Green Police by Norvell Rose

“Yes, I Can Break the Law: I’m a PIG, Damn It!!” by William Norman Grigg

Loyalty Test by Lew Rockwell

PIGS Steal Private Arms Collection by William Norman Grigg

Are First Amendment Rights Also Natural Rights? by James Leroy Wilson

The State As Absentee Owner  by Francois Tremblay

Can the Real Estate Predators Fight Off the Oil Company Predators? by Paul Craig Roberts

Books 2 Prisoners: Volunteer Program Connects Prisoners with Reading Materials from Infoshop.Org

The Battle for Marjah by Patrick Cockburn

The R.E.A.L. Ghost Busters from The Occidental Quarterly

The Weathervane as Metaphor by Justin Raimondo

Talking Our Way Out of Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

The Obama Disarmament Paradox by Greg Mello

Paul Goodman Essay Contest (hat tip to Joel Schlosberg)

Never Heard of the Pearcy Massacre? by Nicholas Stix

This Is What Muslim Children Are Taught in Britain 

Hispanic Gangs Ethnically Cleansing Black Neighborhoods in L.A. by Brenda Walker

Does Harvard Hate White People? by Paul Craig Roberts

Troops Randomly Patrol Streets in Pittsburgh, Respond to “Domestic Disputes” from PrisonPlanet.Com

Taxes an Unnecessary Compromise on Marijuana by Thomas Knapp

Obama: Enemy of the Working Class by Sheldon Richman

Indications of Open-Source Economy by John Robb

Obama Takes a Blue Pencil to the Bill of Rights by A. Barton Hinkle

The President’s Power to Kill Citizens by Philip Giraldi

Torture Is a Crime, Not a State Secret by Matthew Harwood

In the Land of the Stoner Cops by Nir Rosen

The Goat in the  Clearing  by Alexander Cockburn

The Economic Velociraptors by Andrew Cockburn

The Taliban Isolated Bin Laden by Gareth Porter

That Which Cannot Be Spoken by William Blum

I Cut My Hair, But I’m Not a Terrorist by Dave Lindorff

Obama’s Drug War Budget: Looking a Lot Like Bush’s by Bill Piper

The Erotic Theater of the Mind by Dr. Susan Block

Politics, Corruption, and El Salvador by Charles R. Larson

Kevin Carson and Richard Stallman Discuss Intellectual Property from Infoshop.Org

 Help Noam Chomsky Find His Inner Anarchist by Roderick Long

Pericles and the Athenian Ideal, Part One by Troy Southgate

The Persecution of Kevin MacDonald by Greg Johnson

Heidegger “The Nazi” Part One by Michael O’Meara

Heidegger “The Nazi” Part Two by Michael O’Meara

Heidegger “The Nazi” Part Three by Michael O’Meara

A Warning to the Tea Party Nation by Chuck Baldwin

“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

American Third Position Party Chairman William D. Johnson interviewed by Dr. Tomislav Sunic

Modern Feudalism and the Persistent Threat of Totalitarianism Michael Kleen interviewed by Dr. Tomislav Sunic

Lock the Bush Team in Prison Francis Boyle interviewed by Scott Horton

Helping Iraqi Children Injured by U.S. Aggression Cole Miller interviewed by Scott Horton

We Who Dare Say No to War Murray Polner interviewed by Scott Horton

Free Speech Is Dead Brendan O’Neill interviewed by Scott Horton

On Agrarianism by Matthew Raphael 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

Fistful of Love by Black Oak Arkansas with Ruby Starr

Baby, I’m Amazed by Ruby Starr

Levity Ball by Alice Cooper (1968)

This Is the Day by Captain Beefheart

Big Eyed Beans From Venus by Captain Beefheart

This Ain’t the Summer of Love by Blue Oyster Cult

Junior’s Eyes by Black Sabbath (with Savoy Brown’s Dave Walker on vocals)

Man on the Silver Mountain by Ritchie Blackmore’s Rainbow (with Ronnie James Dio on vocals)

Oh No by Frank Zappa

Oh no
I don’t believe it
You say that you think you know
The meaning of love
You say love is all we need
You say
With your love you can change
All of the fools
All of the hate
I think you’re probably
Out to lunch

Oh no
I don’t believe it
You say that you think you know
The meaning of love
Do you really think it can be told?
You say that you really know
I think
You should check it again
How can you say
What you believe
Will be the key to a
World of love?

All your love –
Will it save me?
All your love –
Will it save the world
From what we can’t understand
Oh no
I don’t believe it

(Commentary from Maury2k)

Sarah Palin as Rock Star 

Overpopulation Is More Than Just a Third World Thing 

Billy Ayers Fraud Revisited

George W. Bush: Miss Me Yet? Hell, No!! 

When the Immigration Debate Gets Mean 

Once Upon a Time in Europe 

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Life is war and conflict, struggle and strife, from conception till death…Never shall the lion lie down peacefully with the lamb…”

Why are those who espouse Univeral Love, Tolerance, and ‘Human Brotherhood,’ usually the most screwed up people you’ve ever met, socially and emotionally? Not to mention some of the nastiest and most self-centered narcissists around?”                                                                                   

                                                                                                  -Chris Donnellan

Japan: The Despised Ainu People

Eva Peron 

The Least Trusted Banks in America 

Futurism In Russia 

Ten False Flags That Changed the World 

How TV Frames the Working Class 

The American Ruling Class 

Supply Side Economics for the Wealthy 

The Myth of Free Markets 

Ralph Nader: How Corporations Gained Control of the U.S. 

Ralph Nader: The Negative Effects of “Free” Trade 

14 Percent of U.S. Adults are Illiterate 

 Man Attacks TVs in Wal-Mart 

New Research Rejects 80-Year-Theory of “Primordial Soup” As the Origin of Life 

The World Capital of Killing 

U.S. Budget Priorities 

Crowd Psychology and Manipulation 

An Enquiring Curmudgeon Wants to Know 

(hat tip to Andrew Yeoman for the following links)

“What You Believe is Not as Important as What You Do.”

                                                                                                  -Andrew Yeoman

Ten Most Incredible Abandoned Mental Asylums 

Police State in King, North Carolina ?

Tel Aviv Cult Leader Enslaves Women 

Democrats Are Dropping Like Flies 

John Mayer: Weenie 

Subversive Groups Must Now Register in South Carolina 

Sexist Vintage Ads 

Dumb Bitch Kills Kitten in Oven: Taunts Animal Rights Protestors 

Sex Statistics at Woman’s Day 

Hitler Toy Breaks German Law 

Military Men Take Part in Extreme Jungle Survival Training 

Comic Book Collector Jailed for Six Months 

Race and Gender of Judges Make Enormous Difference in Rulings 

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

Don’t Talk to the Police

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

Improved Gadsden Flag - DONT TREAD ON ANYONE

Free Sex With Coupon 

AlternativeRight.Com to be Launched on March 1 4

AlternativeRight.Com (it’s not up yet) will be launched on March 1. Pass the word. And if anyone would like to donate or knows any potential donors, then email Keith Preston at kppgarv@mindspring.com and the information will be passed along to AltRight’s editor, Richard Spencer.

Other contributors to this project will be Patrick Ford, Alex Birch, Srdja Trifkovic, Paul Gottfried, Richard Hoste, Kevin De Anna, Dylan Hales, Derek Turner, Alex Kurtagic, Marcus Epstein, Mark Hackard, Jack Donovan, Nina Kouprianova, Scott Locklin, and hopefully many others. Quite a diverse (in the genuine sense) and impressive roster. Be there on March 1.

Ad Hominem Argument: A Classic Example 5

Carol Moore is someone who deserves credit for helping to publicize the secessionist cause. See her website here. Unfortunately, she has delivered a classic example of an ad hominem argument against Yours Truly in response to my suggestions that the radical Left should seriously consider the possibility of adopting a secessionist outlook. You can see Ms. Moore’s response here. Here it is in full:

While Preston’s article seems rational, if you look at the list of articles he’s published he also promotes “National Anarchism” which is against “miscengenation” and promotes (as opposed to merely accepting) separation of the races. He also promotes revolutionary violence, including by Tim McVeigh. FYI.

The ad hominem part of this is obvious. What Carol is saying amounts to is: “Yes, Keith Preston makes reasonable arguments as to why the radical Left should consider secession, but he’s also a bad guy, so this refutes or at least dimishes his arguments.”  A response to the charges is in order:

“…he also promotes “National Anarchism”…”

Guilty but proud. See my discussions of National-Anarchism and related views here, here, and here. National-Anarchism is a freshingly interesting and vibrant current when compared with the dull conformists and predictable lefto-losers associated with the mainstream anarchist movement.

“…which is against “miscengenation”…”

There’s no “n” in this term, but as something of a serial miscegenator myself I don’t really care what views National-Anarchists may or may not hold on “miscegenation.” See John Derbyshire on this one. I don’t really adhere to any of the Christian taboos about “adultery” or “fornication” either, but I’ve also promoted Christian secessionist or separatist groups in the past. I’ve even promoted Mormon polygamists. To demonstrate the absurdity of this kind argument against the National-Anarchists, imagine if a Muslim, an Orthodox Jew or a Seventh Day Adventist were to make an argument like this: “Yes, Preston makes reasonable arguments in favor of secession by Muslims, Jews, and Adventists, but he also promotes individuals and groups that eat pork, drink alcohol, and refrain from keeping the Sabbath…..”

Enough said on that point.

“…and promotes (as opposed to merely accepting) separation of the races…”

As an anarchist, what I actually advocate is a concept I call “separation of race and state” on the same model as the Jeffersonian idea of “separation of church and state.” If racial and ethnic integrationism of the kind favored by liberals and leftists can take place on its own without the coercive apparatus of the state to compel it, and without the economic pressures generated by state-capitalism and imperialism, then so be it. On the other hand, if the kind of racial separatism favored by “racial conservatives” (for lack of a better term) is indeed normal or natural, then that’s fine by me as well. My guess is that there would probably be some of both, with the degree of extremes on either end depending on other factors like local culture, institutional forms, ideological currents, economic factors, population size, geography, history, individual personalities and so forth. Imagine if Carol were to instead make an argument like: “Preston promotes (as to merely accepting) separation of the cultures and religions where hippies, Christian evangelicals, Catholics, goth-rockers and Jehovah’s Witnesses simply do their own thing-what a god-awful thing this is!”

What leftoids just can’t seem to accept is that some of us just flat out don’t give a damn if races are “separated” or not. Indeed, some the present-day “anti-racism” hysteria is starting to sound a lot like the anti-commie  panic of the 1950s or the “Satanic panic” of the 80s. If Joe McCarthy were alive today, no doubt he would be talking about the evil cabals of racists who’ve infiltrated American institutions. If Dana Carvey were just inventing his “Church Lady” character today, he’d have to make her a PC liberal: “Satan?…Racism!!!!!”

Enough said on that one.

He also promotes revolutionary violence,…”

It is quite unlikely that the existing regime, ruling class, and empire is going to let territories within the U.S.A simply walk away without a fight. So, on that great day of reckoning, it is indeed quite likely that secessionist movements will indeed need defense organizations of a “fourth generation” nature. See Hezbollah, Hamas, the FMLN, or the Peoples’ War Group. See 1776, 1861, or Spain 1936. Pacifism doesn’t interest me.

including by Tim McVeigh

McVeigh got an “A” for attitude but an “F” for tactics and good sense, in my book.

Enough said on that one.

Updated News Digest February 7, 2010 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

United Anarchism Vs United Nationism 

Quotes of the Week:

“To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover every day anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion.”

“Where the state begins, individual liberty ceases, and vice versa.”

“From the naturalistic point of view, all men are equal. There are only two exceptions to this rule of naturalistic equality: geniuses and idiots.”

“Powerful states can maintain themselves only by crime, little states are virtuous only by weakness.”

                                                                   -Mikhail Bakunin

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is an appalling policy, one that has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the most primitive prejudice. But what else can one expect of an institution such as the military, particularly the US military in the Age of Empire?

Also, the idea that the concept of equality means that everyone should have the “right” to join an institution that is currently rampaging over the earth, invading countries hither and yon, and causing in incalculable amount of human suffering and material destruction would be laughable if Americans — particularly gay Americans — didn’t take it so seriously.

No one should join the military — not gay people, not straight people, not any people. In a free society, the military would be just another job — working to ensure the defense of the country. In today’s America, however, that is most definitely not the function of the military, which has been turned into an instrument of oppression and worse. To say, therefore, that everyone has the “right” to participate in, say, what went on at Abu Graib — in the name of “justice” — is self-evidently absurd.”                                                        

           -Justin Raimondo                                                             

The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont by Christopher Ketcham

The Antiwar Secessionist Movement by Tom Barnes

The Political Economy of Monarchy, Democracy, Secession, and Anarchy by Hans Hermann Hoppe

Texas Nationalists Say Sovereignty or Secession by Mark Anderson

Is Secession Constitutional? by Brian Stanley

Softening the Transition to a Stateless Society by Darian Worden

Third Parties I’d Like to See by James Leroy Wilson

The Crisis Is Not Over by Paul Craig Roberts

Unintended Consquences: A Feature, Not a Bug by Kevin Carson

We Don’t Need a State to Protect Us From Foreign Aggression by Morris and Linda Tannehill

Reading List on Law Without the State by Walter Block

Statism Is Not Socialism, Pro-Market Is Not Pro-Business by Kevin Carson

Obama’s Budget: Record Spending, Record Deficits by Andrew Taylor

America’s Rudderless Ship of State by Chuck Baldwin

The U.S.A.: An Aggregation of Nincompoops by Alex Massie

Forget Global Warming, It’s the Economy Stupid! from Pew Research Center

The Tea Party by John Robb

The Left: Going Downhill Since 1960 by Alexander Cockburn

If You Were in a Secret Prison by Joanne Mariner

U.S. Agrees to Time Table for U.N. Gun Ban

Why Inflation Will Come? by Gary North

The U.S. Can No Longer Afford Its Empire by Ivan Eland

On the Claimed “War Exception” to the Constitution by Glenn Greenwald

When the Military Serves As Police by Jacob Hornberger

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell-Don’t Go! by Justin Raimondo

Will Obama Play the War Card? by Pat Buchanan

Will the Chinese Dragon Awake? by Justin Raimondo

Light at the End of the Afghan Tunnel? by Eric Margolis

The Dangers of State Surveillance by Henry Porter

Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan is Counterproductive by William R. Polk

Insulting China by Robert Dreyfuss

U.S. Sponsored Regime Change in Iran by Ardeshir Ommani

Terrorism in Any Color by Jack Hunter

The Defense Industry is Pleased with Obama by Laura Flanders

Lawyers Appeal Guantanamo Trial Convictions by Andy Worthington

World Isn’t Buying Israel’s Explanations Anymore by Aluf Benn

Why Does the U.S. Turn a Blind Eye to Israeli Bulldozers? by Robert Fisk

Zionism Laid Bare by Kathleen Christison

CIA Has Program to Assassinate U.S. Citizens by Thomas Eddlem

The New Pentagon Budget: Paying More, Getting Less by Winslow Wheeler

The Pentagon Goes Intellectually AWOL by Franklin Spinney

Surveillance Can’t Make Us Secure by Julian Sanchez

More Airport Security Won’t Do Much to Stop the Terrorists, Leaving the Middle East Would by Jeffrey A. Miron

The Inalienable Right to Secede by Scott Lazarowitz

Nullification: It’s Already Happening by Derek Sheriff

Thousands Protest U.S. Military Presence in Japan from The Daily Mail

WW2 Is Over: Bring Our Marines Home by Pat Buchanan

Federal Marijuana Supremacists by Manuel Lora

Ron Paul and the Pro-Life Movement by Christopher Manion

The Pro-Life Assault on Ron Paul and the Constitution by Laurence Vance

Astroturf  Verses The Tea Party Movement by James Ostrowski

Blair Lied, Thousands Died by Laurence Vance

Blair Regretted Nothing, Learned Nothing by Michael Glackin

Tony Blair and His Oh-So-Clean Conscience by Robert Fisk

Blair’s Monstrous Inconsistency by Daniel Larison

The Case Against Tony Blair by Patrick Cockburn

The Neoconservative Empire by Ron Paul

Israeli Female Soldiers Break the Silence by Ira Chernus

The CIA in Afghanistan by Doug Valentine

Obama, Military Growth, and Retirement by Bede

North Korea: The Last Racialists by Richard Hoste

The Road to Disunion: The Secessionists of 1854-1861 by Hunter Wallace

History Ain’t Bunk by James Jackson

Viewers Are Flocking to Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theories  by Daniel Perdomo

Growing Movement to Disband Police Departments by Mike Shedlock

The Left’s Double Standard on Race by Anonymous Attorney

This Is a Man: The Defiance of Omar Deghayes by William Norman Grigg

Neat, Painless Perpetual War by Mike Tennant

Patriot Act: Eight Years Later by William Fisher

Spinning the War on Terror  by Adam Serwer

Foreign Handouts: More Harm Than Good by William P. Hoar

Hollywood at War by John Payne

Playing Charades with Terrorists  by Fred Cate

No Defense for This Budget by Katrina Vanden Heuvel

Forgotten History: The Real Tobacco Wars by Dostoevsky

Roman Catholic Church to Split in America? by Weaver

Banning the Homeless in Colorado Springs by Kathy Kelly

War, Budgets, and Blind Ambition by Chris Floyd

Who’s Who in Mexico’s Narco-Wars? by John Ross

Israel is Criminalizing Dissent by Jonathan Cook

Copwatch: Guerrilla Video Primer 

The Hidden Inspiration of Vampire Weekend by Gavin McInnes

The Problem With Constitutionalism  by Thomas Knapp

Uber-PIG Joe Arpaio Interrupted by Students Singing Bohemian Rhapsody by David Neiwert

Waging War on the Environment by Darian Worden

Controlling the Growth of the State by Ian Bertram

Howard Zinn, R.I.P. by Roderick Long

Our Wise Leader and the Wise Pundits Who Comment Upon Him by Roderick Long

Rothbard and the Free Spirits by Gary Chartier

McCarthy on Belloc by Sheldon Richman

Onward Christian Soldiers, Again by Philip Giraldi

Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War by Jon Basil Utley

U.S. Out of Yemen by Ron Paul

Confessions of a Middle-Class Anarchist by Harry Mount

Top Ten Ways to Avoid a Tax Audit by Kelly Phillips Erb

The State Lives to Control and Humiliate Us by Anny Shaw

Weapon of Mass Destruction Found in NYC Elementary School by David Kramer

Time Flies When They’re Building a Fascist State by David Kramer

Sweden Has Been Neutral in Foreign Wars for 200 Years (Good for Them!) by Lew Rockwell

Mass Murder: The Key to a Successful Presidency by William Norman Grigg

Why Global Democratic Revolution and Mass Immigration Won’t Work by F. Roger Devlin

Markets and Regulation by Paul Craig Roberts

The Glitter, the Gays by Mandolyna Theodoracopulos

Master of Treachery: Kissinger on Iraq by Barry Lando

Philadelphia Community Rallies Against Murderous PIG by John Kalwaic

The Work of Porn in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Kristian Williams

Retirement Armageddon by Gary North

The Man Who Shouldn’t Be Alive by Bill Sardi

My $4000 Sneeze by Jeffrey Tucker

Financial Tsunami by Ambrose Evans Pritchard

“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 Accused Must Have Fair Trials  Glenn Greenwald interviewed by Scott Horton

Bring the Guard Home Michael Bolding interviewed by Scott Horton

Sanctions Against Iran Are a Bad Idea (Unless You Want a War)  Muhammad Sahimi 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

Dirty Water by The Standells

Talk Talk by The Music Machine

Psychotic Reaction by The Count Five

Pushin’ Too Hard  by The Seeds

Dazed and Confused by The Yardbirds

Mary Mary (It’s To You I Belong) by The Birdwatchers

(Commentary from Maury2k)

The Cult of Political Correctness-It’s Real Uses

How Uncle Sam Almost Lost World War Two 

Howard Zinn and the Strategy of Self-Castration 

Racist Genie Out of the Bottle 

The Tactical Moxie of Kai Murros 

Batman as Bourgeois Wet Dream

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Life is war and conflict, struggle and strife, from conception till death…Never shall the lion lie down peacefully with the lamb…”

Why are those who espouse Univeral Love, Tolerance, and ‘Human Brotherhood,’ usually the most screwed up people you’ve ever met, socially and emotionally? Not to mention some of the nastiest and most self-centered narcissists around?”                                                                                   

                                                                                                  -Chris Donnellan

British Author Calls for an Assisted Suicide Panel 

 Man Arrested for Peeing on Steaks at Wal-Mart 

Asian Girl Has Surgery to Look Like Jessica Alba for Boyfriend 

Fifth of Swedish Population Foreign 

The 6 Weirdest Things Women Do to Their Vaginas 

New Basis for U.S. Asylum Claims: Homeschooling

Earth Religions Get Worship Area at Air Force Academy 

 Argentine President: Eat Pork, Spice Your Sex Life 

New Zealand Virgin Auctions Herself Off for Tuition 

Turkish Girl Buried Alive for Talking to Boys 

What Makes Right-Wing Mobs Tick 

N.W.A.-Straight Outta Compton 

Smoking: Good or Bad? 

The Amish: A People of Preservation 

Justice Department Wishes to Hire Mentally Ill, Mentally Retarded Lawyers 

Western Race Hatred Laws 

Aliens Visiting Earth Will Be Just Like Humans, Scientist Claims 

Auschwitz Survivor: Israel Acts Like Nazis 

Last Mitford Girl Bemoans the Demise of the Stiff  Upper Lip 

Mexicans Fighting Blacks in L.A. Jail 

Black and Mexican Race Wars in L.A. 

Commanding Heights: American Empire 

The Grievance Table 

The Dystopia Conservatives Built 

(hat tip to Andrew Yeoman for the following links)

“What You Believe is Not as Important as What You Do.”

                                                                                    -Andrew Yeoman

Teen Hit Man Confesses to Murdering Class President’s Mom 

For American Indian Patriots 

Colorado Springs Cuts Basic Services 

Berlusconi Wants Israel in the EU 

Letter of Marque: Privateering and The Private Production of Naval Power 

Bay Area National-Anarchists: Communities Directory 

France Refuses Citizenship Over Full Islamic Veil 

 Children Prisoners of the U.S. War on Terror

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

Don’t Talk to the Police

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

Improved Gadsden Flag - DONT TREAD ON ANYONE

Forget Global Warming, It's the Economy, Stupid! 1

So Says the Pew Research Center. So how can Alternative Anarchists and Pan-Secessionists use this to our advantage? Is Carson’s “Political Program for Anarchists” the way to go? If so, how do we get these ideas out there? If not, what? This is what I have previously written on this question:

Our main focus should be on the working class itself, the kinds of folks who work in the vast array of service industries that comprise the bulk of the US economy.

This is the “center” part of our strategy. I am not advocating a return to old-fashioned labor unionism of the type championed by the classical anarcho-syndicalists. I believe the decline of unions is permanent in nature and while traditional labor unions might still have a role in play in a twenty first century class struggle, it will only be on the margins. Instead, the economic foundation of class struggle in the future will be alternative economic enterprises and service delivery arrangements operating independently of state and corporate structures. Foremost among them will be worker-owned and operated enterprises and non-state social or health services originating from what is called the “independent sector”. This is an essay on political strategy and not economics so I will not go into a great deal of detail here except to say that the main political implication of this is that organizations formed for the defense of such economic institutions against state repression or state-imposed monopolies will be vital part of any future radical coalition.

As for the broader question of the relationship between the state and the economy, we need a populist economic program that favors elimination of state intervention into the economy on behalf of privileged interests and the reduction of taxes starting from the bottom up. This is an issue that dissidents from across the spectrum ought to be able agree on, from socialists to libertarians to paleoconservatives to Greens. Kevin Carson’s “Political Program for Anarchists” provides a good overview of how to approach this. As anti-state radicals, we should take a position of rejecting the welfare state as a means to poverty relief, while at the same time rejecting the scapegoating of the poor common to the talk-radio right-wing. We should instead be quite outspoken about the damage to done to poor communities (particularly rural farmers and inner-city minorities) by state interventions such as agricultural policy and urban renewal. As an intermediate stage to full abolition of the welfare state, we might consider the “negative income tax” suggested by Milton Friedman back during the Nixon era, whereby the costs of welfare management could be cut back drastically by distributing cash payments or vouchers directly to the poor and eliminating the bureaucratic middle-men that absord most of the welfare budget. With this approach, it might even be possible to increase subsistence payments to the poor while simultaneously cutting back significantly on both bureaucracy and taxes. The writings of Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, Hans Hoppe, Kevin Carson and Larry Gambone also contain some interesting ideas on how to go about “de-statizing” those industries and services presently operated by the state.

It is of the utmost importance that the working masses view us as the champions of their economic interests. Nothing less will be sufficient. Our populist coalition must include rank and file blue collar workers, working class taxpayers, union members, small businessmen, farmers, the self-employed, the urban poor, single moms and the homeless. We do this not by promising entitlement rights to all, but by eliminating state-imposed obstacles to economic self-determination and self-sufficiency, placing state or state-corporate industries and services directly into the hands of the workers and consumers, developing alternative economic arrangements independently of the state, eliminating taxes from the bottom up and gradually phasing out archaic state-assistance programs, with poverty relief and social security programs being the last to go once the corporate state has been fully dismantled. This is precisely the opposite of the “cut taxes and regulations at the top, eliminate subsidies to the bottom” approach favored by the right-wing corporatists. Our approach should be “cut taxes and regulations at the bottom, eliminate subsidies to the top”. On these matters, authentic fiscal conservatives and authentic class war militants should be able to agree. We should describe our economic program as neither “conservative” nor “socialist” but as simple “economic justice”.

I might add to this that the antiwar movement, the anti-police state movement, the anti-drug war movement, the anti-prison industry movement, the anti-globalization movement, the anti-immigration movement, and the pan-secessionist movement are all necessary parts of an economic resistance movement. The various international and domestic wars, the police state and prison industry, mass immigration and so forth are serious drains on the economy. Secession from the political, corporate and international institutions that perpetrate these things is a necessary corrective step.

Why the Tea Partiers Will Fail 10

The Populist Insurgency and Foreign Policy: Why Are Non-Interventionists Marginalized? by Leon T. Hadar

Obama Retreats by Maury2K

Maury sums it up pretty well:

While Democrats sit on their hands and Republicans play their waiting game, the Tea Party Movement has built up a head of steam. They denounce the status quo, talk “revolution,” demand the dismantling of the Federal Reserve and other radical sounding solutions.

The Tea Party folks display energy, enthusiasm and will power to reach their goal. However, their movement is starting to come unglued because of their own ideological short-comings. For example, they continually bash Obama’s alleged “socialism” when, in fact, he is as dedicated as Bush to corporate rule.

The Tea Party Movement ignores the myriad wars though they are wrecking the economy. Partly, this is out of a sense of faux-patriotism. But what is patriotic about sacrificing our brave men & women for something other than defense of the country?

We could go on but you know the drill.

We need street politics whereas I fear the Tea Party will end up as electoral cannon fodder for a bankrupt GOP.

Any supposed “radical” movement in North American that does not have a firm rejection of the Empire as one of its foremost principles is out of the game before it even starts. To those readers who are interested in working with these movements, my advice would be that you can probably be most effective by serving as a voice that can educate some of these people (at least the more reasonable and intelligent ones) as to the true nature of the Empire. My suggestion would be to avoid referring them to leftist, “anti-American” writers like Chomksy and Zinn and instead attempt  to turn them on to neo-isolationists and the antiwar Right like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Bacevich, Claes Ryn, Lew Rockwell, Eric Margolis, Justin Raimondo, and others. I have found from experience that the arguments made by Michael Scheuer are among the most effective when dealing run of the mill center-right types.

Britain's Emerging Police State Reply

http://vdare.com/gabb/100127_police_state.htm

by Dr. Sean Gabb

[Peter Brimelow writes: Nearly forty years ago, I was immensely impressed with The New Totalitarians a brilliant study of Swedish political culture by Roland Huntford, making the point that totalitarianism, in the sense of complete political control of society, can be brought about by bureaucracy as well as brute force. (To my amazement, this book’s influence on my own book on Canada, The Patriot Game, is cited—currently—in its Wikipedia entry.) Sean Gabb reports here that it’s coming soon to another common law country near you—Britain. Indeed, the British government’s current drive to force the anti-immigration British National Party to admit immigrant minorities to membership is the very essence of totalitarianism: no private sphere can be allowed; in Mussolini’s words Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”. This is why the passage of the so called Hate Crimes legislation, lauded by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address, was such a disaster—yet almost unopposed by the Beltway Right. It’s happening there. It can happen here.]

By Sean Gabb

At the moment in Britain, the Labor Government’s Equality Bill is completing its progress through Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is to bring all the various “equality” laws and rulings made since 1965—race, sex, sexual preference, age-based, religious, etc—within a single statute, and to enable a single scheme of enforcement, the quasi-judicial Human Rights Commission. It also tightens these laws so that such “discrimination” as has continued to exist will be made illegal.

The exact meaning of any proposed law is hard to judge in advance. We need to see the final Act of Parliament. We need to see the hundreds of pages of regulations that it enables through its delegated legislation sections. We need to see how it will be enforced by the authorities, and how the courts will rule on its interpretation.

But outlines of the law are already reasonably clear. It is, for example, illegal for a Jewish school not to accept gentile children. It is illegal for a Christian hotelier to refuse to let two homosexuals share a bed together. It is illegal for an employer to exclude job candidates who belong to a group of which he might—for whatever reason—disapprove, or to confine recruitment within those groups of which he does approve. The same applies to landlords.

It is also illegal for the British National Party to confine its membership to those it regards as indigenous to the British Isles—an unmistakeably totalitarian violation of the principle of freedom of association.

After a recent rare defeat in the House of Lords, the Government will not be able to force religious schools to employ teachers who are outside of or hostile to their religious values. But this defeat may be reversed when the Bill returns to the Commons in the next few weeks. Or it may be reversed by separate legislation. As said, a law cannot be exactly understood until it is in force.

Even so, the Equalities Bill must be regarded as one of the most important measures in the consolidation of what can only be described as the British police state, which has been emerging since the election of Tony Blair and his “New Labor” allies in 1997. (For more details, see my monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, downloadable for free here).

The problem with opposing this sort of law is that opponents can be smeared as opposed to equality in general, or even as bigots. This has completely cowed the opposition Conservative Party, which has offered only token resistance. (My own Libertarian Alliance’s opposition statement is here).

Needless to say, this is an illegitimate tactic. As with freedom, everyone nowadays believes in equality. The real question: what is meant by “equality”?

According to the liberal tradition, as it runs through Locke, Hume, Mill and Hayek, everyone has—or should be regarded as having—an equal right to his life, liberty and property.

This means that everyone should be equal before the law. A married woman should not lose the right to own property, unless she agrees in advance. A Roman Catholic should not be prohibited from inheriting under his father’s will. An atheist or Jew should not be denied justice because he will not swear as a witness on the New Testament. Everyone should have the same right of access to the courts. Everyone should have the same rights to freedom of thought and speech and faith, and to freedom of association, and to freedom from arbitrary fine or imprisonment.

And that is it. The liberal tradition does not insist that everyone should have the same right to a job, or residential letting, or service in a restaurant or hotel. No one should have the right to be loved or accepted by others.

If the owner of a business puts a note in his window advertising that he will not deal with Jews or homosexuals, or the disabled, that is his right. As a libertarian, I would regard this kind of announcement with distaste, and I might refuse, because of it, to deal with that business. But that is the limit of proper disapproval. It is not a matter for interference by the authorities.

Now, I have argued so far as if I assumed that the projectors of the Equalities Bill were people of good intentions but limited understanding. But I do not assume this for a moment. The people who rule my country are best described as evil. They have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.

There are ideologies of the left mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism—that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people.

These are not ideologies, however, of which those who now rule us in Britain have ever taken the smallest notice.

These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to Politically Correct multiculturalism. To the extent that this is becoming an embarrassment, they are experimenting with totalitarian environmentalism. But whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.

It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power. Their object has been to deactivate all the mechanisms that once existed in Britain for holding its rulers accountable to the ruled.

And that is what they have been doing since the Labour Party won the 1997 election. To a degree that foreigners do not often realise, Britain has, during the past 13 years, been through a revolution. This has been brought about by the Labor Government and by its collaborators in the MainStream Media, in the civil service and judiciary, and in big business.

They have swept away the constitutional settlement of the 17th century. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of the claim by Colonel Rainsborough, leader of the radical Leveller faction in the English Civil War, that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he”. It allowed this country to be at once highly conservative in its institutions and, at the same time, free.

All this has gone. Since 1997, we have had a bewildering 4,000 new criminal offences created—many dealing with censorship of speech and publication. They are usually enforced by a summary—and often arbitrary and even corrupt—process.

The traditional courts and their procedure have also been transformed, so that no one whose legal education ended before 1997 has the faintest idea of how to enforce his rights. We have been made formally subject to the European Union. The country has been deliberately flooded with immigrants, as former Blair speechwriter Andrew Neather recently boasted. And the purpose of mass immigration has been to break up the solidarity of the ruled.

I was born in a free country. People could speak as they pleased and live without constant supervision. If a policeman knocked on my parents’ front door, their only worry was that he might have bad news.

I now live in a police state. Recent legal reforms have completely displaced common law protections and all offenses are now arrestable. If I am accused of so much as dropping a sweet [VDARE.COM: U.S. = candy] wrapping on the ground, I can be arrested and taken to a police station. There, I shall have my fingerprints and a DNA sample taken. Even if I am released without charge, these records will be kept indefinitely. They will also be shared with several dozen foreign governments, who will often regard presence on a DNA database as evidence of a criminal record.

The natural response is that sensible men do all that is needed to avoid any police attention. That means prompt obedience to commands that may have no legal basis. And what is that but a police state?

I now live in a country where I have to be aware that private meetings and even private conversations are subject to paid informers and can lead to prosecution and professional ruin.

The Equality Bill is simply another step in the consolidation of this new order of things. It is a bribe to those groups—Muslims, Gays, racial minorities—whose electoral support is needed to keep Labor in power. It is one more excuse for making victims of known dissidents.

Above all, it is another message sent out to all of who is boss.

The only “equality” the rulers of Britain are working towards is equal fear of them—and of what they can do to us.

Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back is downloadable here. For his account of the Property and Freedom Society’s 2008 conference in Bodrum, Turkey, click here. For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is the Ruling Class?”, click here; for videos of the other presentations, click here.

Updated News Digest January 31, 2010 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

United Anarchism Vs United Nationism 

Quotes of the Week:

“Eric Foner notes that Paine had been struck during the years of 1775 and 1776 in America ‘that despite ‘the suspension of the old governments … everything was conducted’ with‘order and decorum.’ He consequently became convinced ‘that far less government was necessary than men were used to. Republican government, according to Paine, should be ‘nothing more than a national association acting on the principles of society.’”

                                      -David Heleniak, “Rousseau and the Real Culture War

“In trying to explain how things might work in a stateless society, anarchists usually point out that opposition to the state does not mean opposition to cooperation or organization.  In trying to explain  anarchism to non-anarchists, anarchists describe the ways that people can cooperate voluntarily to defend themselves against aggression and achieve positive common goals.

The non-anarchist’s first response, in most cases, is “But aren’t you just reinventing the wheel?  If lots of people organize themselves into a cooperative organization to restrain aggressors and carry out social projects, isn’t that just government by another name?”

Well, no, it really isn’t.  The main principle that distinguishes voluntary organization under anarchy from the state is that anarchists regard cooperative groupings, including groupings of a majority of people in a community, as being bound by the same moral principles that govern individuals.  An individual has the right to defend himself against aggression, and to use what rightfully belongs to him in service to his goals.  Groups of more than one person have the right to associate voluntarily to defend one another against violence, when their neighbors request it, and to associate voluntarily to use their resources to promote common ends.”

                                                               Kevin Carson, “Society Versus the State

The State of the Empire by Justin Raimondo

It’s Happening There: Britain’s Emerging Police State by Sean Gabb

Howard Zinn, R.I.P. by Anthony Gregory

Howard Zinn, R.I.P. by Kevin Carson

Fire to the Prisons: An Insurrectionary Quarterly

Israel and Islamic Terrorism: A Study in Symbiosis by Justin Raimondo

The Price of Our Middle East Policy by Glenn Greenwald

Obama Spending Freeze to Exclude Military by Ed Henry

The Sanctity of Military Spending by Glenn Greenwald

September 11 and the Downward Arc of American Thought by Joseph Margulies

Nothing More Dangerous Than a “Recovering Realist”? by Stephen M. Walt

Political Assassinations of U.S. Citizens by Glenn Greenwald

The Populist Insurgency and Foreign Policy: Why Are the Non-Interventionists Marginalized? by Leon T. Hadar

Obama’s War for Oil in Colombia by Daniel Kovalik

Rule by the Rich by Paul Craig Roberts

Mr. Antiwar Republican by Justin Raimondo

We’ve Been Neoconned! by Ron Paul

Crisis of the Government Party by Pat Buchanan

The County-by-County Strategy by Gary North

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE-WINNER BARACK OBAMA UPS SPENDING ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO EVEN MORE THAN GEORGE BUSH by David Kramer

Tax-Feeder Brutality: Not Just for U.S. Citizens by Wilton Alston

Remember the Illegal Destruction of Iraq? by Glenn Greenwald

Spending Freeze Must Include “Defense” by Lawrence Korb

Sentiment Growing for a New Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy by David Carlson

Boxed In: The Constraints of U.S. Foreign Policy by Geoffrey Wheatcroft

India’s Controversial New War Doctrine by Harsh V. Pant

The Oldest Game in Washington by Alexander Cockburn

A Memory of Howard Zinn by Daniel Ellsberg

The Ordeal of Cameron Douglas by Anthony Papa

Embrace Prejudice by James Jackson

Time for George Mitchell to Resign by Stephen M. Walt

War No Way to Afghan Women’s Rights by Doug Bandow

The Iranian Elephant in the Iraqi Room by Sreeram Chaulia

The Truth About Guantanamo by Moazzam Begg

The Antiwar Movement Needs a Restart by Kevin Zeese

Turning the Constitution On/Off by Nat Hentoff

Afghanistan: This War Won’t Work by Phyllis Bennis

Ending the War: A Manifesto by Robert Dreyfuss

Two Algerian Torture Victims Are Freed from Guantanamo by Andy Worthington

L.A. Book Fair Draws an Array of Anarchists by Kate Linthicum

Abu Ghraib, U.S.A. by William Norman Grigg

The PIGS Privilege to Kill, Our Duty to Die by William Norman Grigg

Another PIG Murder in Massachusetts by William Norman Grigg

PIGS Assault Pittsburgh Teenager by William Norman Grigg

The Never Ending Big Government/Big Business Scam by David Kramer

Do You Believe in Freedom? by Lew Rockwell

After the Old Fogies Leave interview with Neil Howe from The Casey Report

Uncommon Sense  by Becky Akers

The Coming National School Curriculum by Derek Sheriff

The Film Minority Report Becomes a Minnesota Reality by David Kramer

Will Christianity Soon Be a Non-Western Religion? by Philip Jenkins

Darknet Economies by John Robb

Obama’s Secret Prisons by Anand Gopal and Tom Engelhardt

Baffle Them with Bull Feathers by Jeff Huber

The PIGS Were Lying by Radley Balko

The PIG Occupational Army by Rad Geek

Malcolm X and Anarchism by Wayne Price

The American Conservative Attacked by Vandals by Bede

Et Tu, ACLU? by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

The Hanging of the Henchman  by Patrick Cockburn

The Supremes Bow to King Corporation by Ralph Nader

Pro-Life Hypocrisy (War Involves Taking Life, You Know) by Laurence Vance

Obama Is a Disappointment in the Middle East by Eric Margolis

Prohibiting Drunk Driving Is Not Self-Defense by Mark Crovelli

Surgery in 5000 B.C. 

Colorado, South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act Introduced by Michael Boldin

The Horrific Social Effects of the Smoking Ban by Jeremy Clarkson

Legalize Competing Currencies  by Ron Paul

Obama Moves Missiles and Troops to the Russian Border by Rick Rozoff

The Federal Reserve Sucks: Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders Agree by Nina Easton

From Neocon to Anarcho-Capitalist by Steve Klein

The Latest Insanity in the War on Discrimination by David Kramer

Pro-Lifers for Baby-Killing by Lew Rockwell

I Am Not a Liberal by Laurence Vance

Rape Rampant Among U.S. Military and Private Defense Contractors by David Kramer

PIGS Kill Man During a Domestic Argument by William Norman Grigg

Whose Life Is It Anyway? by David Kramer

 Old War Bloggers Never Die…They’re Just Born Again as Obama Shills byJustin Raimondo

What Do Anarchists Read? by Ivan Fernandez

Populism by Ezra

The Evolution of Civilizations by John Robb

Mutual Aid: A Factor in Haiti by Jesse Walker

How Many Innocents Have Died at the Hands of the U.S. Military by Laurence Vance

Nice Shooting

The Diversity-Industrial Complex by Walter Williams

Is Obama a Conservative? by Anthony Gregory

Are You an Oppressed Smoker? by John Ostrowski

Just in Time Work by John Robb

“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

Interview with Alain De Benoist, Part 2 by Tomislav Sunic

Nicolae Ceaucescu of Romania by M. Raphael Johnson

Against the New World Order by M. Raphael Johnson

Military Recruiters Lie Jonathan Williams interviewed by Scott Horton

The FBI Crime Wave James Bovard interviewed by Scott Horton

Obama Continues Unlawful Imprisonment Daphne Eviatar 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

Back Street Luv by Curved Air

The Witch by The Rattles

I Don’t Need No Doctor by Humble Pie

Inside Looking Out by Grand Funk Railroad

Black Night by Deep Purple

Whiskey in the Jar by Thin Lizzy

Black Swan  by Coven with Tommy Bolin

In My Darkest Hour by Ursa Major

Defrosted/Black Lace by the Frigid Pink

Everybody’s Clown  by Lucifer’s Friend

(Commentary from Maury2k)

Mass Immigration: The American Difference 

Prostitutes and Politicians: The Perfect Pairing 

The Republicans and Us

Zombie Culture Means Zombie Politics 

Tea Party Movement Getting Hosed

Obama’s State of the Cliches Address

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Life is war and conflict, struggle and strife, from conception till death…Never shall the lion lie down peacefully with the lamb…”

                                                                                    -Chris Donnellan

Amazing Speech by War Veteran 

IQ by Country 

Bushido: A Way of Life 

The Gods of Shinto 

What Is Shinto? 

Romanian Mythology 

1913 Massacre 

Ludlow Massacre of 1914 

Father Coughlin 1939 

Father Coughlin Speaks Against the Federal Reserve 

Research Sheds New Light on Ancient Greeks 

Chicago School Economists After the Financial Meltdown 

In Arizona, A Stream of Illegal Immigrants from China 

Walk, Damn It! Is the Car an Enemy of Civilization? 

John Paul II Used a Belt to Whip Himself 

Welcome to the Plutocracy by John Medaille

The U.S. Economy Is Not Going to Recover 

UK: Jail Time for Revving Engine in a Racist Manner 

Gays Have Political Power 

Making Mars the New Earth 

The Polygamists

Genocide of Black Americans Via Illegal Immigration 

(hat tip to Andrew Yeoman for the following links)

Pseudo-Operations and Counterinsurgencies: Lessons from Other Countries

New Jersey Cops Arrest Man with Weapons Stash, Map of Military Base 

Man Accused of Selling Daughter for Cash, Beer 

Judge Tosses NSA Spy Cases 

Teen Commits Suicide After Onslaught of Cyberbullying 

One Third of Women in U.S. Military Raped 

Immigrants More Likely to Have Jobs Than the Native Born

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

Don’t Talk to the Police

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

Improved Gadsden Flag - DONT TREAD ON ANYONE

Sunic interviews De Benoist: Part 2 15

Here it is.

In Part 2, Tom and Alain discuss Third World immigration into European countries, Islam’s current expansion, Alain’s critique of Capitalism and the “Americanization” of the world. The show includes:

  • Forced multiculturalism as the primary element of discord in European countries.
  • Capitalism as a bourgeois value system that prioritizes the accumulation of money above all else.
  • Alain’s thoughts on the future of America and Europe.
  • America’s Puritanical foundation and its quest for ethnic, social, economic and cultural Universalization

About Alain de Benoist

Alain de Benoist.jpg

Alain de Benoist was born on 11 December 1943. He is married and has two children. He has studied law, philosophy, sociology, and the history of religions in Paris, France. A journalist and a writer, he is the editor of two journals: Nouvelle Ecole (since 1968) and Krisis (since 1988). His main fields of interest include the history of ideas, political philosophy, classical philosophy, and archaeology. He has published more than fifty books and three thousand articles. He is also a regular contributor to many French and European publications, journals, and papers (including Valeurs Actuelles, Le Spectacle du Monde, Magazine-Hebdo, Le Figaro-Magazine, in France, Telos in the United States, and Junge Freiheit in Germany). In 1978 he received the Grand Prix de l’Essai from the Academie Francaise for his book Vu de droite: Anthologie critique des idees contemporaines (Copernic, 1977). He has also been a regular contributor to the radio program France-Culture and has appeared in numerous television debates.

To learn more about Alain de Benoist, read his insightful articles at his personal website and at The Alain De Benoist Collection.

R.I.P., Howard Zinn 1

Historian Howard Zinn, for decades a leading critic of the American Empire, has died at age 87. See his obit from the Boston paper here.

I first heard of Zinn twenty-two years ago when my anarchist punk-rocker roommate loaned me a copy of “A People’s History of the United States“. A short time later I discovered Noam Chomksy’s “The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism“. This was really the beginning of my ongoing critique of American imperialism and opposition to the same. Over the years, I would come to disagree with Chomsky and Zinn on many domestic issues, but on the question of the empire, these two have been among its foremost critics. R.I.P., Howard.

Freak Friendly 2

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

by Gavin McInnes

“You know, despite it all, it’s still really a miracle America elected a black man as president,” my 60-something neighbor said to me over beers recently. You get this a lot from people born before 1965. Apparently, America is a racist hellhole and the fact that they overcame this deep-seated hatred for blacks to allow one into the White House is physics defied. Um, as far as I can tell, a seemingly smart and in-control Democrat proceeded the most hated Republican president of all time. That’s not a “miracle.” It’s a “normal.”

I get insulted when Boomers tell me how racist my country is. I understand where they’re coming from, I guess. They grew up with survivors of the Great Depression: Grumpy old traditionalists that worked their fingers to the bone in isolation and never tried anything weird. That was then however, so please shut up about it. There is not a gigantic ogre of racism controlling our brains that took time off during the election but rears its ugly head every time we have a problem with, say, unprecedented taxation.

“When someone under 40 hears boomer anthems like, “There’s a land where the children are free,” we go, “What the hell is this song about? Where are the children NOT free?”’
Now, I’m sure you can dig up some redneck who still says nigger or half a dozen skinheads in the middle of nowhere but hate crimes are a miniscule percentage of total crimes in America and if you get into per capita, all races get it about equally. I heard some horrible stories about drinking fountains from forever ago and I saw a video where dogs were attacking some dude but that was a different universe than my generation’s America. We don’t care if people aren’t like us anymore. We don’t even get what you’re talking about.

When someone under 40 hears boomer anthems like, “There’s a land where the children are free,” we go, “What the hell is this song about? Where are the children NOT free?” Old people grew up in a climate where nuns gave the strap if you wrote with your left hand and young boys were verboten from going near dolls. Our generation yawns at such superstitious claptrap. If my son turns out to be gay, I will go into a deep depression for about seven minutes and then I’ll get over it. The boomers grew up in a world where their parents dry-heaved at the thought of a black man breathing the same air as them. Even the boomers, I’m told, were occasionally mocked for not being exactly like the majority. My American Indian mother-in-law was nicknamed jungle bunny in college. Not only do we find that hard to comprehend. We think it’s funny. As Harmony Korine said, “I crack up at the race riots.”

We never would have made fun of this guy.

It seems like every children’s book I’m forced to read to my kid is about some freak that everyone learned isn’t a freak after all. We never thought he was a freak in the first place you ancient babies. If Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer were born today, the other reindeers would high-five him and ask him what reindeer games they think he should play. In my school, the kid with Down Syndrome was the school hero and the football team adopted him as their favorite fan without a trace of irony. The pre-1970 people are unable to grasp this. They created movies like Mask where a boy with craniodiaphyseal dysplasia, is mocked for his circus-like disfigurements. Or the show Square Pegs where the quirky, unusual kids were relegated to the bottom rung of the high school hierarchy. In my Secondary Education, all these people would have been rock stars.

The same goes with sexism. Why Men Earn More pointed out the obvious error with assuming women get paid less for the same work. Namely: Why wouldn’t corporations hire them in droves? They’re cheap labor, right? Turns out they earn less because they tend to be more committed to family events than staying up all night preparing proposals. In other words, they choose to earn less. After waves of famine, a great depression, and a free-for-all orgy of whining, we’ve figured a lot of it out and the old wive’s tales no longer make any sense to us.

We are the information generation. We know you’re born gay and there’s nothing you can do about it. We googled it. We know women can be just as capable at any job and we hire accordingly. We know freaks are not cursed by the almighty but just statistical inevitablilites. We are way too well-adjusted to push someone out of our life just because they don’t meet some strange parameters someone else invented so please stop doing a spit take when we don’t behave exactly like our grandfathers.

Anarchism is not absolution Reply

The Apostasy of the Anarchist Vote

by Jeremy Weiland

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal,” declared Emma Goldman in a ringing indictment of the feeble mechanism by which the state claims to be restrained and directed. Of course, in invoking this quote anarchists argue against counting upon elections to change the status quo. We aren’t going to bring about the voluntary society by listening to politicians, casting votes for them, and pressuring them to abolish their own offices. The statist means and the anarchist ends are clearly opposed.

But there’s another argument against voting: that by casting a ballot, one registers endorsement of the state and its violence. Advocates of this argument do not hold that you must have chosen the politician who wields power. They disregard personal intent, interests, and any issues at hand. The argument is quite simple: by participating in the election, one is bound to its results. Given the anarchist view of those results – violence, fraud, and lies – one can only conclude that voting makes one an accessory to the crime.

This constitutes a body blow for those who define themselves by their rejection of the authoritarianism so intrinsic in the state. It’s one thing for voting to be a silly ritual. But a decidedly different attitude must be adopted if pulling the voting lever leaves one with blood-stained hands. Faced with such an awful truth, the task becomes one of avoiding complicity with the system. An absolute break with the state is the only path of conscience.

In theory, this break seems reasonable to achieve: one simply ceases to cooperate with its agents and directives. But the state reaches far into the world we live in. It doesn’t just direct the police, military, teachers, judges, and other bureaucrats that intervenes in obvious ways. The very civil society we seek to unleash through the spirit of voluntarism, mutual aid, freedom, and solidarity seems hopelessly bound up in the state.

Anarchism is not absolution

The biggest statist distortion lies in the minds of people – the very people so foundational to our dream of a voluntary society. They are conditioned to behave in ways congruent with governance, to think of themselves in terms that reinforce the primacy of governance, and therefore too often to mistake their largely voluntary lives as a gift from authority. Allegiance to the state and allegiance to one’s country, locality, and neighbors are seen as not merely connected but rather the same idea.

It is the behavior of these people that provides the underlying legitimacy to the state. After all, were it not for the people, there could be no power to rule. It is the people who elect the politicians, pay the taxes, enforce the laws, fight the wars, and more. As Étienne de la Boétie argued centuries ago in the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, inciting the masses to organized resistance is totally unnecessary. Rather, all that is required is for the people to stop obeying. So to address the problem of the state, we must address the people’s obedience. Sociologically, psychologically, spiritually – why do they obey?

This leads one to wonder whether mere withdrawal of consent is even sufficient. Symbolic micro-secession by an individual does little to address the behaviors inherent in statist society. Where does the state end and civil society begin? For that matter, what’s so fundamental about the individual that its removal from the equation affects the problem of authoritarian society? How does one isolate oneself from the crimes and violence of the state when its institutions pervade our society – especially when it is in that very society the seeds of voluntary association must be planted? A break is impossible without at least an implicit answer to these questions.

This is not to say that personal reflection and a critical review of one’s choices is not necessary. The example of one’s own life and actions is likely more effective persuasion than the most articulate thesis. What I object to is a pseudo-christian guilt that demands an absolute purge of statist sin. To focus on distinguishing oneself from statist society can only detract from the task of engaging with that statist society. We must resist adopting an anarchist identity so foolishly consistent and exacting that it destroys our connection to the people in whom we hope to realize a free society.

Our goal cannot be simply to free our persons of perceived statist taint. Anarchism is not some sort of political puritanism. We are not seeking some form of absolution for the “sin” of being born in a statist society. To view the state as this intelligent, malignant entity out there influencing people to initiate force and fraud is to invoke the Christian’s concept of war with a malevolent Satan. This conception of the state is also an unfounded superstition, since we understand that it is people’s actions that reinforce its perceived legitimacy.

The state is an abstraction; an institution formed out of ancient patterns of behavior. But it doesn’t exist as an independent thing, so rejecting it qua the state avoids understanding what one is rejecting. There is no state per se: there are only people – people enforcing laws, people obeying laws, people paying taxes, people going to schools, people believing that the guy sitting in the oval office is special. The question is surely not how to isolate oneself from these people, but how to influence them to change their mindset and thereby their behavior. The only “state” we will ever apprehend is an apparition formed from the inertia of people’s habits of thinking and acting.

From this point of view, one can hardly ascribe to voting the degree of evil anarchists often do. It’s just another abstraction. Pulling a lever, writing words on a piece of paper, or pushing buttons on a screen do not in and of themselves do anything. In fact, even if you accept the significance of an electoral outcome, it’s hard to assign responsibility when the odds of an individual affecting it are so astronomical.

A double standard

So what does the vote mean in real, concrete terms, divorced from the popular myths of state legitimacy? It merely influences the way other people will behave. That behavior will influence the way yet other people will behave, just as we all have an effect on everybody else in small but indeterminate ways. Some of these people will assign a title to one person instead of the other. They will treat the one person’s words as “official”, unlike the other’s. They will do what the one person says, but not the other. Who can fathom the will of government employees and other interested affiliates?

After all, it is those people materially prosecuting the agenda resulting from the election of a public figure who inflict the real damage. The President doesn’t do anything; it is those agents of the state who arrest, tax, jail, and kill. The behavior of legions of bureaucrats define the agenda, the interests, the nature of what we lament as “the state”. We should worry less about whose orders they’re following and worry more about what they’re actually choosing to do.

If this seems like splitting hairs, consider that one of the best anarchist arguments against the state lies in the behavior of its agents. A robber is a clear menace, and yet we let these state actors confiscate our wealth with hardly a peep. Nobody would gladly accept the help of a mafia-style protection racket, and yet we allow state racketeers into our neighborhoods constantly simply because they sport a badge. We look down on those who indiscriminately kill in our society, and yet we fund state bureaucrats with rifles to go out and commit these crimes against humans – so long as they’re “our troops” and not “theirs”. Our society has internalized a blind spot far more systemic and significant than the election cycle, and it crucially underwrites the state agenda.

Anarchists point out the inconsistency between how we regard normal crime and how we regard state crime to illustrate a core value: what people actually do, not their institutional affiliation or authority, is what matters. Murder is murder, theft is theft, and kidnapping is kidnapping. Only a double standard prevents people from judging such actions as less objectionable merely because they are performed in an “official” capacity. The anarchist proposes a radical consistency: people are responsible for their own actions, regardless of their position in some organizational hierarchy, governmental or otherwise.

And yet, many anarchists themselves apply this maddening double standard to those who do nothing more than write words on a piece of paper. They call them enablers of the state, as if they were responsible for the crimes of the state’s actors. This ascribes to the state precisely the mythical legitimacy we claim to reject – as if there could exist a magical transfer of permission from one person to another making crime acceptable. We can combat this double standard only by maintaining a consistent position on it.

Understanding civil society

At the same time, anarchists must acknowledge how integral the political order, including elections, are perceived to be to the majority of the social body. Because people conflate the state with civil society, they often view its institutions as portals to engagement with their neighbors. As anarchists, we can either secede from this engagement on puritan grounds, or we can risk the taint of the state by meeting them in the world we jointly occupy, warts and all.

It is a sad fact that the social deliberative functions necessary for true community occur within the trappings of government; yet to reject interaction because the state is involved divorces us from important opportunities to influence others. And it is in convincing our brothers and sisters to change their mindset and behavior – not in breathless denunciations of formless institutions – that we genuinely oppose “the state”.

Remember that voting for politicians has about the same direct physical effect as an online survey: it has no power or authority but what people attribute to it. An election may convince certain individuals to commit (or abstain from committing) violations of rights, but since we hold that those individuals are solely responsible for their own actions, and nothing can absolve them of that responsibility, are the results of that election relevant? In the end, it is the behavior, not the myths and abstractions, that matter. So if by voting, you can engage with your neighbors to influence them within this mixed society, or possibly influence state actors to behave more peaceably, why would you insist on abstaining?

None of this is to say an obligation exists to participate in every election; only that we should not blow these rituals out of proportion and turn them into boogeymen. Every situation is unique, and every election is a singular moment in the social body. Only an individual can decide the right course of action in a given scenario; indeed, it is highly authoritarian to dictate rules to the individual. The danger is not in voting or not voting, but in tilting at windmills out of ideological self-importance or moralistic high-handedness.

Blaming voters for state-sponsored crime is only meaningful in the sense that the voters stand by while the crimes are committed – not in the sense that we somehow sanction it via some mystical bestowing of power. The problem lies not in the ballot, but in our patterns of thinking and behavior that lead us to treat the vote’s outcome as anything more substantive than an internet poll. We allow state actors to engage in activities we all know are deeply wrong; it is that habit of complacency towards authority which we must address in ourselves and others.

Voting may be many things, but it is not abject complacency. In fact, most people see it as a form of civic engagement. Given that, should we not start from where they are, rather than washing our hands and demanding they make the long and difficult mental transitions we’ve already achieved? Whether or not we vote, we must engage these enabling attitudes where they are, whether in political parties, city council meetings, the lines at the polls, or at family dinner tables. To abandon this society because it doesn’t meet our standards is to surrender the anarchist project totally. Anarchism as a movement is concerned with this society, like it or not.

If we fear accusations of hypocrisy by participating in institutions tied to the state, perhaps we should take a harder look at our agenda. What are we in this struggle to accomplish? To be seen rejecting the state loudly and publicly? To have an impeccably consistent argument that no debater can assail? To shield ourselves from any chance of statist entanglement? To maintain a black and white moral superiority that makes it easy to judge the world?

Or does our project transcend the immediate political realities by posing a deeper question about human relationships and individual responsibility? Are we comfortable enough with ourselves and our principles to entertain doubt, to risk making mistakes, to remain vulnerable to misunderstanding and grey areas – all for a chance at reaching our brothers and sisters within institutional statism? Can the message of mutual liberation be heard if it is not taken into the mire of authoritarian culture in which most people find themselves, on terms they can grasp?

It has never been enough for anarchists to win debates; we must win the hearts of our fellow man, wherever they are found. We do this by engaging with them where they are, not where we’d have them be. The vote is a meaningless, superstitious ritual that masks deeper social issues and sanctions nothing. It does not bolster our argument to agree with statists that elections matter. Instead, we should treat them as what they are: the trivial rites of a false religion.

Written by Jeremy Weiland on Sunday, January 24, 2010 for Social Memory Complex

It's Not About Free Speech 2

[Keith: A timely essay on a major issue. Questions of this type are an illustration of why the critique of state-capitalism as a system of big business/big government alliance is essential, and why we need Carson’s critique of “vulgar libertarianism.”]

by Jeremy Weiland

On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down several key restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. While many lament the expected influx of yet more corporate cash into an already compliant political system, does anybody really think McCain-Feingold had accomplished much of an improvement? These regulations only affect those who cannot afford the lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who spend their careers finding ways to circumvent the spirit of the laws.

There are two key elements to the court’s conclusion: the constitutional prohibition of free speech restrictions and the status of the corporation as a person. Libertarians should not complain about the court’s conclusions with respect to the first element. The government must abstain from interfering with any person’s political contributions, monetary or polemical.

In the past the court has seen fit to abridge first amendment rights in cases where the government has a compelling interest. Campaign finance laws have usually rested on this basis, relying on the court’s acknowledgement of the need for balancing a variety of interests. In throwing out McCain-Feingold, the Supreme Court can be seen as effectively reining in these deviations from the letter of the law. A strictly defined freedom of speech should certainly be defended.

But as Glenn Greenwald notes in his excellent commentary on the issue, the justices approached the case solely from the perspective of first amendment applicability and scope. No justice, dissenting or otherwise, objected to the premise that corporations are persons with constitutional protections. The focus remained fixed on narrow questions of money as a form of free speech as well as the proper applicability of free speech to the corporate campaign contributions. The nature of the activity was examined; the nature of the actor, neglected.

The real issue here is not whether corporations should be involved in the political process. It’s also not whether they should have first amendment protections. Regarding monetary contributions from anybody to any candidate for public office as free speech is entirely beside the point. The most important and pressing matter is whether these artificial persons called corporations can speak; whether legal fictions can spend money. It’s whether the Constitution protects what doesn’t actually exist.

The court simply let stand the fantastic notion that an abstraction composed of contracts and assets, a figment that can do or say nothing without human beings doing for it, can engage in anything qua a corporation. As such, an opportunity to overturn a century of erroneous precedent was squandered. Once again, in spite of an improvement in the consistency of its approach to the narrow free speech issue, the court preserved a much more fundamental complexity. The ruling and dissent reflect a labored reasoning stemming from unquestioned premises.

What do we mean when we say a corporation can donate money to campaigns freely? Do we mean that its officers do so on behalf of the shareholders or partners? If so, can’t we talk about free speech in terms of those individuals’ rights and responsibilities? Do we mean that this agreement between stakeholders has some sort of capacity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that justifies every other limit on governmental power? All these questions and more beg for a real legal analysis. They were ignored precisely because they expose an inconsistency, the underbelly of the elite consensus.

Corporate personhood necessitates muddled, sloppy balancing acts by the court. And in complicated rulings, the rich and powerful have the same legal upper hand they had when McCain-Feingold stood: they can afford the expenses required to make sense of the precedent and twist it in their own favor. To ask whether corporations even have free speech rights would be too profound and simple a question to preserve the advantage of the powers that be. We little folk might recognize what is at stake were the matter made so plain.

Of course we should not water down the first amendment just to punish corporations. What we should do is challenge the status of the corporation as a person. The majority’s impulse to streamline the interpretation of the first amendment is fine, but they passed on the real case.

Written by Jeremy Weiland on Saturday, January 23, 2010 for Social Memory Complex

Ten Reasons Why I Am an Anarchist 10

1. I agree with the Augustinian view of the state as a robber band writ large.
2. I agree with the Stirnerite view of political obligation. Why should I obey this guy just because he’s the president, king, mayor, etc.?
3. I agree that democracy is a system where five wolves and sheep vote on what to have for lunch.
4. I agree that the death and destruction perpetrated by states make that of individual criminals look trivial by comparison.
5. I agree with George Bernard Shaw that democracy replaces the rule of the corrupt few with the rule of the incompetent many.
6. I agree that the state exists to monopolize territory and resources, protect an artificially privileged ruling class, expand its own power and subjugate and exploit subjects.
7. I agree with Hayek that the worst gets to the top.
8. I agree that the insights of social psychology show that most people are creatures of the herd.
9. I agree that the herd is the permanent enemy of the superior individual.
10. I agree that values are subjective, that life is ultimately a war of each against all, and that survival of the fittest and the will to power are the only true laws.

Updated News Digest January 24, 2010 6

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

United Anarchism Vs United Nationism 

Quotes of the Week:

“A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.”

“Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.”

“Be that self which one truly is.”

“How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech. ”

                                                                                             -Soren Kierkegaard 

The Rule of Law Has Been Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama to Indefinitely Imprison Detainees Without Charges by Glenn Greenwald

The Two Faces of Interventionism by Justin Raimondo

MLK as 20th Century Jesus by Paul Gottfried

Lawyers, Guns, and Money by Kevin Carson

How America Makes Its Enemies Disappear by Petra Bartosiewicz

Prisoner Power: Organize the Ex-Cons! by Eduard Limonov

Privatizing Everything  by Ralph Nader

Will the Tea Partiers Become a Third Party? by James Ostrowski

Big Brother Barack: Enough Hope and Change, Already! by Anthony Gregory

The Anatomy of Blue State Fascism by Anthony Gregory

Terrorism Defined: Bill Clinton Lights Our Way to Truth by Chris Floyd

The Return of the Neocons by David Margolick

Petraeus Gets It Wrong by Robert Dreyfuss

Is America Moving Right? by Pat Buchanan

Say No to “Humanitarian Intervention” in Haiti by Ron Paul

Haiti’s Avoidable Death Toll by Walter Williams

Haiti: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux by Cynthia McKinney

The Supremes Have Opened the Floodgates by Russell Feingold

Freedom of Speech for a Fiction by Christopher Ketcham

Corporate Personhood and Political Free Speech by Manuel Garcia, Jr

How Wall Street Destroyed Healthcare by Paul Craig Roberts

Just Walk Away from the Democrats by Ron Jacobs

Death to the Dictator by Charles Glass

Israel Finds a New Way to Play the Victim by Ira Chernus

The Terrorism Conundrum by Philip Giraldi

Torture: Where’s the Conservative Skepticism? by A. Barton Hinkle

A New Dictator in Iraq? by Ted Galen Carpenter

The Next Crisis for Obama? by Ivan Eland

Fascism Needs an Enemy by Ran HaCohen

FBI Says It Violated the Fourth Amendment by Thomas R. Eddlem

To Help Hait, End Foreign Aid by Bret Stephens

Anarcho-Leftoids Rally Against Free Speech from Infoshop.Org

New Frontiers in PC by Lew Rockwell

Students and Prisoners, Unite! from Infoshop.Org

U.S. Military Weapons with Bible References on Them by Bill Anderson

The Power Elite Is Worried by Lew Rockwell

Demented TSA Brings Charges Against Man for Walking Through the Wrong Door by Mike Rozeff

U.S. Military Diverts Food Flights to Haiti by Mike Rozeff

Government to Teach Parents How to Raise Children by David Kramer

How to Popularize Freedom Tom Woods interviewed by Scott Smith

Who Is Left Holding the Bag on U.S. Debt? by Bill Sardi

U.K. Bans Drinking Contests by Raphael G. Satter

1,000 Rally for Guns, States’ Rights in Virginia Capital by Olympia Meola

The Coming Euro Rupture by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Texans Are Ready for Nullification by Mike Ward

The Banks Are Going Down by Karen De Coster

The Blind Law of State Violence by Jeff Knaebel

Tortured Unto Death by Glenn Greenwald

Obama’s Garrison State by Tom Burghardt

In Defense of Rothbard by Walter Block

The Needless U.S. War with Japan-Courtesy of Stalin and FDR by Michael Kreca

Eco-Fascism by James Delingpole

Nullify the Federal Government by Norvell Rose

The Militia Question Resolved  by Michael Kreca

Hurting People for a Living: The Role of the State by William Norman Grigg

Books on War: The Worst Aspect of the State by David Gordon

Why Africa Has Gone to Hell by James Jackson

Freak-Friendly by Gavin McInnes

Yes, Africa Must Go to Hell by Alex Kurtagic

Tea Party Convention Bars Campaign for Liberty by Patroon

Endorsements of Dennis Steele for Governor of Vermont by Thomas Naylor

A Richly Deserved Humiliation by Alexander Cockburn

How the Patriot Act Perpetuates Official Robberies by James Bovard

Class and Party Difference in Massachusetts by Mary Lynn Cramer

Making the Banks Pay by Dean Baker

Revolution, Not a Tea Party by Ron Jacobs

Why I Voted for the Republican in Massachusetts by John V. Walsh

The State vs The Rule of Law by James Leroy Wilson

My Life as a Politician by Justin Raimondo

How Open Manufacturing Is Related to the End of Neoliberal Globalization by Michel Bauwens

The Establishment Is in Crisis by Butler Shaffer

Obamanomics: Big Government, Big Business, Big Rip-Offs by Michael Brendan Dougherty

Top Ten Passions of Ancient Rome: Sounds like America by Ray Laurence

Cleaning Up Government Messes by Lew Rockwell

The U.S. of Kafka from Lew Rockwell

“My God Is Bigger Than Your God” by Lew Rockwell

But If You Did This to a TSA Thug… by David Kramer

Coulter Slimes the Anti-State Wave by Christopher Manion

May I Pour You Some Neocon Tea? by Lew Rockwell

Has Obama Lost White America? by Pat Buchanan

Anarchistan in Athens by Aya Burweila

Could a Woman Who Posed Nude Get Elected? by Missy Comley Beattie

Weimar Democrats by Harvey Wasserman

New Radical Queer Zine Focuses on Gentrification from Infoshop.Org

Mutual Aid Disaster Relief in Haiti from Infoshop.Org

How Life Has Suddenly Changed in America by Bill Sardi

The Final Crisis of Central Banking by Gary North

There Is No Freedom of Choice in America by Don Cooper

Christian Concentration Camp Guards by Stephen Carson

PIGS Infiltrate Anti-PIG March  from Infoshop.Org

The Great Leap Sideways by Alexander Cockburn

Society Verses the State by Kevin Carson

The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low Overhead Manifesto by Brad Spangler

“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

Interview with Alain De Benoist, Part One by Tomislav Sunic

The Empire’s Fall Ron Paul interviewed by Scott Horton

The Relevance of Lysander Spooner to Our Times Sheldon Richman interviewed by Scott Horton

Anarchy Radio with John Zerzan and Kathan Z

I Was a Guard at Guantanamo by Brandon Neely interviewed by Scott Horton

Murder-Gate: 3 Tortured to Death at Guantanamo Scott Horton interviewed by Scott Horton

The Ghost Prisoners of Bagram Andy Worthington interviewed by Scott Horton

Reclaiming the American Right Christopher Manion 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

(hat tip to Taylor Somers)

Fire by The Crazy World of Arthur Brown

I Put a Spell on You by Screaming Jay Hawkins

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge by Coven

Satanic Mass Part 1 Part 2 by Coven

Dignataries of Hell by Coven

Attack of the Demon  by Black Widow

God of Darkness by Iron Maiden (no, not that Iron Maiden)

Lucifer’s Friend by Lucifer’s Friend

Beautiful Dream by Uriah Heep

Sorcerers by Angel Witch

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Why Men Use Prostitutes by Julie Bindel

Pan-African Solidarity: Senegal Offers Land to Haitians 

Haitians May Go Extinct 

The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition by Adam Kirsch

Rabbit Rapist Convicted of Cruelty 

National Bolshevik Party 

Corporate Branding Has Taken Over America by Naomi Klein

Traditionalist, New Right, Conservationist, and Integralist Thought 

The Soft Tyranny of Liberalism by Alexander Dugin

Secession Without Blinders 

Hamas Ready to Cancel Charter 

Republican Savior’s Wife Starred in Half-Naked Music Video About Handjobs 

Voodoo Brings Solace to Grieving Haitians 

Tea Party Movement Getting Hosed 

John Lennon on Monday Night Football in 1974 with Howard Cosell 

European Males Descend From Ancient Farmers 

Curious Myths of the Middle Ages 

The Democrats are the Darlings of Wall Street

Racist Cameras 

(hat tip to Andrew Yeoman for the following links)

Milestones on Minorites and Poverty in Southern Schools 

11-Yr-Old Shot Defending His Mom Against Home Invaders 

South African Woman Killed Over Birth Control 

Is Al-Qaeda Winning? 

Moron Brought to Tears by Republican Seizure of Teddy Kennedy’s Senate Seat 

U.S. Mercenaries Set Sights On Haiti 

Lone Shooter Kills 8 in Central Virginia

Netanyahu: Illegal Immigration a Threat to Israel 

Ron Paul: After CIA Coup, Agency Runs Military 

Fake Cop Arrested During Prostitution Sting 

The Coming Urban Terror by John Robb

Taliban Overhaul Image to Win Allies 

Haiti Homeless Reach Two Million 

Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Direct Corporate Spending on Elections 

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

(hat tip to Taylor Somers)

Can a Libertarian Also Be a Conservative? 8

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin195.htm

by Antoine Clarke

“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.”

Lord Acton, cited by F.A. Hayek1

INTRODUCTION: THE COLD WAR ALLIANCE

An informal alliance between conservatives and libertarians, especially in the United Kingdom, can be said to have started with Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in March 1946, and ended with the abolition of the Federation of Conservative Students in 1986 because of its take over by libertarian activists and the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989 to 1991.  The abolition of the FCS marked the moment when the Thatcherite part of the Conservative Party preferred to abort its own intellectual future, rather than continue what had been a fairly successful alliance against the idea of big government, at home and abroad.

The alliance, as often in history, was based on the perception of a common external enemy, Soviet imperialism, as well as the internal threat of socialist economic policies of nationalization and central planning.  There was also the sense in the United Kingdom at least, that the social engineering experiment of the welfare state was an assault on freedom, whether liberty was valued for being ancient and traditional, or for being the expression of individual freedom of self-actualisation.

There was some disagreement on what to do about the Cold War.  The British Conservatives were often more opposed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation because of the subservient position that the UK was placed in relation to the United States of America.  British libertarians, in stark contrast with most of their US counterparts, tended to be more favourable to fighting a global crusade against communism.

On the welfare state, conservative paternalism was reluctant to “abandon” the poor to their own initiative.  Chris R Tame, the Libertarian Alliance’s founder put the conservative view of libertarianism thus:

“The average classical-liberal sympathising conservative puts our ideology in a liberty versus order straightjacket, where freedom is seen to be achieved at a cost in social order and security, and where those values can only be achieved at the price of liberty.  This is a typically conservative viewpoint in which freedom and order are in tension with one another, and the remedy for social chaos is the state.”  2

In the USA, the experiences of isolationism, the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7th 1941 and the Vietnam War exerted diverging pressures on any libertarian/conservative alliance on foreign policy.  However, a coalition of what two British commentators termed “Sun Belt conservatism” and a religious opposition to the secularist/welfarist “liberalism” from the 1930s’ New Deal to the 1960s’ Great Society, gathered pace from the dynamic but electorally unsuccessful 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, to what became known as “The Right Nation.”3

GOD, THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND HOBBES: IS THERE COMMON GROUND FOR LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES?

The modern libertarian movement is a fusion of several historic intellectual traditions, with a style that generally embraces human progress and the liberating aspects of technology.  Traditionally, conservatism could be seen as the long struggle against the enlightenment, taking a sceptical view of human nature which is either explained in terms of Original Sin or a distrust of rationalism.  Dr Tame, in an interview with the current LA President, Tim Evans, expressed the optimism of the libertarian position as: “We’re extreme rationalists…  Death and Taxes, we’re against BOTH of them!”4  The libertarian tends to oppose God’s plan, sees the Enlightenment and its economic outcome—the Industrial Revolution—as the most tremendous liberating force in 2,000 years, and flatly rejects Thomas Hobbes’ scepticism about what free individuals will get up to without a night-watchman state to keep them in line.

Roger Scruton, formerly the editor of the Salisbury Review and Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, the University of London, set out the conservative objection to the Enlightenment’s humanism in a Wall Street Journal article in 1996, titled “Godless Conservatism.”5

Professor Scruton wrote:

“There is a growing tendency among American conservatives to blame society’s present condition not merely on liberals but on the secular and skeptical philosophy of the Enlightenment, from which modern liberalism descends.  As conservatives see it, the constant questioning of established beliefs and authorities has set us upon a path that has anarchy as its only destination.  Many conservatives therefore suggest that we must repudiate the Enlightenment and reaffirm the thing against which the Enlightenment stood: organized religion.”

He added:

“it is not hard to sympathize.  Religious belief fills our world with an authority that cannot be questioned and from which all our duties flow.  Yet there is something despondent in the search for a religious solution to the problems of secular society.  All too often the search is conducted in a spirit of despair by people who are as infected by the surrounding nihilism as those whose behavior they wish to rectify.  Their message is simple: ‘God is dead—but don’t spread it around.’  Such words can be whispered among friends but not broadcast to the multitude.”6

Professor Scruton and Dr Tame would have agreed on almost every issue of significance during the 1970s and 1980s: the economy, the harm caused by socialism, the Cold War, the “battle of ideas,” yet the philosophical underpinning of their positions was almost entirely opposite.  This would not matter so long as the target for their attention was the same and the solution, if only by coincidence, was broadly the same: to support the underground civil society of Soviet colonies, to oppose socialism performed by Conservative politicians, the importance of the statement of ideas and their debate.

Yet as with such coalition projects as the French Revolution, harmonious relations would struggle to  last beyond the achievement of power or the disappearance of the common enemy.  Here, one of the striking differences between the British and US coalitions can be found.  According to John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, in philosophical terms, classical conservatism, as formulated by Edmund Burke, “might be crudely reduced to six principles.”

These are:

  • a deep suspicion of the power of the state;
  • a preference for liberty over equality;
  • patriotism;
  • a belief in established institutions and hierarchies;
  • scepticism about the idea of progress; and
  • elitism.

Micklethwait and Woolbridge argue that:

“to simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three.  The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility toward the state than any other modern conservative party.  How many European conservatives would display bumper stickers saying ‘I love my country but I hate my government’?”7

The result is that American conservatives tend to display more openness to human progress, making an alliance with some libertarians possible (it may also help to explain the poor performance of the US Libertarian Party since 1972).  The American conservative movement tends to take a classical liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism.  The heroes of modern American conservatism tend to be the same as for libertarians: rugged individualists who don’t know their place and defer to class status, the self-made businessman, or settlers on the Western frontier.

As Mickeltwait and Woolbridge put it:

“the geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism.  In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo.  They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities.  And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past.”8

A more modern representation of this cleavage can be found in the writings of Virginia Postrel, especially her best-selling work, The Future and Its Enemies.9  She replaces the left-right cleavage with one based on the notions of people as either “dynamists” or “stasists.”

Sean Gabb, the Libertarian Alliance’s Director, is perhaps the best known British advocate of “libertarian conservatism,” a body of beliefs that consists of harking back to the days when a British subject could spend virtually his or her entire life with no contact with government or its services except when visiting a Post Office.  Although he did not use the term in his 1974 book, The Offshore Islanders,10 Paul Johnson remarked that English history can be seen as a succession of conservative revolutions, largely attempting to restore ancient liberties, in marked contrast with the French Revolution of 1789 for example, which aimed to create a new order, to the point of creating a decimal calendar with 10-day weeks and 10-hour days with new names for the months.11  The contrast between the ancient liberties of Englishmen (a near approximation of the libertarian ideal) is defended in the name of both its liberalism and its rooting in history.

One example of how these forces are fused in Dr Gabb’s activism has been the 15-year campaign against national identity cards, which has in no way been deflected according to which political party (Conservative or Labour) has held office in the UK.12

Dr Gabb wrote:

“I believe, however, that there is more to ‘rolling back the frontiers of the State’ than paying regard to economic indicators alone.  It is not enough to control the money supply and deregulate the unemployed back into work.  It is necessary to roll back the frontiers in social and political matters as well.  My ideal England—the England that largely existed before 1914—is one in which individuals and groups of individuals are free to pursue their ends, constrained only by a minimal framework of laws.”

“I have no doubt that an identity card scheme would be absolutely fatal to the realising of this ideal—even the ‘voluntary’ scheme that Mr [Michael] Howard proposes for the moment.  It would undermine the half-open society in which we now live.  Given the technology that will soon be available, it would allow the erection of the most complete despotism that ever existed in these islands.  I am astonished that such a scheme could be put forward by a government that dares call itself Conservative.  It is a betrayal not merely of the libertarian and classical liberal wings of the Party, but also of the most reactionary High Toryism.  I will not argue whether this is socialism by other means.  But it is undoubtedly collectivist.”

The problem appears to be that there is a type of modern Conservative who really does not believe in God, natural rights, the virtue of ancient customs, or spontaneous order.  I came across this position in 2002, in a series of discussions on-line with Peter Cuthbertson, who at least has the credit of being one the very early pioneers of conservative blogging in the UK.  One could argue that this was a continuation of the debate between a Lockean and a Hobbesian in the 17th century.  Under the title ‘Is there an Act of Parliament for Table Manners?’13  I wrote:

“I don’t normally respond publicly to comments, but I will make an exception.  Peter Cutbertson has a blog called Conservative Commentary, it is certainly better than the Conservative Party’s website.  He thinks that this conclusion I made makes me insane:

‘The problem for British libertarians is that they aren’t really used to the idea that the state really is our enemy.  This is one reason why I don’t think that the UK withdrawing from the European Union is an automatic recipe for joy.’

In the exchange which follows he appears to believe that ‘without law or government’ society cannot function, and those who disagree with him are ‘insane’ or follow ‘an incoherent, warped political philosophy’.”

I continued

“However, it amazes me that Mr Cuthbertson cannot see that law doesn’t necessarily derive from government.  For a start, any conservative who believes in God ought to consider the possibility that there is a higher authority than the State.  Assuming atheism (which isn’t very conservative, but hey, who’s being coherent?), I should have hoped that a conservative might believe in the organic, spontaneous order of common law.  Assuming God doesn’t exist, and the common law is a fiction (sounds more like a French Jacobin!), what has Mr Cuthbertson done with civil society?  Is it true that members of the Carlton Club only behave because of the fear of being arrested by the police?  Does the members’ code of conduct depend on the State for its existence and enforcement?  Is there an Act of Parliament for table manners?”

TRIBAL POLITICS: IS THERE COMMON GROUND FOR LIBERTARIANS OR CONSERVATIVES?

In presenting the major philosophical differences between conservatism and libertarianism, I am conscious of one potential fallacy to the negative prognosis: a marriage doesn’t have to be perfect to be successful.  Within each of the tribes, conservative and libertarian, there are numerous differences of opinion, often underpinned by a complete opposite fundamental principle.

There is the obvious problem of abortion.  To one school of libertarian, the woman’s right to choose is absolute and rooted in the idea of self-ownership of our bodies.  Surely no one could argue against that!  But other libertarians argue that there is a point at which a foetus is more than merely a type of cancer tumour, to be charged rent or evicted.  They may root their argument in the concept of a natural right to life from the moment or conception, or 10 weeks, or 20 weeks of pregnancy.  If it is wrong to kill someone who is in a temporary coma, or remove their organs without consent, and also wrong to do the same to a mute or a child who has not yet developed speech, why is it acceptable for a being that has some degree of consciousness and would surely develop all the human attributes of sentience and free will?

Another issue is the transitional state.  Even if all libertarians were anarchists, and many are not, what of the national debt?  Should it be defaulted in full at once?  Should government promises of pensions be treated as the promises of extortionists and therefore have no contractual force?  Are Bank of England notes to be rejected in the Libertarian Year Zero?  Or collaborators with the “bureaucrato-feudalist régime”shot?

One starts doubting whether one can even properly speak of a libertarian position, given the multitude of factions (which have a tendency to denounce each other as “deviant” in a not always deliberate self-parody of the Popular Judean Front of Monty Python’s Life of Brian).  However, it should be noted that the same cleavages exist in any ideological school, whether it be socialism, conservatism or liberalism, so it would be wrong to worry too much about libertarianism’s diverse origins and blueprints for a good society.

Conservatism can mean the support of a theocratic society, the restoration of absolutist monarchy, opposition to post-Leninist reforms in the Soviet Union, support for the use of tanks against student protestors, opposition to homosexuality, the support for free trade, protectionism, the abolition of drug prohibition or its resolute enforcement.  Conservatives are split on abortion, taxes, the National Health Service and whether London should have got the 2012 Olympic Games.

CONCLUSIONS

Libertarians and conservatives have many vehement (not violent) disagreements and it is fair to say that each side’s vision of heaven on Earth could be considered hellish to the other.  Yet within each tribe, there are people who have as much in common with each other as with their own tribes.  One thinks of prostitution, abortion and the death penalty, to name just three examples.

Because both a conservative and a libertarian have a degree of scepticism about the power of the State “to make things right,” it is very likely that opportunities for defensive joint action will emerge from time to time.  Conservatives will tend to see their role as reigning in the enthusiasm of libertarians for technology as a liberating force for humanity.  Libertarians will see their role as giving the conservatives a kick up the backside for their passive acceptance of inevitable defeat.

However, it is probably worth keeping in mind the words of Lord Acton, concerning the challenge of ideological alliances which opened this essay:

“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.”

Each party to the alliance, libertarian and conservative, regards the other as a sometimes embarrassing auxiliary.

NOTES

(1)F.A. Hayek, ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative’, in The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960.

(2) Chris Tame & Gerry Frost, Libertarianism Versus Conservatism: A Debate, Libertarian Alliance Pamphlet No. 14, 1989, retrieved 1st December 2009, http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/lapam/lapam014.pdf

(3)John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, The Right Nation: Why America is Different, Penguin, 2005.

(4)Tim Evans, Maggies’s Militants, video produced as part of a PhD thesis, published as Conservative radicalism: A Sociology of Conservative Party Youth Structures and Libertarianism 1970-1992, Berghahn Books, Oxford, 1995.

(5)Roger Scruton, ‘Godless Conservatism’, The Wall Street Journal, Friday, April 5th 1996, p. 8.

(6)Ibid.

(7)Micklethwait & Woodridge, op cit.

(8)Ibid.

(9)Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise and Progress, The Free Press, 1998.

(10)Paul Johnson, The Offshore Islanders: England’s People from Roman Occupation to the Present, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972.

(11) ‘French Republican Calendar’, 26th November 2009, retrieved 2nd December 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar

(12)Sean Gabb, A Libertarian Conservative Case

Against identity Cards, Libertarian Alliance Political Notes No. 98, 1994, http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin098.htm

(13)Antoine Clarke, ‘Is there an Act of Parliament for Table Manners?’, Samizdata blog, 30th November 2002, retrieved 1st December 2009, http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2002/11/is_there_an_act_of_parliament.html

Audio interview with Alain De Benoist Reply

Listen to it here.

In Part 1, Tom and Mr. de Benoist discuss the awkward label, the European “New Right”, and the confusion that this label creates, particularly in the USA. They also reflect on the present cultural climate in Europe and America along with its political implications. The show includes:

  • A description of the New Right; its origins and its current perspectives. Alain eloquently explains how “New” is more important than “Right”, and emphasizes the importance of ideas over insignificant political categories.
  • The semantic distortions connected with the labels “Liberal” and “Conservative”; how the terms “Left” and “Right” were born out of modernity and have since lost their meaning as we step fully into postmodernity.
  • Alain elaborates on the major themes in his book On Being a Pagan. Among these are the polytheistic mindset versus its monotheistic counterpart, and the advocacy of cultural pluralism as opposed to multiculturalized “sameness.”

About Alain de Benoist

Alain de Benoist.jpg

Alain de Benoist was born on 11 December 1943. He is married and has two children. He has studied law, philosophy, sociology, and the history of religions in Paris, France. A journalist and a writer, he is the editor of two journals: Nouvelle Ecole (since 1968) and Krisis (since 1988). His main fields of interest include the history of ideas, political philosophy, classical philosophy, and archaeology. He has published more than fifty books and three thousand articles. He is also a regular contributor to many French and European publications, journals, and papers (including Valeurs Actuelles, Le Spectacle du Monde, Magazine-Hebdo, Le Figaro-Magazine, in France, Telos in the United States, and Junge Freiheit in Germany). In 1978 he received the Grand Prix de l’Essai from the Academie Francaise for his book Vu de droite: Anthologie critique des idees contemporaines (Copernic, 1977). He has also been a regular contributor to the radio program France-Culture and has appeared in numerous television debates.

To learn more about Alain de Benoist, read his insightful articles at his personal website and at The Alain De Benoist Collection.