Is Extremism in the Defense of Sodomy No Vice? 21

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

-Barry Goldwater

“With respect to libertarian eccentricity, the dream of an absolute private freedom is one of those visions that issue from between the gates of ivory; and the disorder that they would thrust upon society already is displayed in the moral disorder of their private affairs. Some present here will recall the article on libertarianism in National Review, a few years ago, by that mordant psychologist and sociologist Dr. Ernest van den Haag, who remarked that an unusually high proportion of professed libertarians are homosexuals. In politics as in private life, they demand what nature cannot afford.”

-Russell Kirk

“Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you, but human history is not entirely summarized by the bold struggle for the “right” to poke your veiny ding-dong through disco-bathroom glory holes. Not every act is political. Some are just silly and ugly and stinky.”

-Jim Goad

For all of my adult life, I have been fascinated by the ideas of classical anarchism, classical liberalism and modern libertarianism, including the works of Jefferson, Paine, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rothbard, Hess, Szasz, Chomsky, Bookchin, and other such thinkers. For roughly the same amount of time, I have never failed to be completely underwhelmed by most of what I have found in organized anarchist, liberal or libertarian circles.

I became a radical roughly twenty-three years ago, after having been awakened to the nature of U.S. war crimes and state-sponsored genocide in places like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, East Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere. Early on, I noticed most of the other people in the anti-imperialist movement were Communists, left-wing Christians, and pro-state liberals. Maybe it was because I grew up among Birchers, Falwellites, Wallaceites, and Reaganites, but I never cared much for the Big Brother statism of the Left on domestic issues, however much I might have agreed on foreign policy. So, to make a long story short, I became an anarchist.

From the time that I first encountered the organized anarchist movement, I was a bit puzzled by the overwhelming obsession with “racism” to be found in those circles. It might have made sense if anarchists were predominantly blacks or Hispanics or Asians, but, then as now, probably ninety-eight percent of anarchists were white, at least in North America. I personally helped found two separate anarchist student groups at one point. How many “people of color” did we ever attract? I recall two. One was a young black woman with an upper middle class background whose father was a colonel in the U.S. military. Another was an immigrant from Sri Lanka from the northern Virginia suburbs. For several years, I was the local representative of the anarcho-syndicalist labor union Industrial Workers of the World. I attended several national events of the IWW. How many non-whites did I ever meet? I recall one, a black middle class schoolteacher from Brooklyn. I was on the national committee of the U.S. section of the International Workers Association (which also includes the CNT of Spanish Civil War fame). How many non-whites did I ever meet? Two, both of them Cuban exiles. I was at the founding conference of the old “Love and Rage” anarcho-communist faction. How many people of color? Two blacks, an Caribbean immigrant and a gay ex-Trotskyist who had recently converted to anarchism. I attended two separate continental anarchist gatherings in the late 1980s, both of them attended by several thousand people, mostly countercultural youth, but very few non-whites. This pattern has continued ever since.

While organized left-anarchism (and its “free market” variation of “left-libertarianism”) might have a grossly disproportionately low number of racial minorities, one thing that also becomes immediately apparent in such circles in the grossly disproportionately high number of “sexual minorities,” e.g., gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendereds, transvestites, transsexuals, and butch-women, along with the occasional hetero female feminist.  And this is the likely explanation for the rather pronounced hostility to myself found in many left-anarchist and left-libertarian circles.

The ironic thing is that those who attack me the most fervently are those whom I agree with most of the time. I’ve taken Theodore Adorno’s “F Scale” test and come up with the rating of “liberal airhead.” I’ve taken this “political compass” test and come up as a “left libertarian.” So if my critics are to be believed, I’m a liberal airhead-left libertarian-neo fascist. Oh, well, so be it.

I admit that I am often baffled though amused by the rantings of my political enemies. I have tried to figure out where the “fascist” label assigned to me originates from. Am I an advocate of totalitarian government? No, I am a loud critic of the state. Am I an advocate of a Mussolini-like corporatist economy? No, I’m the author of a prize-winning essay attacking such things. Am I an apologist for imperialist war? No, I am an outspoken opponent of the U.S. empire. Do I favor a police state? No, my published writings are filled with denunciations of the state, the law, the cops, the prison system, the war on drugs, and victimless crime laws, even to the point of advocating virtual insurrection against such things. Do I support jingoistic nationalism? No, I’m right alongside Noam Chomsky in my “anti-American” sentiments.

Am I an apologist for Hitlerism or Nazism? No, I’ve attacked Nazism repeatedly. Do I promote theocratic fundamentalist Christianity? No, I am an atheist. Am I a social conservative? No, I support legalized abortion, euthanasia, drug decriminalization, abolition of laws prohibiting consensual adult sex, and repealing vice laws.  Do I lack concern for the oppressed, disadvantaged or downtrodden? No, I’ve written, spoken and even appeared on television upholding the rights of the homeless, the disabled, the sick and diseased, runaway teenagers, students, prisoners, psychiatric inmates, prostitutes, drug addicts, and others whom many people don’t give two shits about. I have written repeatedly in favor of forming non-state defense organizations for these kinds of marginal populations. I favor abolition of compulsory school attendance laws. I am opposed to the drinking age. I am opposed to state-licensed or state-regulated marriage. Am I some sort of reactionary “family values” conservative, moral traditionalist? No, for years I worked for a Greek family that owned a collection of strips joints and all-night bars and many of my female friends are strippers, hookers, lesbians and biker chicks. For all of my life since about age sixteen, I’ve been associated with marginal subcultures: one percenter motorcycle clubs, hippies, anarchists, rock ‘n’ rollers, gutter punks, ex-cons. I am for the abolition of the prison system. I am opposed to capital punishment. I would put more restrictions on the power of the police than ACLU would. I am opposed to statutory rape laws. I am for upholding the right of unconventional religions to practice unmolested by the state, for instance, Mormon sects that practice polygamy or sequestered cults whose members can be subjected to abduction and forcible “deprogramming” by others. I am for the right to practice alternative medicine. I’m even skeptical of laws requiring driver’s licenses. Unlike the left-wing “civil libertarians” who think the proper response to the police state is to file lawsuits, I am for forming civilian militias for the purpose of chasing the PIGS away. Hell, I’ve even defended street gangs on the basis of freedom of association and more broadly as a form of class-based insurgency. Indeed, my views on most social issues are well to the left of the Democratic Party, often to the left of the Green Party.

Am I an anti-Semite? I’m very critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, and I generally agree with the analysis of this question advanced by Mearsheimer and Walt and by James Petras. I generally think that American Jews who favor Israel’s interests over keeping the U.S. out of foreign wars should simply put their money where their mouth is and go live in Israel, take their right-wing Christian Zionist cohorts with them and leave the rest of us alone. I suppose some would say this makes me an anti-Semite. Certainly Norman Podhoretz would think so. However, probably fifty percent of my primary intellectual influences have been Jews. These include Thomas Szasz, Noam Chomsky, Murray Rothbard, Murray Bookchin, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Sam Dolgoff, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Friedrich von Hayek, Paul Goodman, Hannah Arendt, Arthur Koestler, Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, Paul Gottfried, and Norman Mailer. So there would seem to be some problems with the “anti-Semite” label. With regards to Israel, do I care that Israel exists? Of course not, just as I do not mind that China or Japan exist, though I am quite strongly in favor of Palestinian independence, just as I am in favor of independence for the Tibetans. What I do oppose is the hijacking of American foreign policy by the Israel Lobby. I think the arguments of those who claim that severance of the U.S.-Israel relationship would result in genocide of the Israelis at the hands of the Arabs are absurd. If anyone in the Middle East is likely to be genocide victims, it is the Palestinians. But assuming such an argument has merit, I’d say, okay, fine, then we can simply establish a West Israel in one of the New York City boroughs, or in West Palm Beach, or in Hollywood and be done with it.

Am opposed to black people? Like most white Americans, I’m mostly indifferent to blacks. I live in a majority black city, with a black dominated municipal government, and I’ve done so for twenty-two years. I guess if I thought blacks were that awful, I would have relocated to whiter pastures by now. I’ve had plenty of blacks among my co-workers, fellow students, business associates, and neighbors. I even had a couple of black roommates when I was in my twenties. I can’t say that on average I’ve regarded them any higher or any lower than my white associates in the same situations. Hell, of all the women I’ve had, I’d say about a third of them were something other than white (Indian, Asian, black, Hispanic, American Indian, Arabic-the whole fucking Crayola box). Fuck, one of my grandmothers is Cherokee, for god’s sake. So there would seem to be some problems with the “racist” label being applied to myself as well. Politically, I have advocated reparations to blacks for the purpose of economic development of politically sovereign black homelands in North America, the creation of independent black municipalities in sections of large cities and metro areas where blacks are dominant, and legal amnesty for most black prisoners (and most other prisoners, for that matter). These are essentially the same positions as the Nation of Islam, Republic of New Afrika, and the People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement. What I do oppose are efforts to abridge freedom of association, micromanage race relations by the state, or create a new racial caste system based victimological ideology in the name of compulsory integrationism.

A favorite cause of many contemporary left-anarchists and left-libertarians is pro-immigration. Virtually every website, zine, or blog of this type is littered with pro-immigration propaganda. I happen to think this is an issue reasonable and honest anti-statists can disagree on, as it involves population transfers among states, and it is states that create the conditions under which population migration occurs. The reasonable pro-immigration position might be something like that articulated by Craig Biddle:

“Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship—the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases. Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.”

Indeed, Rasmussen research has shown some interesting results concerning immigration:

Sixty-six percent (66%) of likely voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 32% of America’s Political Class agrees.

An even more dramatic gap appears on the question of legalizing the status of those immigrants now in the country illegally. Voters nationwide are evenly divided on the question of whether it is even somewhat important: 48% say it’s important, and 45% say it’s not.

However, among the Political Class, 74% say legalizing the status of these residents is important, and only 17% disagree.

So it seems that we have the interesting spectacle of anarchists aligning themselves with the political class against “the people” when it comes to immigration. It is not that “the people” are overcome with xenophobia and racist “hate.” As the Rasmussen study points out:

One major misunderstanding has clouded the debate over immigration. Most pundits assume that those angry about the issue are angry at the immigrants. In fact, data shows that the anger is directed primarily at the federal government. Rather than being angry at immigrants, 56% continue to favor a welcoming immigration policy that would let anybody move to the United States except national security threats, criminals and those looking to live off the U.S. welfare system.

So it would appear that the majority of Americans take a rather magnanimous, tolerant view of immigrants. I would argue that the mass immigration problem that we currently have in the Western nations is the fault of perverse incentives created by our own ruling classes, who are addicted to easily exploitable Third World immigrant labor, and who use liberal-multiculturalist ideology as a smokescreen, and whose class of court intellectuals, liberal academicians and media hacks generate propaganda for such on their behalf.

I would probably take a position not dissimilar to Biddle’s, with the qualifications that “antidiscrimination” (prohibition of freedom of association) legislation be repealed, that immigrants be ineligible for state entitlement programs and tax-payer funded services, that employers be prohibited from using immigrants as scab labor, that employer use of illegal immigrant labor be barred, that immigrants convicted of serious crimes (like rape, robbery and murder, not drug possession or vending without a license) be deported, and that naturalization policy be decentralized according to local community standards. These measures, combined with large-scale efforts to create alternative economic institutions operating independently of the capitalist class which demands immigrant labor and, if necessary, the formation of volunteer citizen militia to better safeguard border areas would likely reduce immigration to manageable levels. I am actually quite wary of the proposals by some to create a “war on drugs” or “war on terrorism” police state crusade against illegal immigration. Nor do I “hate” or personally resent the masses of Latin American immigrants into the United States or Islamic immigrants into Europe. In a purely legal sense, I don’t think illegal immigrants should be dealt with any more harshly than ordinary trespassers, shoplifters, traffic offenders, or vagrants camped out on someone else’s property.  My priority political issue is to oppose U.S. imperialist aggression against other societies where many of the Left’s much beloved “people of color” actually live. But just because I do not wish to see people in other lands slaughtered does not mean I wish for Western civilization to commit economic, political and cultural suicide, just as my opposition to the statist persecution of homeless drug addicts does not mean I’m going to invite them all to move in with me, either. As Murray Rothbard said: “It’s the only civilization we’ve got.”

Yet the propaganda of pro-immigration leftists-anarchists-libertarians would have us all believe that opening the borders to any terrorist, criminal or welfare colonist who wants to jump a fence somewhere would be just fine. Why bother screening for communicable diseases immigrants from countries where public health standards are just about zero? What’s the big deal about tuberculosis, anyway? Why not allow a few hundred million Asian, African, Latin American or Eastern European immigrants to come on over and sign up for public assistance? Why not allow foreign states to empty their prisons of violent criminals and send them to America as Fidel Castro did during the boatlift of 1980? If al-Qaeda wants to open a branch office on Main Street, USA, then who are the rest of us to say otherwise?

What is odd is that the anarchist and libertarian groups who push such ideas are almost all white. Check out a group photograph of any anarchist sect and you will rarely find a “person of color.” So what is the source of the extreme “anti-racism” hysteria and equally over-the-top “immigrants’ rights” perspectives held by many of these people? Perhaps they are simply regurgitating what they have picked up from the media, the entertainment industry, their public school teachers and university professors, or their ex-hippie parents. Perhaps they come from right-wing subcultures, and such views are a means of giving the finger to their Christian fundamentalist, redneck racist or bourgeoisie Republican parents? Clearly, there is no issue of self-interest involved. Or is there?

So what of the homosexuals? When I was about fourteen, I was in a fundamentalist church, and I heard a hysterical Jim Jones-like preacher advocating the death penalty for “sodomites,” saying something to the effect that “if Jack and Fred want to make out on a street corner, then we should fry Jack and Fred.” I recall being baffled by the intensity of this fellow’s rhetoric and emotions. Then as now, I really couldn’t give a good goddamn if two queers want to poke each other in the anus or not, just as I don’t care if some hetero dude wants his girlfriend to shove a strap-on up his fucking rectum. For that matter, I don’t particularly care if others wish to engage in S&M or coprophilia or just about any other sort of sexual freakiness they prefer. In fact, as one who grew up among the so-called “religious right,” including some of its more extreme branches, like the Christian Reconstructionists and the Bob Jones people, I could never really understand what the point behind all the hooey about “the homo-sex-shuals”  really was. When I was in my mid-teens, there were two gay guys who bought the house next door to my parents. I don’t recall that it was any kind of issue. My first real exposure to homosexuals was in a state correctional facility when I was in my late teens. While I didn’t exactly go out of my way to befriend them, I thought they were basically harmless. When I was in my early twenties, one of the guys who lived on my floor during college was a stereotypical “flaming gay” and I had no problem with him. Since then, I’ve had plenty of gay co-workers, neighbors, a gay professor, and other such associates, and I’ve never had any problem with them. As mentioned, the many leftist, liberal, libertarian and anarchist political groups I’ve been associated with over the years have included many homosexuals, and I’ve never had any problem with that. A few years ago, there was an openly gay anarchist who lived at a nearby commune who was an occasional guest at my residence.

So what is the source of the problem? I used to think it was ridiculous when members of the religious right and other social conservatives accused the gay rights movement of demanding “special rights.” Having taken a harder look at the “gay rights” phenomenon, I’ve more or less changed my opinion. Among those who have attacked me the most fervently as a “fascist,” those who can be personally identified are, with few exceptions, gay militants of one type or another. This has been true in my local community, on the internet, and in hate mail that I have received.

What is it that I do or say that is so offensive to gay militants? Have I called for the reinstatement of sodomy laws, or for vigilante violence against homosexuals, or for the closing of gay-oriented clubs or businesses? Have I called for severe social or economic discrimination against gays? Have I even criticized homosexuality as a lifestyle or practice? I’ve done nothing of the sort. Have I belittled the cultural or intellectual achievements of homosexuals? No, I haven’t. For instance, I’ve gone out of my way to promote the work of Justin Raimondo, not because Raimondo is gay (who cares?), but because Raimondo is one of the very best critics of U.S. imperialism to be found. One of the very best critics of the police state is Glenn Greenwald, a gay man. One of my favorite political writers is Gore Vidal, who is a homosexual. Have I called for the legal prohibition of transgender surgery as some reactionary conservatives have done? No, I haven’t. Would I care if gays could legally marry? No, though I don’t think the state should be involved in marriage in any capacity. I am not even carte blanche opposed to the adoption of children by same-sex couples, though I think the preference should be for hetero couples, all other variables being equal.

The source of the hostility seems to come down to two things: My advocacy of political decentralization ordered on the principal of individual liberty, freedom of association, private property and community sovereignty, and my advocacy of political alliances against statism, state-capitalism, and imperialism that transcend cultural boundaries and divisive social issues and, yes, alliances that might sometimes include people who disagree with homosexuality for religious, cultural, moral or philosophical reasons.

As a big tent, pluralistic anarchist, I would favor the proliferation of a wide assortment of lifestyles and communities in a libertarian system. For instance, on the economic issues that divide libertarians, I would advocate a plurality of economic arrangements. I would say there can be competing systems of property rights, perhaps determined on a geographical basis, of the kind Kevin Carson has suggested, reflecting Lockean, Georgist, or Proudhonian systems of property. There can be anarcho-capitalist private defense agencies, anarcho-communist kibbutzes, anarcho-syndicalist workers’ councils, mutual banks, geoist land trusts, and all the other kinds of economic institutions different kinds of libertarians favor. When it comes to issues that libertarians differ on, there are many. These include capital punishment, abortion, immigration, environmentalism, animal rights, childrens’ rights, property theory, theories of criminal punishment and many others. I’d say let these be determined according to community standards at the local level.  There can be agrarian or primitivist colonies where modern technology or even industrial civilization of any kind is banned. There can be separatist enclaves for feminists, homosexuals or “people of color,” where men, heteros or whiteys are forbidden. There can be anarcho-puritan communes that bar guns, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, porn, S&M, prostitution, religion or meat-eating. On the other hand, there can be hedonist associations, modeled on places like the Red Light Districts of Amsterdam and Frankfurt (where I’ve visited numerous times) where virtually anything goes.

Of course, I’ve applied the same principles to the cultural right as well as the cultural left, and this is where the real source of the conflict between myself and others in the anarchist milieu begins. Hans Hermann Hoppe has gained much criticism for statements like this:

“…the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state…imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles?”

“the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

In fact, I have been one of the critics of this kind of culturally reactionary libertarianism. See here, here, here and here. I think the proper response is the one articulated by Walter Block:

“Say what you will in support of this statement – it is stark, it is well written, it is radical, it gives a well deserved intellectual kick to the teeth to some groups who richly deserve it — it is still exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with libertarianism. For, in the free society, there will always be the likelihood that different groups will tend to amalgamate in certain geographical areas, and even have restrictive covenants that enforce just requirements, and limitations on free speech. In places like parts of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, for example, there is little doubt that such sentiments will be the order of the day. But there will likely be other areas of the country, for example, the People’s Republic of Santa Monica, Ann Arbor, Cambridge, Mass, Greenwich Village in New York City, heck, the entire Big Apple for that matter, where pretty much the opposite outlook will legally prevail. That is, in these latter places, positive mention of free enterprise, capitalism, profits, etc., will be severely punished by law. Why libertarianism should be equated with the former views and not the latter is a mystery. Surely, the libertarian philosophy would support the rights of both groups to act in such manners. As for homosexuality, it is entirely possible that some areas of the country, parts of Gotham and San Francisco for example, will require this practice, and ban, entirely, heterosexuality. If this is done through contract, private property rights, restrictive covenants, it will be entirely compatible with the libertarian legal code.”

I would go still further than Block, and advocate entirely separate homelands for those with irreconcilable political differences, for instance, neo-nazis and their equally thuggish “antifa” opponents. As I’ve written before:

Leftists whose main issues are “racism, sexism and homophobia” could create their own homelands complete with a constitution that required that a majority of the seats in the highest body of the provincial government be given to people of color, feminists and homosexuals. There could be “anarchist” city-states organized on the basis of “consensus-based direct democracy” complete with marathon debates over “process” along with “communist” city-states ruled hierarchically by the “vanguard party”. Recall the dichotomy between demo/hedo/homo/art-fag Athens and commie/fascist Sparta. In the white separatist states, there could be sub-communities established for “Aryan” white nationalists and Jewish white nationalists (yes, there is such a thing). Their could be collections of towns and villages for the followers of “moderates” like Jared Taylor and Michael Levin on one hand and “extremists” like the Aryan Nations or the World Church of the Creator on the other. In the black separatist states, there could be sub-communities for Garveyites, adherents of Black Israel, Black Muslims, black separatist Christians and Marxists like the Republic of New Afrika.

Of course, I don’t think it’s generally necessary to take things to these kinds of extremes. For the most part, I think cultural differences can be handled the same way religious differences are presently handled. Different groups could simply have their own institutions. For instance, with regards to education, there might be Afro-centric schools, “traditional American” schools, Catholic schools, fundamentalist-evangelical schools, Hasidic schools, liberal-leftist-politically correct schools, libertarian-anarchistic Summerhill-type schools, “white supremacist” schools, Islamic schools, and, yes,  even “homo-centric” schools.

I take it as a given that there will always be groups as well as individuals with irreconcilable political, ideological, cultural, religious, racial, ethnic, economic and other kinds of differences. One of the virtues of libertarian ideas like decentralization, freedom of association, a wide dispersement of economic resources and so forth it that these things allow such differences to be accommodated without bloodshed or oppression. For instance, just as some leftists might prefer a way of life that priorities homosexuality, feminism, “green-consciousness,” racial and ethnic integrationism, hedonism, communalism, therapeutism or vegetarianism, so might some other people prefer a way of life that prioritizes religious devotion, ethnic preservationism, social conservatism, cultural traditionalism, asceticism, racial separatism, racial, religious or cultural homogeneity, “morality,” “family values,” private property, hunting, meat-eating or tobacco farming. There is no reason why there needs to be a civil war between such factions, or that such factions even be under the same political roof. There can be separate schools, churches, cultural organizations, intermediary institutions, media outlets, non-state social services, economic enterprises, common law legal systems, defense organizations, neighborhoods or, if necessary, entirely separate towns, counties, cantons or provinces for such competing factions.

Seems fair enough to me. After all, freedom of choice and freedom of association are two-way streets. Just as some people may wish to live a homosexual or hedonistic lifestyles, others might wish to live a “racist” or religious lifestyle. But what I have come to call “homo-totalitarians” typically respond in one of two ways. Some are outright political totalitarians who wish for an all-powerful central government to eradicate the associational, religious, economic, privacy and property rights of others with antidiscrimination laws, direct subsidies to homosexual organizations, the use of gay marriage laws to require taxpayers to finance state-funded benefits for same-sex couples, granting homosexual pairs preferential consideration so far as the adoption of children is concerned, criminalizing speech that is critical of homosexuality, the use of tax-funded public schools for the dissemination of pro-gay propaganda under the guise of “sex education” and “teaching tolerance”, enacting hate crimes (thought crimes) laws granting homosexuals legal protection above and beyond that of ordinary crime victims and many other such privileges.

Still others argue less for political totalitarianism of this kind and instead prefer a censorious intellectual culture where dissent from PC orthodoxy on homosexuality is forbidden. We have seen previews of what this would look like in the phenomenon of “political correctness” that has infested certain sectors of society, particularly the academic world and the media. What this amounts too, at minimum, is reacting to those with un-PC views on “gay rights” with hysteria, shrillness, rudeness, slander, vilification, and threats.

Within the context of libertarianism, some have argued that those with un-PC views pertaining to homosexuality, “racism” and a few other things should be written out of the libertarian milieu so as to uphold some standard of cultural leftist purity. Isn’t this interesting? To demonstrate the lunacy of such a proposal, one only need to ask what might happen if other supposed “minority” groups engaged in such special pleading? Should Mormon libertarians demand that libertarians refrain from criticizing Mormon theological beliefs or practices of the Mormon church? Should drug-using libertarians demand that drug use be off-limits so far as disapproval or disagreement from other libertarians is concerned? Should vegetarian libertarians demand that other libertarians refrain from criticizing or ever expressing disapproval of vegetarianism? What if people with tattoos and body piercings asked for similar favoritism? But this is precisely what “homo-totalitarian” libertarians expect. Anyone who comes near the libertarian milieu who has perfectly fine libertarian credentials but who disagrees with homosexuality for whatever private reasons should not only be shunned but personally attacked, according to the logic of these folks. Now, homo-libertarians have every right to criticize the views of anti-homo-libertarians. Hell, I’ve even criticized them on occasion. For instance, if homo-libertarians want to go picket a lecture by an anti-homo-libertarian like Hans Hermann Hoppe, then of course they are well within their rights, just as conservative Christian libertarians are well within their rights to organize boycotts of Disneyland for holding “Gay Day” or whatever the fuck it is. Yet, this kind of thing would seem to me at least to go against the “live and let live” spirit of libertarianism, and it is utterly baffling to me at least that others would regard such matters as equally pressing or even more pressing with concerns like, oh, well, overthrowing an empire that has killed eight million people worldwide.

This hypersensitivity to criticisms of homosexuality found in many anarchist and libertarian circles helps, I think, to explain the otherwise inexplicable “anti-racism” hysteria and enthusiasm for the most extreme forms of pro-immigrationism, not to mention the most ridiculous renditions of feminism, found among these people, virtually all of whom are white, overwhelmingly male, and mostly from middle class backgrounds. Anti-racism, anti-xenophobia and feminazism are simply surrogates for homosexualism. The wider “gay rights” movement has gone out of its way to attach itself to the legacy of the black civil rights movement. They do this because they know that most Americans recognize the treatment given to black Americans prior to civil rights was unfair, and thereby proclaim themselves to be a comparable victim group. Therefore, they promote the most extreme and lunatical forms of “anti-racism” and immigrationism, and loudly proclaim any kind differentiation of persons or groups along racial, ethnic, national or gender lines to be the ultimate in human evil, no matter what its purpose, and then subsequently proclaim themselves to the equivalent of an oppressed ethnic group deserving similar favoritism. Apparently, their rallying cry is to paraphrase Barry Goldwater: “Extremism in the defense of sodomy is no vice.”

I’ve wondered why there is so much acrimony between myself and many of these left-anarchist people, given that I agree with them the vast majority of the time. Some of it is no doubt attributable to what Thomas Sowell has called a “conflict of visions.” This has to do with broader philosophical differences beyond preferred political systems, economic policies, particular laws, positions on single issues and so forth. It is a conflict that emerged during the Enlightenment and has endured ever since. Says Sowell:

The great evils of the world-war, poverty, and crime, for example-are seen in completely different terms by those with the constrained and unconstrained visions. If human options are not inherently constrained, then the presence of such repugnant and disastrous phenomena virtually cries out for explanation-and for solutions. But if the limitations and passions of man himself are at the heart of these painful phenomena, then what requires explanation are the ways in which they have been avoided or minimized. While believers in the unconstrained vision seek the special causes of war, poverty and crime, believers in the constrained vision seek the special causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society. In the unconstrained vision, there are no intractable reasons for social evils and therefore no reason why they cannot be solved, with sufficient moral commitment. But in the constrained, whatever artifices or strategies restrain or ameliorate inherent human evils will themselves have costs, some in the form of other social ills created by these civilizing institutions, so all that is possible is a prudent trade-off.

Recognition of these facts can sometimes require that hard choices be made. For instance, the need to balance being kind and generous to immigrants with cultural, civilizational, political and economic survival. The need to establish political priorities that aim to minimize the greatest harms (like imperialist war, mass imprisonment of harmless people, and severe economic failure that will severely damage tens of millions) as a primary consideration, as opposed to focusing primarily on upholding to the letter the interests and preferences of marginal fringe groups, like “sexual minorities,” regardless of other considerations.

Some years ago I sat in on a conversation of university professors discussing the mystery of the “origins of racism.” But the origins of racism are no mystery. Conflict of this type has existed as long as there have been human beings. The mystery is those rare instances where peace between races has been achieved. On another occasion, a liberal associate was highly offended by my defense of a man who had been arrested for shooting and killing a criminal who had been burglarizing his home, and my associate was giving me the usual drivel about “the sanctity of human life” and “criminals are victims of socio-economic oppression,” as though the interests of the crime victim counted for nothing.  I responded with a quote from Adam Smith: “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” I once had a political science professor, a Princeton graduate, who said in all seriousness that the real issue in the gun control debate is whether “having a gun makes you feel safe” versus  “knowing that someone else might have a gun makes you feel unsafe,” as though mere subjective emotions and states of mind are the real basis for public policy debates, irrespective of actual facts and tangible reality. Many years ago when I was in the Central America solidarity movement, I once criticized what I felt was the overuse of civil disobedience by antiwar protestors. To me, it seemed counterproductive to ritualistically sit down in the street and blockade traffic in a way that had zero effect on actual U.S. foreign policy, but resulted in hundreds of people being carted off to jail, and resources squandered on fines, bail, lawyer fees and court costs. I was told by a very intelligent man with a decades long history of involvement in such activities that the purpose of civil disobedience was to “make a personal statement” that one is taking a stand on this, that or the other thing. In other words, it was all about the individual protestor, not the actual cause itself.

If we see anarchism as a movement to oppose statism, capitalism, imperialism, aggressive war,  and authoritarianism, and to uphold individual liberty, decentralism, voluntarism, federalism, mutual aid, cooperativism, syndicalism, communitarianism, pluralism, human scale, institutions, intellectual freedom, free inquiry, free speech, and freedom of association, then the attacks of my critics don’t really make sense. But if we see so-called “anarchism” as a movement of homosexuals seeking political, institutional and cultural privilege, while hiding behind the rhetoric of egalitarian-universalist-humanism, then such attacks begin to make a great deal of sense. To my enemies, I would respond by citing the immortal words of Jim Goad:

I don’t care about your precious personal lifestyle choices. I really don’t. And your entire dingbat philosophy, the whole tectonic plate upon which San Francisco rests, is based on the false presumption that people such as me are somehow upset about the manner in which you flap your genitals around. Egads.

It isn’t what you do, it’s the way you do it. Not the meat, but rather the motion. It’s not what you’re saying, it’s your lousy voice. It isn’t your private cock-slurping, it’s your public megaphone-mouth. It ain’t how you move beneath the sheets, it’s the way you wave the picket signs around. The problem isn’t your self-consciously “decadent” personal lifestyle, it’s your warped social instincts.

It has nothing to do with the widespread sidewalk displays of ass-rimming…or the women who look like Lou Costello…or even the concept of white people who hate the concept of white people… It’s the attitude.

As for the rest of us in the anarchist milieu, I say it’s time for a purge, if not an outright pogrom. Does the spectacle of a bunch of white college students crying about “racism, racism, racism” and pretending that they’re Black Panthers do anything to actually increase the number of Actually Existing People of Color in our ranks? It hasn’t yet after decades of trying. The typical convert to anarchism is an angry, young, white, male from an upper strata working class to upper middle class socio-economic background, one who possesses above average levels of intelligence and education, and an interest in history, philosophy, political science and related fields. Do we really attract more people into our ranks by having so many self-hating whites, bearded ladies, cock-ringed queers, or persons of one or another surgically altered “gender identity” in our midst? Is this really something the average rebellious young person wants to be associated with? Could we not actually attract more young rebels into our ranks if all of this stuff was absent? I believe we could. For instance, I’ve been amazed at how fast the “national-anarchist” movement has grown in the short amount of time it has been around. And it is largely due to the efforts of Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard to purge libertarianism of precisely this kind during the late 1980s and early 1990s of thing that eventually made possible the Ron Paul movement and the post-paleo movement that has followed it. Does the average young rebel really want to join an “anarchist” movement that is only going to tell him what a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic sinner he is? No, he can go to church or take university humanities courses for that.

As for the feminism thing, I suspect the absence of such “feminist” elements will actually increase the number of actual female participants in our ranks. In my experience, right-wing political groups and even fundamentalist churches tend to have at least as many women participants as left-wing groups, if not more. I mean, let’s be real. What confident, intelligent, secure, emotionally stable woman with a keen sense of individuality wants to join a movement of pissed-off, man-hating, dykes with an excess of body hair? I really doubt that many of our stereotypical angry young male anarchists really, in their heart of hearts, want to belong to such a movement. I recall a conversation with a female friend of mine, a 23-year-old bisexual anthropology student. I was criticizing the “gay rights” movement as having no real message other than: “We suck cock, and we deserve merit badges for it.” Her response: “Yes, exactly. That’s a perfect description.” As for homosexuals, let them be evaluated according to what they actually contribute to our movement rather than simply for their status as homosexuals. We need the likes of Justin Raimondo or the late Alisdair Clarke. I’m not so sure we need some of these others.

So where do we go from here? I suggest that those of us who want to have a non-leftoidal anarchist movement simply go about building one, and ignore the personal attacks that will continue to be thrown our way. As Andrew Yeoman of Bay Area National Anarchists suggests:

My goals are (in no particular order) are consistent with a pragmatic libertarian anti-capitalist holistic ethnocentric worldview.  This is why I advocate for 1) less government authority and the repealing of many laws, 2) greater autonomy for the self-determination of all peoples, and 3) believe it or not, greater cooperation between powerless political factions.  With caveats I will work with people who I disagree with on most issues because the philosophy I live by is to organize with different but like minded tribes.  This tenet is continuously emphasized by National Anarchists like Troy Southgate.  Disagreeing with me on issues is fine, but you will never tell me or my tribe how we shall live our lives.

And this:

National Anarchism is a political tendency that allows different communities to form a political structure according to their own values.  That’s it.  That’s the solution to the irreconcilable differences between me and other anarchists, different lifestyles, religions, and even races that have historically had problems living together (above and beyond mere class conflict).

Before we can have an anarchist revolution, we need to have a revolution within anarchism itself. We need to convey the message to other radical tendencies and to the public at-large that anarchism as a political ideology is not simply some freak show that exists to provide group psychotherapy to a bunch of psychologically damaged personalities. In recent years, an “alternative Right” has developed in the U.S. consisting of paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, post-paleos, anarcho-capitalists, “left-conservatives,” and Ron Paulistas. New tendencies within anarchism have also emerged like national-anarchism, tribal anarchism, and anarcho-pluralism. Out of all of these strands, perhaps we can build a new “revolutionary Right” that in essence becomes the “true left,” a new radicalism that eventually replaces PC leftoidism as the dominant outlook of radical youth, and then begins the process of becoming an actual popular movement to displace the dominance of liberalism in American society.

Updated News Digest May 17, 2009 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

“Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always civilized and tolerant.”

                                                                                              H. L. Mencken

Why is the US making itself impotent fighting wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with is security, wars that are, in fact, threatening its security?  The answer is that the military/security lobby, the financial gangsters, and AIPAC rule.  The American people be damned.”

                                                                                            -Paul Craig Roberts

Secede! Bill Buppert interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Did Somebody Say Secession? by Jack Hunter

How Dare Anyone Question the Fed? by Thomas Woods

Who Rules America? by Paul Craig Roberts

It is Getting Very Serious Now by Chuck Baldwin

Do You Feel Safer Now? from No Third Solution

Intellectual Property: A Libertarian Critique by Kevin Carson

The Great American Bank Robbery (of US) by Thomas N. Naylor

Twelve Axioms of American Foreign Policy Towards Israel by Thomas N. Naylor

The New Neocons  by Justin Raimondo

Hillary and the Sleeping Dragon by William S. Lind

A Practical Path to Secession by Bill Buppert

King of the Hate Business by Alexander Cockburn

Local Barter Clubs Proliferating by Hazel Henderson

Money Talks  by Tomislav Sunic

Workers Power and the Ultra-Right by Ean Frick

Apostle of Catastrophe Kirkpatrick Sale interviewed by Derek Turner

Pentagon Gluttons by Charles Pena

Pelosi the Ennabler by Robert Scheer

The Inside Fight Over Torture by Nick Baumann

New General, Same War by Robert Dreyfuss

10th Amendment Showdown by John Bowman

Obama’s Latest Effort to Conceal Evidence of Bush Era Crimes by Glenn Greenwald

Saving Israel from Itself by John J. Mearsheimer

The Hidden Hand of Dick Cheney by Juan Cole

Torture Cannot Be Justified to Save Lives by Klint Alexander

Surprise! by Harrison Bergeron 2

On Cops and Gangs by Manuel Lora

The Cure for Layoffs: Fire the Boss! by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis

PIGS Kill Teenager Over Expired License Tags 

Employees Occupy Their Company in Rochester 

Where Were All of the Business Schools When Wall Street Needed Them Most? by Thomas N. Naylor

PIGS Attack Stuffed Animal with Taser 

The Shell Game of Democracy by Ray Mangum

Judicial Restraint by TGGP

Wanted: A Fighting Party by Pat Buchanan

Savage Nation by Derek Turner

Remembering the Great Screaming Lord Sutch by Ray Mangum (check it out!

Bull Markets in the Cocaine Game by Mark Easton

The U.S. Descends Deeper into the Third World 

PETA Founder Comes Up With Another Howler by Francois Tremblay

The Fascist Federation vs Free-Market Aliens by John Bowman

The Rule of the “Experts” by Justin Raimondo

Saigon Again? by Philip Giraldi

What a Horrible Weapon the Taser is… (especially in the hands of the PIGS) by William Norman Grigg

We Face Economic Destruction by Murray Rothbard

Understanding the Long War by Tom Hayden

Saberi’s Plight and American Media Propaganda by Glenn Greenwald

It’s Time to End the Cold War by James Bissett

Obama’s Empire by Sheldon Richman

The Case Against World Currency Schemes by David Gordon

Obama Can’t Fix the Military Commissions by Denny LeBoeuf

Becoming What We Seek to Destroy by Chris Hedges

The Bubble to End All Bubbles by Gerald Celente

Bill Would Turn Bloggers Into Felons by John Cox

Mohawks March on Canadian Border by Michael Peeling

The Bomb Iran Faction by Gary Leupp

Obama Chooses a Reliable Dictatorship by Wajahat Ali

Why Isn’t Obama Turning to Credit Unions? by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

Pseudo-Science and Wrongful Convictions in the War on Drugs by John Kelly

Who Killed 120 Civilians? by Patrick Cockburn

New York Governor Does the Right Thing by Anthony Papa

Jon Stewart and Truman, the War Criminal by Paul Krassner

Savage Nation by Derek Turner

A Hypocrisy That Can Win by Richard Spencer

Ron Paul Republicans by Jack Hunter

Social Solidarity is Overrated by Richard Spencer

The Economics of the Meltdown interview with Tom Woods

Michael Savage is Our Business by Marcus Epstein

Star Trek and Humanity by Razib Khan

Glen Beck Discusses Anarchy with Penn Jillette hat tip to Francois Tremblay

Bakunin on Order hat tip to Brad Spangler

 Where Russia Went Wrong by Michael Hudson

The Limits of Liberalism by Lance Selfa

Obama Channels Cheney by Dave Lindorff

Obama and Latin America: No Light, All Tunnell by Robert Sandels

The Banker Boys Are Alright: Time to End the Bailouts by Dean Baker

It’s Time for Another Stock Market Correction interview with Jim Rogers

A Sucker’s Rally by Gary North

The Bitterly Clinging Obama by Vin Suprynowicz

Death of a Civilization by Dave Deming

Four Traits of the Really Successful Investors by Chris Clancy

1984: The Book That Killed George Orwell by Robert McCrum

Christians for Torture by Laurence Vance

U.S. Out of Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ron Paul

The Social Benefits of Saving by Hans Hermann Hoppe

Gangbangers in Blue by William Norman Grigg

Jesse Ventura Wants Cheney on a Waterboard from Larry King Live

Support Your Local Police? by Laurence Vance

Tax Revolt in California by Gary North

What Did Nancy Know? by Justin Raimondo

Twenty Years After the Fall by Eduoard Husson

The Politics of Excusing Torture in the Name of National Security by John Dean

Obama Administration Statements on Iranian Nukes Not Backed by Intelligence by Jeremy Hammond

The Sematics of Torture by John McQuaid

Obama: A Careerist, Not an Ideologue by Pat Buchanan

National Bankruptcy by Peter Schiff

Child Abusers in Uniform? from No Third Solution

The Tragedy of Classical Liberalism by Gus diZerega

For Reproductive Anarchy by Roderick Long

Anarcho-Communists for Private Property? by Roderick Long

Film Crew Arrested for Filming PIG from Rad Geek

How the Left Killed Hollywood Drama by S.T. Karnick

Is College Worth It? by Tom Piatak

You Can’t Do This on Television or Can You? by Dylan Hales

Cultural Continuity and Revolution 

Neo-Slavery Re-Emerging as a Business Strategy by Brenda Walker

Obama Picks Up Where Bush Left Off by Mike Whitney

A Real History of Rupert Murdoch by Bruce Page

The Black Shirts of Guantanamo by Jeremy Scahill

Vaginas from Outer Space! by Kim Nicolini

PIGS Assault Pastor

Can Star Trek‘s Non-Violent Utopia Happen?

A Special Kind of Feminist

You’ve Got to See This One to Believe It

Updated News Digest May 10, 2009 1

Quote of the Week:

“There’s the populist wing of the libertarian movement, and then there’s the Washington crowd that’s still trying to sell libertarianism, or their version of it, to elites. These people want to go along and get along. As long as they can abort their babies and sodomize each other and take as many drugs as they want to, they are happy. They don’t care who is being killed in Iraq and how many Iraqis are dying. That’s their hierarchy of values.”

                                                                                                          -Justin Raimondo

Joke of the Week:

“Watching Keith Preston shows me beyond the shadow of the doubt that life isn’t worth living as a cold manipulator.”

                                                                                              -Anonymous Lunatic

The Tyranny of Tolerance by Hal G.P. Colebatch

Soft Totalitarianism by Thomas Jackson

“Hate Crimes” Prevention Bill Will Suppress Speech by Paul Craig Roberts

The Left Attacks the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle by Matthew Yglesias

Torture and Mr. Obama by William Blum

Obama’s War Budget by Jeff Leys

The Marijuana Dilemma: Free Market Decriminalization vs Bureaucratic Legalization by Daniel Flynn

When Norman Mailer Ran for Mayor of NYC by John Buffalo Mailer

Obama’s Afghan-Ignorant Policy by Michael Scheuer

Ignore AIPAC at America’s Peril by Philip Giraldi

The Great Depression of 2009 by Gerald Celente

Exempting Israel From Criticism by Paul Craig Roberts

Is Obama Taking on the Israel Lobby? by Justin Raimondo

Obama Must Break from Past Israel Policy by Jonathan Steele

National-Anarchists Smash Shop Windows in San Francisco by BANA

Dead Souls by Alexander Cockburn

Jailed for Caring by Neve Gordon

Why the Left Hates Decentralization by Thomas Woods

The Case for All-Black Schools by Jeff Severns Guntzel

Andrej Grubacic on Anarchism for the 21st Century 

“They Had Swords”: Anarchist Mayhem in San Francisco 

Anarchist Common Action General Assembly Meets in the Pacific Northwest 

IWW Starbucks’ Workers Organizing Efforts Extend to Chile 

American Exceptionalism (And Why American Extremists Tend to Be Anarchists Rather Than Communists and Fascists) by Seymour Martin Lipset

Bush POWs Treated Worse Than Americans Captured by the Chinese by Glenn Greenwald

Afghans to Obama: Get Out, Take Karzai With You by Patrick Cockburn

The Torturer’s Apprentice by Richard Neville

To Power a Nation: Nuclear Bombs or Sunshine? by Manuel Garcia, Jr.

Pork and Baloney: Obama’s Defense Budget by Winslow T. Wheeler

Pakistan in Crisis by Deepak Tripathi

Stanford Alumni Call for Investigation of Condoleeza Rice by Marjorie Cohn

Who’s Behind the Financial Meltdown? 

The AIPAC Spy Case by James G. Abourezk

Afghan Ayatollahs Push Marital Rape Law by Patrick Cockburn

Dropping the AIPAC Spy Case by Gary Leupp

Economy on the Ropes by Mike Whitney

Is the GOP Finished Yet? by Pat Buchanan

The Mexican Flu by Jack Hunter

I Committed Treason Last Week by Kevin D. Annett

Remembering Isabel Paterson by Stephen Cox

The Case Against the State from LiberaLaw

“Communism” vs Communism by Milan Valach

We Are Brainwashed to Believe We Are in a Classless Society by Francois Tremblay

Doing Tax Resistance from the Picket Line

Dialectical Anarchism by Roderick Long

Against Rothbard and Keynes, for Marx by TGGP

The Copyright Nazis’ Latest Venue: Newspapers by Kevin Carson

Liberty Creates Order by Sheldon Richman

The Ruling Class Nature of the Federal Reserve by Sheldon Richman

Moral Nihilism and Existentialism from Back to the Drawing Board

Victim of Amerika  by William Norman Grigg

Want to Get Out of Debt? 

Hero of Gun Rights by Jeff Snyder

Texas Highway Robbery-by the Cops!! by Gary Tuchman and Katherine Wojtecki

Armed Student Saves Lives 

The Taliban Are Coming! The Taliban Are Coming! by Eric Margolis

The Federal Government is Increasingly Totalitarian by Mark Crovelli

Survivalism: It’s Just Common Sense by Tim Elliot

Money Must Not Be State Provided by Mike Rozeff

Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus by Laurence Vance

Ron Paul, Surveillance and the GOP by James Bovard

“Democracy at Gunpoint” Strategy Guarantees Defeat by William Pfaff

A Nation of Men, Not Laws by Nat Hentoff

A Vietnam Warning  by Robert Dreyfuss

At What Point is a Traitor a Patriot? by Bill Buppert

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republicans

Jon Stewart: Wimp, Wuss and Moral Coward by Justin Raimondo

Congressional Retards Call for a Ban on “Indecent” Viagra Commercials by Butler Shaffer (and the proper response)

AIPAC Stooge Jane Harman: Fuck That Bitch article by Glenn Greenwald

How to Survive the Depression and Worse Jack Spirko interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Student Loan Debt: The Next Big Crash?

U.S. Policy Breeds Revolution in Pakistan Eric Margolis interviewed by Scott Horton

How Israel Avoids a Palestinian State by David Bromwich

Nukes and National Independence: The French Example by Edouard Husson

A Conspiracy to Prevent Torture Prosecutions? by Thomas R. Eddlem

Taking Liberties With the “Justice” System by Andy Worthington

Another Cheney Cover-Up? by David Corn

The New Face of the Senate? 

French Mutualism Beyond Proudhon  by Shawn Wilbur

How Good People Turn Evil, and Why the State is the Problem by Francois Tremblay

The Forces of the American Occupation (of America) from Rad Geek

From a Slave to His Former Master, in 1865  from Roderick Long

Can Christians Serve in the New World Army? by Chuck Baldwin

The New Racism by Pat Buchanan

Casualties of Obama’s War by Patroon

Stuff White People Like by Robert Weissberg

Can Local Government Work for the Poor? from IFPRI Forum

Another Federalist of the Left? from The Volokh Conspiracy

The End of Arrogance: Decentralization and Anarchist Organizing by the Curious George Brigade

Bush is a Felonious Torturer by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Should a Christian Join the Military? by Laurence Vance

Empire Contributed to Economic Crisis by Ivan Eland

Rangoon’s Renaissance by Doug Bandow

Obama Readies Troops as Afghans Die by Jeremy Scahill

Give Up Your Empire or Live Under It Jacob Hornberger interviewed by Scott Horton

Why We Fight: U.S. Troops Die for Rapists by Ted Rall

Taking Up Where Clinton-Gore Left Off by Gordon Prather

The President and His Troublesome Allies by Tony Karon

U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem by Jacob Hornberger

The Torture BITCH by Justin Raimondo

Happy Days  by Peter Schiff

A Woman Dumber Than John McCain? by Ilana Mercer

Fuck the PIGS from Rad Geek

A Full Court Press for Pakistan War by Chris Floyd

Marilyn Chambers, R.I.P. by Warren Hinckle

In Praise of Revolutions  by Serge Halimi

Hilary and Latin America by Mark Weisbrot

Recessions and Labor Unions by David Macaray

Mothers and War by Ron Jacobs

A Break from the Past in the Drug War? by Kevin Zeese

Party of Rush by Robert Fantina

A Hymn to Political Incorrectness (and another one!)

Reflections on Urban Sociology by Chris Rock

Updated News Digest May 3, 2008 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“In spite of the unceasing efforts made by men in power to conceal this and to ascribe a different meaning to power, power is the application of a rope, a chain by which a person will be bound and dragged along, or of a whip, with which he will be flogged, or of a knife, or an ax with which they will cut off his hands, feet, ears, head—an application of these means or the threat they will be used. Thus it was in the time of Nero and of Ghenghis Khan and thus it is even now, in the most liberal of governments.”

                                                                                                              -Leo Tolstoy

 

“”One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, Nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England… “We have reached a stage when the very word socialism calls up, on the one hand, a picture of airplanes, tractors and huge glittering factories of glass and concrete; on the other, a picture of vegetarians with wilting beards, of Bolshevik commissars (half gangster, half gramophone), or earnest ladies in sandals, shock-headed Marxists chewing polysyllables, escaped Quakers, birth control fanatics, and Labour Party backstairs-crawlers. “If only the sandals and pistachio-colored shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaler and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly. As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.”

                                                                                                     -George Orwell

The Drug War: A Bonanza for the Enemies of Freedom by Kevin Carson

Prosecute ‘Em by Jack Hunter

New Issue of Synthesis

What Happened to the Peace Movement? Scott Horton interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Farewell, US Hegemony by Andrew Bacevich and Tom Engelhardt

America’s Shame by Eric Margolis

Is the State Necessary? by Kirkpatrick Sale

National-Anarchist Portraits: Andrew Yeoman

Taking Secession Seriously-At Last by Kirkpatrick Sale

H.L. Mencken Speaks Wow!!

Shrink the State: A Leftist Aim by Chris Dillow

Secession Is Our Future by Cliff Thies

Let a Thousand Nations Bloom from Free Guptastan

Revisionism: A New, Angry Look at the American Past from TIME, 1970

Why We Fight the Power by Roderick Long

Neocons on the Danube by Paul Gottfried

Credit Card Deform by Sheldon Richman

Don’t Know Much About Capitalism by Thomas Woods

African Anarchism in Zimbabwe by Larry Gambone

Is GDP Decreasing? by Francois Tremblay

Outside the Gates: Turkey and Europe by Mark Hackard

Debt as a Way of Life by Richard Spencer

The Taliban’s Road to Kabul by Patrick Cockburn

Death at Work in American by Joann Wypijewski

Zionist Lobby Targets Another Tenured Professor by Doug Henwood

The Nuremberg Truth and Reconciliation Committee by Jeremy Scahill

Will Iceland Be Handed Over to a New Gang of Kleptocrats? by Michael Hudson

Israeli Fascism by Uri Avnery

Why the U.S. Still Hates Cuba by Frederico Fuentes

Obama’s Sins of Omission by Andrew J. Bacevich

The Secessionist Option: Why Now? by Ian Baldwin

George Washington on Entangling Alliances 

James Madison on War 

Most Women Oppose Preferences in Hiring Blacks by TGGP

Unsubstantiated Blanket Statements by Ean Frick

“Get Your Hands Off My Country” 

Military Moronity by William S. Lind

The Secessionist Bookshelf by Bill Buppert

Anarchy and the Law of the Somalis by Dick Clark

The Fed Has Wounded You Gerald Celente interviewed by Lew Rockwell

To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate? by Charles Pena

The Case for Prosecuting Bush by David Henderson

Some Might Call It Treason by Philip Giraldi

Calamity Jane by Justin Raimondo

The U.S. is Addicted to Imperialism Eric Margolis interviewed by Scott Horton

Get Out of Iraq George McGovern interviewed by Scott Horton

The U.S. Should Cut Military Spending by One Half by Benjamin Friedman

We Are All Torturers in America by Naomi Wolf

The Greatest Gay Rights Song Ever Written -here’s the lyrics

Secession: The True Bioregional Way by Kirkpatrick Sale

The Ten Core Values of Survivalism 

The Greatest American President of All by Thomas Woods

Is is Time to Bring Back the Lone Star Republic? by Kelse Moen

Is a Hyperinflationary Depression Ahead? John Williams interviewed by Howard Ruff

The Rich Capitalist Who Co-Founded Communism by Robert Service

The Lobby Wants War by Justin Raimondo

Obama Looks Unimpressive on Civil Liberties After 100 Days by J.D. Tuccille

The Dark Core of the Empire by Jacob Hornberger

Tortured by the Past by Frank Snepp

The Obama-Netanyahu Showdown by Robert Parry

What This Country Needs is a Good Pirated Version of Kindle E-Books by Kevin Carson

Really Small Firm Size by Shawn Wilbur

Help Arthur Silber

Fair Taxers-Friends or Foes? by Dylan Hales

Obama and “Two States” by Ellen Cantarow

The McCarthyism That Horowitz Built by Dana Cloud

The Cocaine Powder/Crack Sentencing Disparity by Jasmine Tyler and Anthony Papa

Obama Disses Tea Partyers by Red Phillips

The Flu Hysteria Agency by Bill Anderson

The Evil of Eminent Domain by David T. Beito

Secede, Georgia! 

Is Neocon Foreign Policy Finished? by Ivan Eland

Dictatorial Powers Unchallenged by Andy Worthington

Bibi’s Holocaust-or Ours? by Gordon Prather

Freedom of Expression, Dissenting Historians and the Holocaust Revisionists by David Botsford

Thought Police Muscle Up in Britain by Hal G.P. Colebatch

Why Many Chinese Don’t Want Freedom by Richard Bernstein

Economic Policy and Growth by TGGP

Jon Stewart the Hypocrite by Francois Tremblay

May Day 2009 by Rad Geek

The Shadow of the Panther by Hugh Pearson

Remembering Gustave Landauer-He Was Killed 90 Years Ago Today 

Strictly Personal  by Chuck Baldwin

The Road to Weimar America by Robert Stacy McCain

“Do You Take This Pony?” by Evan McLaren

Thoroughly Modern Marxism by Richard Spencer

Is the GOP Too Conservative? by Jack Hunter

The Swine Are Loose by Ilana Mercer

Technofascism, Not Socialism by Thomas Naylor

Dissing the Declaration by Harrison Bergeron 2

Kabul’s New Elite by Patrick Cockburn

The Israel Boycott is Biting by Nadia Hijab

Why I am an Anarcho-Pluralist, Part Two 4

Imagine, for one horribly unpleasant moment, that the anarchist movement (movements?) in North America, in their present form, were to carry out an actual revolution. What kind of social or political system would be the result? The Wikipedia entry on anarchism in the United States lists a number of individuals who represent North American anarchism in different ways. These include Michael Albert (Chomskyite proponent of participatory economics-“parecon”), Ashanti Alston (black power anarchist), Hakim Bey (lifestyle anarchist), Bob Black (nihilist and reputed psychopath), Kevin Carson (Proudhonian mutualist), Noam Chomsky (Marxo-syndicalist-anarcho-social democrat), Peter Coyote (love generation), Howard Ehrlich (social anarchist), David Friedman (anarcho-capitalist), David Graeber (anarcho-anthropologist), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (anarcho-monarchist), Derrick Jensen (primitivist), Jeff Luers (eco-anarchist prisoner), Judith Malina (anarcho-pacifist actress), the late James J. Martin (individualist anarchist and Holocaust revisionist), Wendy McElroy (Rothbardian anarcho-feminist individualist), Jason McQuinn (post-left anarchist), Cindy Milstein (Bookchinite), Chuck Munson (anarchist without adjectives), Joe Peacott (individualist-anarchist), Sharon Presley (left-libertarian feminist), Keith Preston (agent of the forces of darkness), Lew Rockwell (Rothbardian paleolibertarian), Jeremy Sapienza (market anarchist), Crispin Sartwell (individualist-anarchist), Rebecca Solnit (environmentalist), Starhawk (neo-pagan eco-feminist), Warcry (eco-anarchist), Dana Ward (anarcho-archivist), David Watson (primitivist), Mike Webb (murder victim), Fred Woodworth (atheist anarchist), John Zerzan (primitivist) and Howard Zinn (New Left anarcho-Marxist).

This list does not even begin to mention all of the ideological tendencies to be found among anarchists, e.g., indigenist anarchism, anarcho-communism, national-anarchism, insurrectionary anarchism, Christian anarchism and many others. Even so, anarchists collectively probably do not comprise even one percent of the population at large. Imagine if the anarchist milieu were to grow to include tens of millions of people. Most likely all of these specific tendencies would grow exponentially, and some new ones no one has heard of yet would probably appear. How would anarchists go about organizing society if indeed anarchism were to become a mass movement and the state in its present form were to disappear. More specifically, how would we reconcile the differences between all of these different tendencies, and how would anarchists co-exist with persons of other belief systems? Unless we want to start sending people to re-education camps, or placing them in gulags, or engaging in summary or mass executions we had better start thinking some of this out.

There are really only three ways. One would be anarcho-totalitarianism, where whatever anarchist faction or group of factions that happens to have the most power simply represses their rivals, anarchists and non-anarchists alike. Another would be anarcho-mass democracy, where we have an anarchist parliament consisting of the Syndicalist Party, Primitivist Party, Libertarian Party, Ecology Party, Feminist Party, et.al., perhaps presided over by, say, Prime Minister Chuck Munson. While this might be an interesting situation, it ultimately wouldn’t be much different than the kinds of states we have today.

The only other alternative is the dispersion of power to local units. These could be localities where everything is completely privatized (Hoppe) or everything is completely collectivized (anarcho-communism), or some point in between. The specific anarchist tendencies these communities represented would be determined according to prevailing ideological currents at the local level. One contemporary anarchist observes:

The superficial story is that the primmies control the NW, the SW desert and the Appalachians, while the Reds control the entire NE block and have a mild advantage everywhere else.

So “after the revolution” the “primmies” would be dominant in their regions and the “Reds” in theirs, and presumably the Free Staters in theirs, and the queer anarchists in theirs,  and so forth. It’s also interesting to observe how radically different the value systems and definitions of “freedom” employed by different kinds of anarchists are. One anarchist has noted that some anarchists wish to bar alcohol, drugs, tobacco, meat, porn, S&M and prostitution from their communities. This should go along way with those libertarian-libertine anarchists for whom anarchy is synonomous with all sorts of legalized vice.  Then there’s the conflict between the ethno-preservationist national-anarchists and the anti-racist left-anarchists, and between the proprietarian anarchists and the communal anarchists. I’ve even come across an anarchist proponent of the draft. Of course, the different kinds of anarchists will insist that others are not true anarchists, but that’s beside the point. Each of the different anarchist factions consider themselves to be the true anarchists, and that’s not going to change.

The adherents of many of these philosophies act as though the fate of the world depends on their every move, when in reality each of these tendencies will often have no more than a few thousand, maybe a few hundred, maybe even just a few dozen sympathizers (or even fewer than that). Rarely is any attention given to the question of how anarchists will ever achieve any of their stated goals, to the degree that anarchists have any common goals, or any goals at all.

If anarchists want to have any impact on the wider society whatsoever, I believe there is only one way. First, anarchists, whatever their other differences, need to band together in large enough numbers to become single-issue political pressure group. This would be a pressure group just like those in the mainstream: pro-choice, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, anti-gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, etc. The purpose of this pressure group would be to reduce political authority down to lowest unit possible, which, I believe is the local community, i.e., cities, towns, villages, districts, neighborhoods,etc. I recognize some anarchists wish to reduce politics down to the individual level. I’m a little more skeptical of that. For instance, I’m not so sure competing criminal codes could exist in the same territorial jurisdiction, but I’m willing to agree to disagree on that. I say let’s work to reduce things down to the city-state, county or village level, and then debate how much further to go from there. Such a pressure group could include not only anarchists of every kind, but also left-green decentralists, conservative local sovereignty groups, regionalist or secessionist tendencies or even good old fashioned Jeffersonian states’ rightsers. This idea does not mean that every locality would need to be an independent nation unto itself. They could be sovereign entities within broader territorial confederations, so long as they retained their right of withdrawal or to veto policies favored by the larger bodies. This way, even communities with radically different cultural values or economic arrangements could collaborate on projects of mutual interest such as maintenance of transportation systems, firefighting, or common defense.

Meanwhile, outside the context of this single-issue movement for radical decentralization, the different anarchist factions could continue their other interests in different contexts. Libertarians could continue to push for private money or competing currencies. Syndicalists could continue to push for anarcho-syndicalist unions. Primitivists could set up tech-free communes or villages. Anti-racists could protest Klan marches, and national-anarchists could set up ethnic separatist intentional communities. Pro-lifers could agitate against abortion and feminists could agitate against pro-lifers. Gun nuts could simultaneously belong to the NRA and pacifists could belong to the Catholic Workers. Anarcho-communists could organize Israeli-style kibbutzes and anarcho-capitalists could set up their preferred private defense agencies.

Additionally, different factions with different beliefs could target certain geographical areas for colonization as the Free Staters are doing in New Hampshire, the Christian Exodus is doing in South Carolina, the Native Americans are doing in the Lakota Republic, or the Ron Paulites are doing in the Liberty Districts. Indeed, Bill Bishop’s interesting book “The Big Sort” describes how Americans are in the process of self-separation along the lines of culture, religion, ideology, political affilitation, sexuality, age, income, occupation and every conceivable other issue. Colonization can then become a movement for full-blown local secession. The values and ideals of those whom you disagree with are not as personally threatening if you do not have to live under the same political roof , and the worse someone’s ideas are, the better that they be separate from everyone else.

This does not mean that sovereign communities cannot have institutionalized protects for individual liberties, minority rights, or popular rule. Some state constitutions or municipal charters already have protections of this type in some instances, and sometimes on a more expansive level than what is found in the U.S. Constitution. Individual sovereign communities could make such protections as extensive as they wanted. Nor does this mean that libertarian anti-statism is the “only” value. There are some values in life that transcend politics, and one can also be committed to other issues while also being committed to political decentralization and local sovereignty. For instance, I am also interested in prisoners’ rights, legal, judicial, penal and police reform, ending the war on drugs, repealing consensual crime laws, abolishing compulsory school attendance laws, opposing zoning ordinances, eminent domain, the overregulation of land and housing markets, sex worker rights, the right to bear arms, self-defense rights, the rights of students, the homeless, the handicapped, medical patients and psychiatric inmates, freedom of speech and the press, labor organizing, worker cooperatives, mutual aid associations, home schools and alternative education, credit unions and mutual banks, LETS, land reform, indigenous peoples’ rights, alternative media, non-state social services, and many other topics. My primary area of interest is foreign policy. In fact, foreign policy was the reason I became an anarchist and have remained one, in spite of being continually underwhelmed by the organized anarchist movement. I think the American empire and its effects on peoples throughout the world is an abomination, and I want to see it ended. Yet, I think at the same time an agglomeration of anarchist communities in North America would need some kind of “national defense” system, given that Europe and Asia may not “go anarchist” at the same moment, which is why I am interested in the paleoconservatives with their traditional American isolationist views.

At the same time, there are some topics that many anarchists are committed to that don’t particularly interest me. Environmentalism is one of these. Like all reasonable people, I think we need clean air and water, and it’s not cool to build a toxic waste dump in a residential area. Yet, the eco-doomsday ideologies associated with ideas like global warming and peak oil are not things I’m sold on as of yet. I also really just don’t see what the big deal about endangered species is. The overwhelming majority of species that have existed thus far have already gone extinct, so what’s a few more? Still, if this is an issue others care passionately about, then by all means enaged in direct action on behalf of sea turtles or spotted owls or against urban sprawl. Don’t let me get in your way. Gay marriage is another topic I really just don’t give a fuck about, not because I’m anti-gay but because I view marriage as an archaic religious and statist institution that anarchists or libertarians or radicals of any stripe should not be promoting. But that’s just me. As an atheist, I also don’t care much for the militant politicized atheism found in some circles. I agree that compulsory religious instruction and practice should not exist in state-run schools, but I think extending this idea to things like prayers at city council meetings or football games, or extracurricular religious clubs in state institutions, is taking things a bit far. It is this sort of thing that alienates the usually religious poor and working class from radicalism.

Lastly, we need to consider how to appeal to all those ordinary folks out there whose assistance we might need in order to achieve these kinds of goals. An anarchist-led, libertarian-populist, radical decentralist, pan-secessionist movement that appealed to the tradition and ideals of the American Revolution is the only possible avenue. What I have outlined here is essentially the same set of views promoted by Voltairine de Cleyre in her essays “Anarchism without Adjectives” and “Anarchism and American Traditions“. If you don’t like my views, then come up with a plan of your and let the rest of us hear about it.

You Musn’t Forget S-L-A-V-E-R-Y!!!!!! 1

In contemporary American political discourse, we often hear talk of “the legacy of slavery,” primarily in discussions of racial issues. To be sure, the “legacy of slavery” has had a damaging impact on American race relations (it wasn’t so wonderful for the actual slaves, either). Many of the rather severe social problems found among certain sectors of Americans of African ancestry today are often attributed to this legacy. I tend to think such claims are often overstated. For one thing, the overwhelming majority of American blacks are far from being the social or economic basket cases many people imagine them to be. As the black economist Dr. Walter Williams puts it:

If one totaled black earnings, and consider blacks a separate nation, he would have found that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world’s 16th richest nation. That’s just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans have been chief executives of some of the world’s largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, headed the world’s mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black. A few black Americans are among the world’s richest people and many are some of the world’s most famous personalities. These gains, over many difficult hurdles, speak well not only of the intestinal fortitude of a people but of a nation in which these gains were possible. They could not have been achieved anywhere else.

Of course, there is another side to this question, primarily the ongoing gap in accumulated wealth between whites and blacks, and the even more serious problem of the enormous black “underclass.” I’m inclined to think these latter problems have broader and more recent causes, such as ongoing patterns of class conflict, repression, politically imposed hinderances to the economic self-advancement of blacks, and attacks on the organic community life of the lower classes by the state. Still, there’s no doubt the “legacy of slavery” contributes to the disproportional representation of blacks among the lower classes that are impacted most heavily by such things.

There’s still another way in which the “legacy of slavery” has damaged American politics, and that is the persistent identification of ideas like local sovereignty, community autonomy or political decentralization as code words for slavery or compulsory racial segregation of the kind associated with Jim Crow. For instance, in much of American higher education, the classical American republican doctrine of “states’ rights” is simply dismissed as an anachronism that never had any purpose other than to defend the interests of slave-holders. Having studied American history in an advanced academic setting, I’ve noticed the general tendency is to present the unfolding of American history as an evolutionary struggle towards the achievement of “progress,” meaning overcoming reactionary ideas like states’ rights, limited government and other impediments to the glorious victory of the federal welfare state and centralized micromanagement of local race relations. Joe Stromberg’s parody of a modern course in what used to be called Western Civilization, which can be viewed here, is only a slight exaggeration.

The obsession with slavery has corrupted not only political discourse in elite academic circles, and among mainstream “progressive” thinkers, but also among fringe radicals as well. For this reason, my Number One Fan Aster feels it necessary to place this item in the proposed constitution for her rendition of Utopia:

The principle applies to places not subject to the jurisdiction of the County of Bohemia too, but this isn’t an excuse to bomb foreigners and take their stuff. Or to get other foreigners to ruin their livelihoods so they have to work in your sweatshops for virtually nothing. It even applies to BROWN people, believe it or not- and the fact that it took you this long to figure that out means you suck.

Section VII. Aster shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Actually, anyone who wants to stop a slavery situation should feel empowered to do it. Figuring out the enforcement and incentive structures will be a bitch, though- but that’s not an excuse for giving up and just letting slavery happen, Keith.

Soviet Onion:

Aster has written some unwarranted misrepresentations of Keith (I prefer to think he enables fascists rather than being one himself) and even more of Jeremy, but this isn’t one of them. Consider Keith’s mission statement that he’s a single-issue activist looking to bring down the Empire and will work with everybody from Fascists to Stalinists to do that, so long as they’re willing to secede, go their separate ways and dominate their own territories once the job is done. If he’s so ecumenical that he’s willing to work with all these people, then why not also some small-scale secessionist group that ended up practicing slavery in their area? What would make them so special that, given his stated criteria, Stalinoids are OK but they’re not?

If you include authoritarian forms of parenting, education and marriage as forms of slavery, then those are cases where he does directly advocate slavery. Unfortunately, that just makes him like everybody else.

So should we “just let slavery happen”? First of all, where does contemporary slavery actually take place? Mostly in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. You know, the places where all of those supremely virtuous “people of color” tend to be found and who would have remained in the Garden of Eden if only those evil white European snake-devils hadn’t come along and fucked up their otherwise idyllic world. If only those evil white-devil slave traders hadn’t brought Africans to the Western hemisphere as slaves, perhaps their current descendents could enjoy living in the paradise of Nigeria, where seven percent of the population are still enslaved. Maybe the prosperous members of America’s black middle class (roughly seventy-five percent of American blacks) could even be in the oasis of Mauritania, where twenty percent of the population are still slaves. Of course, to their credit, the Mauritanians did pass an anti-slavery law in 2007. Who says they’re not progressive?

Do we need to “just let slavery happen?” No, a coalition of nations could invade the African continent and force the locals to free their slaves, in the style of U.S. Grant, Bill Sherman and Phil Sheridan. However, the only nations with the level of wealth and/or military power to even attempt such an effort (disaster though it would be) would be those of North America, Europe and Russia (plus the wild card of China). Problem is it’s mostly white folks who live in those nations. So a liberatory invasion of Africa and other slavery hotbeds seems to be off the table. Otherwise, we might be practicing European colonialism, or even white supremacy. Plus, it’s been done already. Wasn’t decolonialization supposed to be a “progressive” thing? So, yes, it looks like we do indeed need to “just let slavery happen.” Anything else might even be racist or white supremacist. Of course, we could assist those actual groups who really are doing something to oppose slavery in place like Africa. For instance, those groups who have actually purchased the freedom of Sudanese slaves. Problem is a lot these actually effective anti-slavery groups seem to be Christian in orientation, and we couldn’t endorse that, given that they are all no doubt frothing-at-the-mouth homophobes who express skepticism as to whether anal sodomy and/or rimming ought to be elevated to the level of sacramental rites, right along with eucharist, baptism and the last rites.

Actually, I don’t think we should be that hard on the African slave-holders. After all, they’re not so different from us white Americans of a mere 150 years ago. Plus, the slave-holders in places like Nigeria or the Sudan never got to go to U.S. or Western European public schools, receive multicultural education, or participate in “teaching tolerance” programs whose curriculum was designed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. So give them a break.

Of course, it is sometimes argued, though usually not by sensible people, that American-style antebellum slavery was of a particularly nasty variety, unlike the sunny and hedonistic kinds that existed in places like South America, Africa, China or the Islamic world. And while we would not want to impose Eurocentric Western values like slavery abolition on places like Africa (to do so would be racist), surely the recent ancestors of us white Americans, at least the enlightened ones from up North, should not have “just let slavery happen” in the states of the Old Confederacy? Africans enslaving Africans, Chinese enslaving Chinese, or Arabs enslaving Arabs might be something we can tolerate because, well, it just couldn’t be all that bad if “people of color” are doing it, but the idea of white American Southerners (and Christians, no less) enslaving Africans, well, that’s just, well, worse than awful, for some reason or another.

I reject the claims of modern day Confederate patriots that the U.S. Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and that it was all about tariffs, agriculture and states’ rights. However, I agree that the motivation of the Union was self-preservation rather than slavery abolition because, well, the President of the Union said so. Still, wasn’t the victory of the Union a victory for liberty? Yes, if we want to overlook the imposition of the draft in both the North and South during the course of the war, the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, and the maiming or displacement of millions more. Well, wasn’t it at least a victory for “anti-racism”? Well, not really, considering the next major military effort after the defeat of the Confederacy was the conquest of the Indian territories in the West. There’s also the thorny question of the fact that there were both Indians and blacks on both the Union and Confederate sides.

Then there’s the question of the impact of the Civil War on the future of American politics. The war marked the death of the old confederal republic and the creation of a centralized, Jacobin, nationalist regime and continental empire. If America had been split into two republics in the 1860s, the Wilson regime might not have entered World War One a half century later. It was American involvement in that war that led to the total destruction of Germany, the subsequent rise of Nazism, World War Two, the genocides that transpired during the war, the invention of atomic weapons, the Stalinist occupation of Eastern Europe, the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, the brush wars in Asia, the present day American world empire and other not-so-nice things. Indeed, the war for slavery abolition advocated by many of Lincoln’s abolitionist supporters would seem to be an example of the “armed doctrine” that Edmund Burke warned against. Of course, that does not mean that an actual guerrilla war against the Southern slaveholders of the kind advocated by the anarchist Lysander Spooner would not have been justified.

So back to Soviet Onion’s comments:

Consider Keith’s mission statement that he’s a single-issue activist looking to bring down the Empire and will work with everybody from Fascists to Stalinists to do that, so long as they’re willing to secede, go their separate ways and dominate their own territories once the job is done. If he’s so ecumenical that he’s willing to work with all these people, then why not also some small-scale secessionist group that ended up practicing slavery in their area? What would make them so special that, given his stated criteria, Stalinoids are OK but they’re not?

If you include authoritarian forms of parenting, education and marriage as forms of slavery, then those are cases where he does directly advocate slavery. Unfortunately, that just makes him like everybody else.

Aside from the fact that comparing “authoritarian” parenting, compulsory school attendance and marriage to chattel slavery does little except make others think that anarchism is a philosophy not suitable for anyone over the age of fifteen, there are certain significant qualifications that would need to be added for this to be an accurate description of my actual views. I am for the dissolution of the American regime into smaller, more manageable units. Presumably, America’s international empire would no longer be able to sustain itself. Those nations are that are now colonies, vassalages, or client-states of the U.S. would achieve their full independence. However they choose to organize themselves upon achieving independence is none of my business. If the Italians elect a representative of the fascist Italian Social Movement as mayor of Rome, or if the Venezuelans prefer Chavez as their leader, or if the Cubans fail to rise up against Castro as the Romanians did to Nicolae Ceausescu, then that’s none of Keith’s goddamn business.

The question of what political factions or ideologies, if any, should be excluded from a pan-secessionist alliance in North America is indeed an interesting one. While ideologies like Nazism and Stalinism are too alien to American political culture to ever become mass movements, it is possible small bands of such groups could carve out separatist enclaves for themselves. There could theoretically be autonomous urban neighborhoods run by skinheads, or rural compounds of neo-nazi survivalists, or communes organized by Stalinist or Maoist groups. Groups of this type could even hold fairly large tracts of land that would be their de facto private property. If such communities are entirely voluntary in their membership, then there can be no political objection to them on libertarian grounds. Of course, others might have aesthetic, moral or cultural objections. But that’s too bad.

In a case where, say, a Neo-Nazi or hard-core Communist group were to seize a wider city or town, I would say the degree to which such an effort should be challenged or recognized should depend on the circumstances. At bare minimum, I would want those who wished to leave to be given the chance to do so on a model similar to, say, the partitioning of India and Pakistan in 1947. If such requests were refused, should surrounding communities engage in military action against the offending community? Perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on the circumstances, potential costs of such an action, the degree of severity of the offense given, and the probably of victory by the self-appointed policemen.

Ironically, this debate has relevance to an issue that I have raised with anarchists and libertarians in the past, and it is an issue where I have never received a satisfactory answer. What about a scenario where a libertarian or relatively libertarian society, or a federation of anarchies, was threatened by domestic political movements of an authoritarian or totalitarian nature? The classic example of this is the Weimar liberal republic, where the center collapsed and the two largest political parties were Hitler’s NSDAP and the Stalinist KPD, with each of these maintaining their own private armies, and engaging in routine, violent streetfighting with each other. To what degree do such groups cease to be mere political organizations using their rights of association, free speech and right to bear arms and become outright domestic invaders? Would the broader alliance of citizen militias, mercenaries, guerrillas, paramilitaries, posses, gangs or whatever that would comprise the defense forces of an anarchist federation ever be justified in suppressing the activities of a group like the NSDAP or the KPD? I believe they would, if such groups grew large enough, powerful enough, disruptive enough or violent enough to pose a “clear and present danger” to the survival of the anarchist federation. There is no reason why a confederacy of anarchies should tolerate an insurgency by a Khmer Rouge or a Shining Path.

I’ve even made similar arguments concerning immigration. To what degree should a host society allow or tolerate immigration by persons demonstrating values or originating from societies whose values are hostile to those of the host society? What constitutes a legitimate demographic threat? Should a billion Chinese be able to migrate to the U.S. tomorrow if they so choose, irrespective of the wishes of the natives? Should liberal-Enlightenment or Greco-Roman Western nations accept immigration from theocratic Islamic societies unconditionally? I think not.  It would seem that political, economic and civilizational survival would be an issue that trumps the migratory rights of immigrants.

These are difficult questions, and appeals to rigid ideological formulations and overblown juvenalia do not help to answer them.

Updated News Digest April 26, 2009 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power. . . . For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I’m not kidding — there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It’s a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals.”

                                                                                                    -Camille Paglia

We Live in a Fascist State Gerald Celente interviewed by Russia Today

Putting the Bush Years on Trial by Alexander Cockburn

If Obama Were Not a Pawn of Wall Street and Corporate America by Thomas Naylor

Sovereignty Resolutions, Nullification and Tea Parties: Much Ado About Nothing by Thomas Naylor

The Tea Parties: A Step in the Right Direction? Richard Spencer and Jack Hunter

Secede and Survive: Prepare to be Overwhelmed by Secession by Carol Moore

Go to CNN and Vote on Secession (looks like the poll has closed)

Conservatives Are Evil by Ryan McMaken

Libertarianism vs “Libertarianism by Justin Raimondo

If Only Libertarians Had Cards, So They Could Be Taken Away by TGGP

Bay Area National Anarchists Participate in Cystic Fibrosis Walkathon (good work, comrades! good outreach and a good cause!)

Just How Big a Disaster is the American Military by Bill Lind

Why the State is Our Enemy Robert Higgs interviewed on C-Span

Does the New Class Oppress Traditional Religious Communities? by David R. Hodge

The National-Anarchist Litmus Test by Keith Preston

Too Small to Fail: The Wilhelm Roepke Solution to Our Economic Woes by Dermot Quinn

Secession, the Fed and Tomorrow Ron Paul interviewed by Lew Rockwell

War Socialism and National Bankruptcy by David Gordon

The Amazing Catholic Bullshit Generator by John Zmirak

PIGS Ambush Citizen in Milwaukee by William Norman Grigg

The Apologist by Pat Buchanan

A Storm in a Cup of Tea by Jack Hunter

The Real Tea Parties by Ilana Mercer

First They Came for the Fatties by Richard Spencer

On Nation and Nationalism by Matthew Roberts

The War on Family Farms by Richard Spencer

The Thin and Thick, the There and the Here by Razib Khan

Are Hierarchies Rational? by Francois Tremblay

Missing the Point on Secession by Rad Geek

A Match Made in Hell by Roderick Long

Government Spending is No Cure for Recession by Sheldon Richman

The Real Debate on Foreign Policy: Intervention vs Non-Intervention by Sheldon Richman

Dangerous Men in Uniform by Rad Geek

Tea and Sympathy by Roderick Long

Legal Purgatory and John Demjanjuk by Binoy Kampmark

Ten Years After Columbine: The Tragedy of Youth Continues by Henry A. Giroux

Drug War Persecution Continues by Fred Gardner

The American Empire Foreclosed? by Marc Engler

The FARC Can’t Dance by Belen Fernandez

Norman Finkelstein with Martin Indyk on Gaza 

Survivalists: Regular People Get Ready for the Worst 

Ex-President of Colombia Says America Should Decriminalize Drugs 

The Ultimate Reaping of What One Sows: The Reich-Wing Edition by Glenn Greenwald

The Republic Strikes Back by Bill Kauffman

Against All Flags by Jesse Walker

Bush’s Torturers by Justin Raimondo

When Torture Isn’t “Torture” by Thomas R. Eddlem

Reading the Case of Roxana Saberi by Henry Newman

Japan Pays Foreign Workers to Go Home from Global Business

The Dark Side of Dubai by Johann Hari

Murdering Police Scum 

The Europe Syndrome and The Last Man 

A Federalism Amendment to the Constitution? by Randy Barnett

End the Cuban Embargo! by Sheldon Richman

Keynesian Conservatives by Sheldon Richman

Direct Action Gets the Goods: Syndicalist Action Against Starbucks by Rad Geek

U.S. Militant Workers Union Formed: Workers Unite Beyond Left and Right! 

A Nation of Helpless Idiots by Karen De Coster

Fuck Single Mothers by Gavin McInnes

The Soul of Booker T. Washington by Dylan Hales

The Ghosts of Earth Day’s Past by Dylan Hales

Get In Touch With Your Inner Bigot by Robert Stacy McCain

Obama Plays Hamlet on Torture by Ray McGovern

The Torture Commission Trap by Michael Ratner

Deconstructing the Taliban by Fawzia Afzal-Khan

Torture, War and the Imperial Project by Chris Floyd

Unemployment Across the USA by Chris Wilson

Obama’s Afghan Plan: Fracturing the Antiwar Movement by Vijay Prashad

The Tyranny of Bad Economics by Dean Baker

White Privilege in the Americas by Aisha Brown and Dedrick Muhammed

A Reflection on the “Left” and My Arrest by Joaquin Cienfuegos

PC Gestapo Disrupts Meeting at UNC 

Man Sentenced to 10 Years for Defending His Home Against PIGS 

Man Arrested for Murder for Defending Property Against Masked Criminal 

Obama the Bubble Pricker by Tom Woods

Don’t Criticize the Somali Pirates by John Higgins

Why is there a Totalitarian Drug War? by Jacob Hornberger

Banning Black Cars: The Latest Eco-Insanity by L.K. Samuels

The American Police State vs Little Boys by Paul Craig Roberts

The Servants of the Reptilian State by William Norman Grigg

Economic Survivalists by Judy Keen

Harmanic Convergence  by Justin Raimondo

The Cuban Embargo is a Proven Failure by Michael Kinsley

Of Course It Was Torture by Gene Healy

The Obedience Circuit  by Francois Tremblay

Rather Than Say This Myself from Back to the Drawing Board

Torture by Sheldon Richman

Paul Krugman is Right About Something from Back to the Drawing Board

In Counting There Is Strength by Rad Geek

Don’t You Wish It Really Could Be This Way? from Back to the Drawing Board

Educrat PIGS Molest Little Girls by Rad Geek

Obama Positioning for Back Door Gun Control by Chuck Baldwin

Immigration Hitting American Workers Hard by Peter Brimelow and Edward S. Rubenstein

Is Sean Hannity Now Cool? No!! by Jack Hunter

Religion and Politics by Razib Khan

Free John Walker Lindh by Dave Lindorff

Are Democrats Afraid of Investigating Torture? by Jeremy Scahill

A Housing Crash Update by Mike Whitney

Obama and the Housing Crisis by Anthony DiMaggio

The Debt Looters by Greg Moses

Blowback in Pakistan by Stonewall

Marijuana Advocates See Tipping Point by Brian Montopoli

Matt Taibbi’s The Great Derangement a review

TV Military Analysts Are Paid Pentagon Shills  by Glenn Greenwald

The Crime That Cannot Be Wiped Away by Laurence Vance

Never Trust a Commie or a Conservative by Jeffrey Tucker

Our Economic Future Peter Schiff interviewed by Lew Rockwell

The Shamelessness of Jane Harman by Justin Raimondo

Newt’s Sword of Damocles by Gordon Prather

How to Deal with North Korea Doug Bandow interviewed by Scott Horton

On Somali Piracy Jesse Walker interviewed by Scott Horton

Obama’s Foreign Policy Ron Paul interviewed by Scott Horton

Obama’s First 100 Days: Give Him a “D” by Ivan Eland

Soldier Killed Herself After Refusing to Take Part in Torture by Greg Mitchell

The National-Anarchist Litmus Test 10

Lately, when surveying the works of various anarchist/libertarian/whatchamacallit writers, commentators or bloggers, I’ve starting applying what I call the “National-Anarchist Litmus Test.” That is, I’ve come to think that a fair standard for measuring some anarchist ideologue’s level of intellectual, political, emotional or psychological maturity is his/her ability to discuss the ideas of National-Anarchism without falling into something resembling an epileptic seizure. For those who want to know more about National-Anarchism and its actual ideas, go to the Synthesis website and real some of the articles in their archives. Then go check out AnarchoNation, Bay Area National Anarchists, Folk and Faith, A Heretickel Anarchyste, National Anarchists of Australia and New Zealand, Ean Frick, and  Revolution International. Make up your own mind.

I’m only a fellow traveler to National-Anarchism, but if I had to summarize it with one idea, I’d say it’s primary message is self-determination for all the world’s diverse peoples. You know, all those Tibetans, Palestinians, Kurds, Basques, Irish, Chechnyans, Lakota, Maori, Hmong, Oaxacons, Miskito and other occupied, colonized or oppressed peoples that the Left pretends to give a flying fuck about. Another idea might be the self-preservation of all the world’s diverse peoples. You know, kind of like those endangered spotted owls, snail darters, and sea turtles the Left is always wringing hands over.

Of course, what really gets a hair up the ass of the Left is the fact that National-Anarchists apply the same standards to indigenous Europeans that they do to other peoples. For some reason, this seems to evoke images in the Leftist mind of apartheid, Jim Crow or Nazism, although it would seem to a rational person that self-determination for all peoples is the polar opposite of a stratified racial caste system like Jim Crow or apartheid, much less a genocidal ideology like Nazism.

As I write this, there is a discussion going on over at the Rad Geek blog concerning the infamous Keith Preston and the shady National-Anarchist forces of darkness for whom I am supposedly a front man. Many anarcho-leftoids regard me as similar to the “Mr. Morden” character in the earlier episodes of the old 90s sci-fi show Babylon Five. For non-sci-fi fans, Morden was a human who acted as an operative for unseen sinister alien forces. Ironically, a thread that starts off as a very good and helpful discussion of Starbucks workers organized by the IWW soon degenerates into this from Soviet Onion:

As wishful as it sounds, it’s a welcome antidote to the left-libertarian tendency to treat localism and decentralization as THE POINT rather than an instrumental tool to some more fundamental desire. That shit’s also vulnerable to corruption by every kind of village fascism under the sun. Hence the enabling attitude toward things like National Anarchism coming from Keith Preston and Jeremy Weiland that almost makes ANTIFA-style gang beatdowns seem like a more intelligent response to the phenomenon.

Never one to allow herself to be outdone, my Number One Cheerleader Aster pipes in:

It is hard for me to express how much I appreciate your speaking out against the national anarchist Trojan horse. Thank you.

And that’s precisely it- replacing rights with decentralism completely throws out the principle of liberty. I want the implementation of a specific social system which guarantees individual rights and supports individual autonomy. I’m not interested in a politics which switches this for the goal of acceptance of existing social systems. whether individualist or not. Liberty requires a conscious and rational set of values and institutions which are incompatible with traditional organic society.

I’m a moderate on decentralisation- actually, I think the original 1789 American federal system buttressed by an extensive and enforceable Bill of Rights fully incorporated against local tyranny is a fairly good model. I’m at the moment inclined to say yes to decentralisation in economic matters, no in educational matters, and to favour a mixed system in politics. I think we do need broad regional social organisation in a form which maintains an easy flow of goods, people, and ideas- I think this aspect of the Roman, British, and American empires was a good thing (have you read Isabel Paterson’s God of the Machine?).

Incidentally, I think Jeremy Weiland (if he’s Jeremy of Social Memory Complex) means well, in the sense of wanting a world in which human beings are really happy. I still disagree with him, but he’s not like Preston or Troy Southgate. I’ve been unjustly nasty to him in the past and regret it.

So political and economic decentralization really aren’t so bad so long as an enlightened cultural elite gets to control a nationalized educational system in order to properly brainwash the young with The Official Enlightened Progressive Truth. You know, notions like the idea that human history can be primarily defined in terms of the historic, dialectical, objectively revolutionary, linear struggle for the inalienable, inevitably triumphant sacred human right to suck cock in the men’s room at the airport. Next up is Marja Erwin:

In my admittedly incomplete understanding, collectivist anarchism has historically involved either or both of two kinds of community control. The first being near-monopolistic but temporary; a transitional confederation instead of Marx’s transitional state. I think this was Bakunin’s pragmatic proposal. The second being community control of specific institutions, but neither requiring participation nor forbidding competition.

I think Parecon has sowed the seeds of Prestonism, because it imagines a permanent system which subjects individual choices to community decision, and forbids independent exchange. … And the primitivists like that!

Huh??

Then comes Rad Geek (a writer I actually like, BTW):

For what it’s worth, on this specific issue, I think you’re being subjected to a bit of six-degrees-of-Heinrich-Himmler here, and I think it’s unfortunate and unfair to you. Although Keith Preston is not himself an anarcho-fascist he has put a lot of effort into being accommodating towards anarcho-fascists; and you’ve put a lot of effort into being accommodating towards Keith Preston. I think the links in that chain are worth talking about individually, but I don’t think it’s fair to describe what you’ve been doing as “enabling” the anarcho-fascists by some kind of transitive property.

And pot-smoking leads to cocaine-sniffing, which leads to crack-smoking, which leads to heroin-addiction, which leads to junkie whores turning tricks for their dope, which leads to junkie whores selling their daughters to pedos for their dope, which leads to the collapse of civilization and the conquest of America by homosexuals, al-Qaeda and liberals.

Now for some other jewels. Says William:

Although a majority of folks express annoyance at it (generally by deriding the partisans as rat-bastard “theorists”, and ridiculing the notion that folks should be forced to choose between hugging a tree or holding a union card) Red / Green hostilities nevertheless play an enormous role in shaping the movement. In the muddled mainstream of the movement virtually everyone calls themselves “anti-civ” and supports the IWW in a desire to avoid conflict. The campus activist derived folk side more with the Syndicalists, while the Crimethinc romantic punx side more with the primmies. The fringes are the one’s that produce substantive thought.

In the isolated, insular core of these wings (ie, Eugene and NEFAC) the primmies are likely to write MAs off as irrelevant and the syndicalists are likely to go batshit insane a la McKay.

Might I dare to suggest that an ideological conflict between “primmies” and syndicalists means about as much to Actually Existing Reality as a theological conflict between snake handlers and Scientologists?

My buddy Aster:

There’s some obnoxious political correctness stuff… I got bugged about prostitution a few times (mildly), and one has to mind vegetarian and recycling Ps and Qs to avoid hassles. I got involved in a reasonably benevolent individualist/collectivist anarchist schism which began (I am not making this up) over recycled toilet paper.

These are the folks that old tolerance-mongering Aster prefers to hang out with? Sheesh. Soviet Onion:

I could perhaps try to initiate the conversation (that is supposed to be one of the functions of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left), but I think it would be frustrating at best and dangerous at worst. The Libertarians don’t know enough about the currents of anarchist movement/scene continuum to even “get” the conflict, and social anarchists would react with all the courtesy and consideration currently reserved for the interwebs, if not being equally confused. Given that I’ve also witnessed conversations where market anarchists have been compared to neo-Nazis, I honestly wouldn’t even feel safe doing that, at least alone with a group of them.

What? “Dangerous”? “Wouldn’t even feel safe”? Around all those inclusive, tolerant, humane-humanitarian-human rights loving, sensitivity-mongering anarchists?

Well, isn’t it great that we’ve got that giant squid to keep us from killing each other. It’s a bit like Iain McKay’s strategy of easing up on the mutualists only because he sees anarcho-capitalists as a bigger aberration and threat (and to avoid having to cede history and ideological pedigree to the “other side”).

Someone needs a “strategy” for that? Sounds about as important as a “strategy” for jerking off or picking your nose. William again:

The superficial story is that the primmies control the NW, the SW desert and the Appalachians, while the Reds control the entire NE block and have a mild advantage everywhere else. Also don’t forget that primitivism got much of its start in the UK. Its just that the Reds and Greens have relatively zero interaction there.

Sounds like the Bloods and the Crips. Rad Geek:

For reference, when you refer to a “left-libertarian tendency” to fetishize localism and decentralism, do you have anyone particular in mind, other than Jeremy Weiland? (There’s also Keith Preston, presumably, but he doesn’t consistently identify as a left-libertarian, and in any case I’m not willing to grant him the description.)

Oh, well, poor me.

Folks, this is right out of the parody of leftist anarchism in Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail”: “Help, help, I’m being repressed!!”

This is precisely what the anarcho-leftist milieu was like when I was a hard-core participant in it going on three decades ago now. Unfortunately for anarchism, it does not seem to have progressed one iota since then. Fortunately for the rest of humanity, this sort of thing will be permanently relegated to youthful or bohemian subcultures with nothing better to do. I remember when I first became involved in leftist anarchism and was explaining my new found enthusiasms to my father, who didn’t share my enthusiasms (to say the least). Said Dad: “That just sounds like some fad  that will never amount to anything but crap.” Sorry, dad, you were right.

Updated News Digest April 19, 2008 2

Quotes:

“Liberals: they’d support Nazi death camps if it raised more money for public schools (also invented by German autocrats).”

                                                                                                         -Soviet Onion

“The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice, and, truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage, and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty- and is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe. . . .”

                                                                                             -H. L. Mencken (thanks Ray!)

“Chavez has always been a non sequitur. 20th century politics in the 21st. It’s all part of the same ruse as the false left/right “division” which is the
private enterprise/public sector “division.” Would you rather have your life
controlled by a corporate shill or an arrogant, uneducated state bureaucrat? How come, neither is never an option in mainstream discourse?”             

                                                                                                             -Ean Frick

“Spare me the mewling about “ordered liberty,” please – 50 years of conservative pieties about “ordered liberty” led to Dick Cheney and a movement full of “men” who dared not open their mouths to defend liberty when she needed it most. Give me disorderly hinterland rebels any day.”

                                                                                        -Bill Kauffman (thanks Jeremy!)

 

Unprincipled Conservatism: The Tea Partyers by Jeremy Weiland

The Big Government/Big Business Axis of Evil by Chuck Baldwin

Empire Nearing Its End? by Alan Bock

Inflationary Depression is on the Way by Eric DeCarbonnel

Progressive Consensus Against Obama Emerges by Glenn Greenwald

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal Glenn Greenwald and Peter Reuter

The Declining American Empire by Eric Margolis

Payback: The U.S. Has Already Lost in Afghanistan by Michael Scheuer

The Fourth Generation Armies Are Winning by William S. Lind

Anarchy and Chaos in Black Communities by Robert Wicks

Peace Out by Justin Raimondo

Getting Beyond Race by Walter Williams

Confessions of a Liberal Anarchist by Ray Mangum

Hey, Tea Partyers, Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is from The Picket Line

Homesteading on the High Seas for Liberty by Patri Friedman

Developmental Aid for Africa is Not Working by Dambisa Moyo

How the Vulgar Libertarians Work Against Liberty by theConverted

Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward on the Police Abuse of Atheists from Francois Tremblay

The Grammar of War  from Rad Geek

Taxation with Misrepresentation by Sheldon Richman

Charles Schumer is a Scumbag from Rad Geek

Attend the Tax Protest of Your Choice from The Picket Line

John Demanjuk and the True Haters by Pat Buchanan

NORML for Aspen by Christina Oxenberg

Extending Our Firepower by Paul Gottfried

Mark Sanford, the Alternative Right and Me by Jack Hunter

New Midwest Anarchist Website 

Wild Weekend in NYC 

Anarchist Organizing Conference in Chicago 

114 British Activists Arrested 

The Censorship of Norman Finkelstein 

French Comedian to Face Trial for Anti-Semitism 

Vulgar Childish Liberals by Filmer

Happy Easter! by Ean Frick

The Holocaust Justified My Values by TGGP

Iraqi Militia Fear Reprisals After US Exit by Patrick Cockburn

A Test for Habeus Corpus by Jeremy Scahill

Bossnapping by John V. Walsh

Marry a Farmer Rana Foroohar interviews Jim Rogers

A Mother is Tased After Learning Her Child Was Dead 

Pirates and Presidents 

Jon Stewart is Half Way There 

Open Hearings for War Crimes by Philip Giraldi

The Fog of Warmongering by Jeff Huber

Neoconned Again by Michael Brendan Dougherty

A Message from Der Tax Commissar (umm, IRS Commissioner) from Rad Geek

How Do We Get Out of the Financial Crisis? by Sheldon Richman

Generational Theft  by Jack Hunter

Tea Partyers in Charleston by Jack Hunter

The LaRouchian Madness by Ean Frick

Noam Chomsky and Robert Faurisson 

The Corporate Lobbyists Behind the Tea Parties by Jane Hamsher

Youth for Western Civilization Banned in UNC by Richard Spencer

A Clusterfuck is Descending on the IMF/WB Summit Meetings

Fire to the Prisons Issue # 6 Needs Submissions 

Put All Your Eggs in One Basket Jim Rogers interviewed by David Bogoslaw

To Mexicans, the U.S. is Not a Friendly Nation by Fred Reed

94 Years of Serfdom by Paul Craig Roberts

Texas to Secede by Rick Perry

Why the End of America is Closer Than You Think by Mike Adams

Tax Resistance, Then and Now podcast with Charles Adams

Revolution is the Only Solution by Gerald Celente

Optimism Opium from Second Vermont Republic

Snatch-and-Jail Justice by Dave Lindorff

No Blank Check for the IMF by Robert Weissman

Taxing Grandma to Subsidize Goldman Sachs by Peter Morici

Letter to Obama on the Rights of Native Hawaiians 

Solving Palestine While Israel Destroys It by Bill and Kathleen Christison

Bush, the Torture Decider by Ray McGovern

Obama and the Pirates by Justin Raimondo

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Drug War by Liz Harper

Youngstown PIGS Put 13 Shot Into Puppy  by Rad Geek

Death by Homeland Security by Rad Geek

Invitation to Open Conspiracy by John Taylor Gatto

Peace Through Statism? by Roderick Long

Help Challenge the $PLC by Peter Brimelow

Vermont Secession Video Archives

The Resurrection of Guy DeBord by Andrew Gallix

“Feral Futures” Gathering in Colorado 

Jimmy Carter Conservatism 

Thin Ice from Here to the Horizon by Alexander Cockburn

Persia Rising by Franklin Lamb

The Greedsters Are Back! by Ralph Nader

Obama’s Chimerical Marijuana Policy by Fred Gardner

Economic Fallout Hits Families Hard by Kathy Sanborn

Latin America Changes by Benjamin Dangl

Thinking Like an Afghan by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould

Banning Barbie  by Christopher Brauchli

The Book of Ruth by Kevin R.C. Gutzman

Tea Party Terrorists  by Richard Spencer

Rendering Unto Caesar by Pat Buchanan

Are the Tea Parties Radical and Paranoid Enough? by Richard Spencer

Youth for Western Civilization by David Reid Saucier

The Terrorists at Home by Dylan Hales

A Jeffersonian in Texas or a Hot Air Peddler? by Kevin R.C. Gutzman

Obama’s Inflationary Depression by Peter Schiff

Revenge of the “Waco Gene” by William Norman Grigg

No More Commie Highways by Walter Block

Cal Thomas and the Gospel of the Pharisees by Christoper Manion

Political Winds Whift in Favor of Legalized Pot by Carla Marinucci

The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right All Along by Gary D. Barnett

The Right-Wing’s A.N.S.W.E.R. by Anthony Gregory

These United States: Too Big to Fail? by Justin Raimondo

Delusions of Omnipotence by William Pfaff

How Obama Excused Torture by Bruce Fein

Expedience and the Torture Amnesty by David Bronwich

The West’s Hysterical Reaction to North Korea by Scott Ritter

U.S. Military Spending and the Cost of the Wars by Chris Sturr

Freedom by Permission by Jacob Hornberger

Stop the War, Stop the Spending by David Boaz

Tea and Sympathy by Roderick Long

Manufactured Consent by Peter Schiff

Sleepless Goat Workers’ Cooperative 

The Peoples’ Economic Forum in Washington, D.C. on April 25 

Piracy: The Family Business

The Waco Butchers Are Back by Anthony Gregory

Prepare for Austerity by James Howard Kunstler

Is Secession “Anti-American”? by Larry Beane

Tim McVeigh: Blowback, American Style by C.J. Maloney

Why I Am an Anarcho-Pluralist 19

Over the last few days, there’s been an interesting discussion going on over at the blog of left-libertarian philosopher Charles Johnson (also known as “Rad Geek“). I’ve avoided posting there, due to the presence of an individual who has declared themself my mortal enemy (a role I’m happy to assume), but the subject matter of the discussion provides a very good illustration of why any sort of libertarian philosophy that demands a rigid universalism cannot work in practice. A poster called “Soviet Onion” remarks:

It seems that both social anarchism and market libertarianism have respectively come to adopt forms of collectivism typical of either the statist left or right. That’s a result of the perceived cultural affinity they have with those larger groups, and partly also a function of the fact that they appeal to people of different backgrounds, priorities and sentiments (and these two factors tend to reinforce each other in a cyclical way, with new recruits further entrenching the internal movement culture and how it will be perceived by the following generation of recruits).

On the “left” you have generic localists who feel that altruism entails loyalty to the people in immediate proximity (they’ll unusually use the term “organic community” to make it seem more natural and thus unquestionably legitimate). Most of them are former Marxists and social democrats, this is simply a way to recast communitarian obligations and tacitly authoritarian sentiments under the aegis of “community” rather than “state”. This comes as an obvious result of classical anarchism being eclipsed as THE radical socialist alternative by Leninism for most of the twentieth century. Now that it’s once again on the rise, it’s attracting people who would have otherwise been state-socialists, and who carry that baggage with them when they cross over.

On the “right”, it’s a little more straightforward. Libertarians have adopted the conservative “State’s Rights” kind of localism as a holdover from their alliance with conservatives against Communism, to the point that it doesn’t even matter if the quality of freedom under that state is worse than the national average, just so long as it’s not the Federal Government. And with this, any claim to moral universality, or the utilitarian case for decentralism go right out the window. Like true parochialism, it hates the foreign and big just because it is foreign and big.

That’s also one of the reasons why I think there’s a division between “social” and “market” anarchists; they each sense that they come from different political meta-groups and proceed from a different set of priorities; the established gap between right and left feels bigger than the gap between they and statists of their own variety. And the dogmatisms that say “we have to support the welfare state, workplace regulations and environmental laws until capitalism is abolished” or “we should vote Republican to keep taxes down and preserve school choice” are as much after-the-fact rationalizations of this feeling as they are honest attempts at practical assessment.

The problem with left-libertarianism (or with the 21st century rebirth and recasting of 19th century individualism, if you want to imperfectly characterize it that way), is that instead of trying to transcend harmful notions of localism, it simply switches federalism for communitarianism. It does this partially as a attempt to ingratiate itself to social anarchists, and partly because, like social anarchists, it recognize that this idea is superficially more compatible with an anti-state position. But it also neglects the social anarchists’ cultural sensibilities; hence the more lax attitude toward things like National Anarchism.

These are some very insightful comments. And what do they illustrate? That human beings, even professed “anarchists,” are in fact tribal creatures, and by extension follow the norms of either their tribe of origin or their adopted tribe, and generally express more sympathy and feel a stronger sense of identification with others who share their tribal values (racism, anti-racism, feminism, family, homosexuality, homophobia, religion, atheism, middle class values, underclass values, commerce, socialism) than they do with those with whom they share mere abstractions (“anarchy,” “liberty,” “freedom”).

Last year, a survey of world opinion indicated that it is the Chinese who hold their particular society in the highest regard, with 86 percent of Chinese expressing satisfaction with their country. Russians expressed a 54 percent satisfaction rate, and Americans only 23 percent. Observing these numbers, Pat Buchanan remarked:

Yet, China has a regime that punishes dissent, severely restricts freedom, persecutes Christians and all faiths that call for worship of a God higher than the state, brutally represses Tibetans and Uighurs, swamps their native lands with Han Chinese to bury their cultures and threatens Taiwan.”

Of the largest nations on earth, the two that today most satisfy the desires of their peoples are the most authoritarian.”

What are we to make of this? That human beings value security, order, sustenance, prosperity, collective identity, tribal values and national power much more frequently and on a deeper level than they value liberty. Of course, some libertarians will likely drag out hoary Marxist concepts like “false consciousness” or psycho-babble like “Stockholm syndrome” to explain this, but it would be more helpful to simply face the truth: That liberty is something most people simply don’t give a damn about.

The evidence is overwhelming that most people by nature are inclined to be submissive to authority. The exceptions are when the hunger pains start catching up with them and their physical survival is threatened, or when they perceive their immediate reference groups (family, religion, culture, tribe) as being under attack by authority. We see this in the political expressions of America’s contemporary “culture wars.” During the Clinton era, many social or cultural conservatives and religious traditionalists regarded the U.S. regime as a tyranny that merited armed revolt. During the Bush era such rhetoric disappeared from the Right, even though Bush expanded rather than rolled back the police state. Meanwhile, liberals who would denounce Bush as a fascist express polar opposite sentiments towards the Obama regime, even though policies established by Bush administration have largely continued. So how do we respond to this? Soviet Onion offers some suggestions:

The proper position for us, and what could really set us apart from everyone and make us a more unique and consistent voice for individualism in the global Agora, is to recognize all cultures as nothing more than memetic prisons and always champion the unique and nonconforming against the arbitrary limitations that surround them, recognizing their destruction as barriers in the sense of being normative. And to that end there’s the instrumental insight that the free trade, competition, open movement and open communication are forces that pry open closed societies, not by force, but by giving those who chafe under them so many options to run to that they make control obsolete, and thus weaken control’s tenability as a foundation on which societies can reasonably base themselves. Think of it as “cultural Friedmanism”: the tenet that open economies dissolve social authority the same way they render political authority untenable.

THAT’s what left-libertarianism needs to be about, not some half-baked federation of autarkic Southern towns filled with organic farms and worker co-operatives. It can still favor these things, but with a deeper grounding. It doesn’t ignore patriarchy, racism, heterosexism, but opposes them with a different and more consistent understanding of what liberation means.

But how far should our always championing of the “unique and nonconforming” go? If, for instance, a group of renegades happen to show up at the workers’ cooperative one day and commandeer the place, should we simply say, “Hell, yeah, way to go, noncomformists!” As for the question of the “Big Three” among left-wing sins (“racism, sexism and homophobia”), are we to demand that every last person on earth adopt the orthodox liberal position on these issues as defined by the intellectual classes in post-1968 American and Western Europe? Why stop at “patriarchy, racism and heterosexism”? Soviet Onion points out that many “left-wing” anarchists do not stop at that point:

I used to be an anarcho-communist. Actually, I started out as someone who was vaguely sympathetic to mainstream libertarianism but could never fully embrace it due to the perceived economic implications. I eventually drifted to social anarchism thanks to someone who’s name I won’t mention, because it’s too embarrassing.

After hanging around them for a while I realized that, for all their pretenses, most of them were really just state-socialists who wanted to abolish the State by making it smaller and calling it something else. After about a year of hanging around Libcom and the livejournal anarchist community, I encountered people who, under the aegis of “community self-management”, supported

  • smoking and alcohol bans
  • bans on currently illicit drugs
  • bans on caffeinated substances (all drugs are really just preventing you from dealing with problems, you see)
  • censorship of pornography (on feminist grounds)
  • sexual practices like BDSM (same grounds, no matter the gender of the participants or who was in what role)
  • bans on prostitution (same grounds)
  • bans on religion or public religious expression (this included atheist religions like Buddhism, which were the same thing because they were “irrational”)
  • bans on advertisement (which in this context meant any free speech with a commercial twist)
  • bans on eating meat
  • gun control (except for members of the official community-approved militia, which is in no way the same thing as a local police department)
  • mandatory work assignments (ie slavery)
  • the blatant statement, in these exact words, that “Anarchism is not individualist” on no less than twelve separate occasions over the course of seven months. Not everybody in those communities actively agreed with them, but nobody got up and seriously disputed it.
  • that if you don’t like any of these rules, you’re not free to just quit the community, draw a line around your house and choose not to obey while forfeiting any benefits. No, as long as you’re in what they say are the the boundaries (borders?) of “the community”, you’re bound to follow the rules, otherwise you have to move someplace else (“love it or leave it”, as the conservative mantra goes). You’d think for a moment that this conflicts with An-comm property conceptions because they’re effectively exercising power over land that they do not occupy, implying that they own it and making “the community” into One Big Landlord a la Hoppean feudalism 🙂

So I decided that we really didn’t want the same things, and that what they wanted was really some kind of Maoist concentration commune where we all sit in a circle and publicly harass the people who aren’t conforming hard enough. No thanks, comrade.

These left-wing anarchists sound an awful lot like right-wing Christian fundamentalists or Islamic theocrats. Nick Manley adds:

I have encountered an “anarchist” proponent of the draft on a directly democratic communal level.

Of course, we also have to consider all of the many other issues that anarchists and libertarians disagree about: abortion, immigration, property theory, economic arrangements, childrens’ rights, animal rights, environmentalism, just war theory, and much, much else.  We also have to consider that anarchists and libertarians collectively are a very small percentage of humanity. Nick Manley says:

I spend more time around libertarians then left-anarchists — although, I briefly entered “their” world and sort of know some of them around here. I was a left-anarchist at one time, but I no longer feel comfortable with the hardcore communalism associated with the ideology. I don’t really want to go to endless neighborhood meetings where majorities impose their will on minorities. I also would agree with Adam Reed that it’s naive to imagine such communes being free places in today’s world — perhaps, this is less true of New Zealand.

The list of things supported by anarcho-communists posted by Soviet Onion confirms my fears about village fascism posturing as “anti-statism”. I frankly do just want to be left alone in my metaphorical “castle” — I say metaphorical, because I am not an atomist and don’t live as such. I will engage in social activities, but I will not allow someone to garner my support through the use of force or do so to others. Like Charles, I have a strong emotional and intellectually principled revulsion to aiding the cause of statism in any way whatsoever. I’d be much happier being at some risk of death from handguns then in enforcing laws that harm entirely well intentioned peaceful people. This is not a mere political issue for me. I know more than a few people with guns who deserve no prison time whatsoever — one of them has guns affected by the assault weapons ban.

I honestly see a lot of principled parallels between conservative lifestyle tribalism and left-liberal lifestyle tribalism. Oh yes: there are contextual inductive distinctions to be made. A gun is not the same as homosexuality. The collectivist dynamic is still the same. Gun owners become no longer human in sense of rational beings. All of contemporary politics seems to be one thinly veiled civil war between fearful tribalists.

It would appear that tribalism is all that we have. I have been through a long journey on this question. I was a child of the Christian Right, drifted to the radical Left as a young man, then towards mainstream libertarianism, then the militia movement and the populist right, along the way developing the view that the only workable kind of libertarianism would be some kind of pluralistic but anti-universalist, decentralized particularism. Rival tribes who are simply incompatible with one another should simply have their own separatist enclaves. This concept is explained very well in a video series beginning here. Unlike the other kinds of libertarianism, there is actually some precedent for what I’m describing to be found in past cultures. See here and here. As Thomas Naylor remarks:

Conservatives don’t want anyone messing with the distribution of income and wealth. They like things the way they are. Liberals want the government to decide what is fair. Liberals believe in multiculturalism, affirmative action, and minority rights. Conservatives favor states’ rights over minority rights.

What liberals and conservatives have in common is that they are both into having—owning, possessing, controlling, and manipulating money, power, people, material wealth, and things. Having is one of the ways Americans deal with the human condition—separation, meaninglessness, powerlessness, and death. To illustrate how irrelevant the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have become, consider the case of Sweden and Switzerland, two of the most prosperous countries in the world.

Sweden is the stereotypical democratic socialist state with a strong central government, relatively high taxes, a broad social welfare net financed by the State, and a strong social conscience. Switzerland is the most free market country in the world, with the weakest central government, and the most decentralized social welfare system. Both are affluent, clean, green, healthy, well-educated, democratic, nonviolent, politically neutral, and among the most sustainable nations in all of history. By U.S. standards, they are both tiny.

Switzerland and Sweden work, not because of political ideology, but rather because the politics of human scale always trumps the politics of the left and the politics of the right. Under the politics of human scale, a politics that trumps our now-outdated and useless “liberal-versus-conservative” dualistic mindset, there would be but one fundamental question:

“Is it too big?”

It would seem that contemporary America is precisely the place to build a movement for this kind of decentalized particularism, a huge continent wide nation with many different cultures, religions, subcultures, ethnic groups and growing more diverse all the time, and where political and economic polarization is the highest it has been in over a century, and where dissatisfaction with the status quo is almost universal.

My challenge to anarchists, libertarians, communitarians, conservatives, radicals and progressives alike would be to ask yourself what kind of community you would actually want to live in, and where and how you would go about obtaining it. For instance, the geography of the culture war typically breaks down on the basis of counties, towns, precincts, municipalities and congressional districts rather than states or large regions. So why not envision forming a community for yourself and others in some particular locality that is consistent with your own cultural, economic or ideological orientation? The Free State Project, Christian Exodus, Second Vermont Republic, Green Panthers and Twin Oaks Commune are already doing this.

Political victory in the United States is achieved through the assembling of coalitions of narrow interest groups who often have little in common with one another (gun toting rednecks and country club Republicans, homosexuals and traditional working class union Democrats). Imagine if a third force emerged in U.S. politics whose only unifying principle was a common desire to remove one’s self and one’s community from the system. The only thing anyone has to give up is the desire to tell other communities what to do.

Updated News Digest April 12, 2009 Reply

Quote of the Week:

The categories of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are paradigmatically modernist. It is not an accident that they date back to the French Revolution, and that they fade with the decline of modernity. In the early 19th century, the distinction referred primarily to the relation to the French Revolution, with the Right defending the status quo ante, and the Left the new bourgeois regime. Later, after it became clear that there was no way to restore the ancien régime, the categories came to characterize the split between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But, even that became obsolete with the development of social democracy and the integration of the labor movement into the system at the turn of the century. Subsequently the Bolshevik Revolution introduced a seven-decades-long distortion, which only now is beginning to disappear, whereby Left and Right were identified with political regimes based respectively on capitalism and socialism. The capitalist turn in Communist China and the predominance of social democracy in the capitalist West indicate the extent to which the reduction of politics to economics presupposed by the distinction was a Cold War fraud. Consequently, after 1989, the distinction has become increasingly blurred; it lingers on by default, pending the development of better alternatives and of a political climate that will make it possible to recast the political in terms other than those deployed by the ruling elites.

In other words, how to reconfigure the political is itself a political issue, whose outcome is a function of political struggle. Today, the Left/Right split remains an ideological smokescreen concealing the real distinction: between neo-liberals (as well as neo-conservatives) and communitarians.

The former are committed to ever-growing state intervention, bureaucratic rationality, and the bourgeois values of abstract individuality, formal equality, social justice, representative liberal democracy, and unrestricted inclusiveness. This is the ideology of the therapeutic New Class, camouflaging its axiological particularity as universal truth, proceduralizing politics, and privatizing morality. The hypostatizing of bourgeois values to universal truths warranting their imposition on dissidents, now degraded from political opponents to pathological or criminal cases, is part of that general process of depoliticization entailed by the liberal project from its very beginning: the reduction of politics to administration.

The latter (communitarians) insist on insist on local autonomy, direct democracy, cultural particularity, and traditional values of solidarity, belonging, and the identity of politics and morality. Opponents are neither pathologized or criminalized, but classified as ‘enemy’ or ‘friend’ and treated accordingly (within various kinds of confederal, federal, or international agreements) or ostracized, confronted, and, in extreme cases, forcibly coerced.”

                                                                                          -Gary Ulmen

 

The Forest for the Trees by Ean Frick

The Neocon Credo by Dan McCarthy

The Marcuse Factor  by Paul Gottfried

In Search of Anti-Semitism by Paul Gottfried

The Mondragon Cooperatives: All in This Together from the Economist (thanks Brady!)

Taking Communism Away from the Communists: The Origins of Modern Liberalism by Fred Siegel

Liberals and Conservatives: Relics of the Past by Thomas Naylor

Global Currency: One Step Closer by Evans Ambrose-Pritchard

Progressive Warmongers by Justin Raimondo

The Two Faces of Barack Obama by Justin Raimondo

National Security: The Last Refuge of Scoundrels by Kevin Carson

Let a Thousand Nations Bloom by Patri Friedman

America’s Imperial Wars: Why We Need to See the Horrors by David Lindorff

America’s Friends: The Kkmer Rouge 

The Suicide of the West by Justin Raimondo

Left and Right Against the Military-Industrial Complex by Jon Basil Utley

Iraq Disaster Still a Mystery to Some by Alan Bock

Beware the Cult of Obama by Gene Healy

Cowardice in the Time of Torture by Ray McGovern

Ten Ways the U.S. Is Turning Afghanistan Into Iraq by Juan Cole

Obama Threatens North Korea Over Launch 

New and Worse Secrecy and Immunity Claims by Glenn Greenwald

No Excuses for Ongoing Concealment of Torture Memos by Glenn Greenwald

What About the Other Missing War Photos? by Greg Mitchell

Obama’s Flawed Nuclear Free Vision by John Nichols

A Missile Launch for Dummies by Donald Kirk

Let’s Hope Obama Keeps His Cool Toward N. Korea by John Gittings

North Korean Rocket Stirs Hawks by Katrina Vanden Heuval

March Madness, 1939 by Pat Buchanan

How Freedom Was Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

The Function of Political Ideologies by Larry Gambone

A Different Approach to Socialism by Jeremy Weiland

The Postmodern Alliance by Mark Hackard

Korean Straits  by Richard Spencer

2.7 Million People Demonstrate in Italy 

The IMF Rules the World by Michael Hudson

Prison Talk 

The Democrats and the Afghan War by Normon Solomon

Newt’s Foreign Policy Fantasies by Jack Hunter

Gangsta Gifts by Ilana Mercer

Screwing the Country by Jack Hunter

Americans Don’t Need New Cars by Richard Spencer

Riots and Intrigue in Eurasian by Mark Hackard

Kooks and Blue State Republicans by Robert Stacy McCain

White Europeans: An Endangered Species? from Yale Daily News

More Cultural Enrichment? by Thomas Fleming

Democrats for Plutocrats by Roderick Long

Against Privateering by Rad Geek

Fun With Totalitarianism by Roderick Long

Priority Number One for the PIGS by Rad Geek

Obama Expands Bush’s Wiretapping Program by Harrison Bergeron 2

The Decade of Darkness by Mike Whitney

What Would It Take to Mend Fences with Islam? by Patrick Cockburn

Israel’s Master Plan for Transfer by Ellen Cantarow

Obama and Israel’s Threat to Strike Iran by Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe

Obama’s Bloated Military Budget by Jeremy Scahill

Escaping the Drug War Quagmire by Kevin Zeese

Prosecuting the Bush Torture Team: Spain Leads the Way by Marjorie Cohn

Secession-One Year Later by Bill Buppert

Be in Charge of Your Own Health Care by David McKalip M.D.

After Torture, Resurrection by Ray McGovern

America’s Drug War Is Destroying Mexico Guy Lawson interviewed by Scott Horton

Goodbye, Bill of Rights by Philip Giraldi

The Ballad of John Singer by William Norman Grigg

Why Europe Won’t Fight by Pat Buchanan

The Wise Man of Liberty by Justin Raimondo

Common Sense Bye-Bye by Peter Schiff

The Radical Right by Jack Hunter

Good News: $PLC Loses $50 Million by Patrick Cleburne

Wilhelm Ropke’s Swiss Front Porch by Allan Carlson

Cash Strapped Communities Are Printing Their Own Money by Marisol Bello

G.K. Gets Real by Patrick Deneen

Chavez in China Touts “New World Order” 

Squatters Resist Foreclosures 

Student Revolt in NYC 

Resurrection and Revenge by Alexander Cockburn

How the Media Bought the Surge by Saul Landau

Obama’s Afghanistan Plan and India-Pakistan Relations by M. Reza Pirbhai

The Ideology of Barack Obama by William Blum

Obama’s Crossover Dribble on Marijuana by Fred Gardner

Don’t Believe Barack by Lew Rockwell

My Censored Reply to the Sheriff by William Anderson

Nullification: Its Time Has Come Again by Clyde Wilson

Barack Obama: Torture Enabler by Ted Rall

Fujimori’s Lesson for Bush by Jacob Hornberger

Liberals Line Up with Militarism by Chris Floyd

Essential Skills for the Post-Apocalyptic World 

China’s Threat to the U.S. is Exaggerated by Ivan Eland

Obama Worse Than Bush on State Secrets Glenn Greenwald interviewed by Ivan Eland

Why Big Government Always Wins by Harrison Bergeron 2

A People Apart? Paul Gottfried interviewed by Richard Spencer

The Union Makes Us Weak by William Gillis

The German Anarchist Movement in NYC: 1880-1914

ATS Book Review: Ken MacLeod's "The Execution Channel" Reply

by Peter Bjorn Perls

Ken MacLeod is one of the better Science Fiction authors of this day. He is best known, I think, for his “Fall Revolution” quarilogy consisting of the books The Star Fraction, The Sky Road, The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division, which were released between 1995 and 1999, in which he manages to produce a fantastically fresh blend of science fiction and  political exploration, with an unexpected quality: It does not preach ideology. (I will review his other works at a later time).
Political science fiction is the staple of MacLeod, and The Execution Channel continues on that path. In this, the book does not take place in 2040 and onwards, but quite a bit closer to our current point in time. Even though no “present day” dates are mentioned, by my reckoning it takes place just before 2020.
The setting is an Earth where the War on Terror rages on with no end in sight, this time, the Coalition peace keepers moved North from Afghanistan into central Asia on the nexus between several factions and states: Tien Shan, squeezed between Russia, China, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Closer to home, with the pace of technological progress continuing apace (and i might add, a continually deteriorating degree of accountability of the powers that be), the fact of life circa 2020 in England, and presumably much of the world, is video surveillance of all roads and street corners, and mobile phones being so cheap that they have reached the point of disposability (paid for with Euros), but society still seems dominated by use of automotive transportation and the associated fossil fuel use. The US has an increased presence in Britain, it seems, though mostly confined to the military bases around the country. Everything else is much the same, even the cultural/religious/racial tensions in the ghettos, (in the UK, notably Bradford), and Google is still the centerpiece in people’s life on the internet.
Where the world differs from What We Know is that the Cold War is back of sorts: Russia and China are both rising back to superpower status, and they are anti-Western with a vengeance. The latter has aligned itself with North Korea, the former with… France.
The wellspring of the difference between this world and the one we know, is (Ken really chose his ideas tongue-in-cheek!) the contested US Election of 2000. Yes, G.W. Bush never made it to office – Al Gore did. In 2001 when Al is at work, a memo lands on his desk, stating that Al Queda intends to strike the US, so he goes into action and launches a volley of cruise missiles at Afghanistan. The result is lots of civilian casualties, and a popular backlash which in the story is what galvanizes the AQ to perform the 9/11 attacks. All which this goes on with Gore becoming a Democratic War President, Bush is relegated to authoring a book about the foolishness of US military adventures in foreign countries. With this digression I’m pointing out that MacLeod has a talent for making political satire from juxtapositions and keen observations of facts of history and ideology that will make you laugh out loudly. With the repeated pokes at vocal political groups (particularly those that tend to whine loudly), MacLeod uses both wit and sarcasm to full effect.
The core of the dramatis personae is the Travis family: The son Alec in the peacekeeping forces in Central Asia, the daughter Roisin who is a peacenik that as the novel takes off, has spent the last 6 months in a peace protest camp outside a Scottish air force base (RAF Leuchars, north of Edinburgh), and the father, James, is a government software contractor with ties to foreign intelligence agencies. The barrel of blackpowder couldn’t be more obvious!
What happens on what is later termed the 5/5 attack (the morning the 5th of May, 2000-something), is that the Leuchars base is hit by a low yield nuclear weapon. Roisin is tipped off of this by her brother (who despite being separated from his family by thousands of kilometers is still tied into the story) flees with the fellow peace protesters, and then it all starts: Britain is struck by a volley of bombings on important infrastructure points, and from there on, the ball rolls; international tension, since the reasoning goes that it’s one of the other nuclear powers that did it, and domestic chaos as the state comes down on everyone who gets out of line, at the same time as popular suspicion Al Queda intervention results in attacks on Muslims all over Britain. Yep, MacLeod certainly knows what contemporary strings to play.
The two dark horses of the story are: First, that the governments of the world use farfetched conspiracy theories to distract political dissenters toward unproductive pursuits (namely UFO scheming instead of aiming for the unaccountable political powers, which is MacLeod’s stab at the conspiracy buffs), second, that these governments also run secret detention centers around the world (which is already commonplace knowledge) where brutal executions take place, and somehow footage from these executions make it to the public on a broadcast channel that gives the book its title: The Execution Channel. In MacLeod’s world, you don’t have to go to 4chan.org anymore for your filth and atrocities, it’s right on your TV set!
Now, closing on the verdict of the book. Is it any good? My answer is that that It Depends.
I got it in the mail yesterday morning, and after having performed the chores of the day, I started reading it in the late afternoon. In doing so, I surprised myself by doing something I haven’t done, by my count, in 13 years: I read a book cover-to-cover in under a day, more specifically in under 13 hours, including dinner, two bathroom breaks, a shower, checking my email once, and a 15 minute rest. The book is a page-turner is the real sense of the word, and even though it is not that long (some 360 pages), the feat of blazing through it makes me wonder, writing this.
The book IS good, very much so. The blend of science fiction and fringe politics with a plausible near-future descent into dystopia is dynamite, and MacLeod knows how to execute it well. But here comes the caveat: It is the first 300 or so pages are good, whereafter the terrible happens: The story fizzes out, and plods along with late story development (decay may be a better word for it, though) of little substance, and to me it was as if MacLeod throws so much stuff into his literary blender that it becomes an uninteresting gray smudge, where only the earlier parts of the book pressures you on the back to keep on reading. I’ll have to agree completely with a number of Amazon UK reviewers: The last few (six, to be precise) pages of the book drops it all on the floor with the introduction of a non sequitur and of such silliness that it’ll make you moan loudly. (I know that I did.)
On closing the book after 4 o’clock in the morning, I got the feeling that Ken MacLeod had performed, in the terms of the British, a massive piss take on his readers. That, or he ran out of ideas at page 330, and had a ghostwriter with no feel for the story and no sense of remorse in butchering the potential of it all, finish it for him. A T.S. Elliot quote on the book ending here would be appropriate.
So, to repeat, if the book is good overall depends, on whether you tear out the last 60 pages of it before you read it, and dream up your own ending. If you do, it’s just about a 5-star read. Including the ending into the verdict, I wouldn’t even rate the book mediocre, but instead poor.
Of criticism of the story before the abysmal finish, I can offer some. For example, the title topic of the book, the Execution Channel, only has a significant presence early in the book, and after the first fourth or so, it disappears from view, only to make a single significant reappearance toward the end. I won’t go into spoilers, but suffice to say that the author wasted a  massive potential story element by not using what is drives the Execution Channel. This is unforgivable.
Second, while the portrayal of the apprehension of one of the book’s characters on Terrorism charges makes the small hairs at the back of your neck stand up, the long-run portrayal of the government agents that do this and other things, becomes far too monotonous and in the end (especially the aforementioned dreadful last 50-60 pages) they appear like robotic constructs that just keep doing what they’ve always done to finish off the story (even though the idea the some government employees are unfeeling automatons may be appropriate, but I digress…).
So. If you are already a MacLeod fan, they book is worthwhile reading, but to repeat, beware the ending. As for me, i’ll think twice about buying his books in the future. As much as I want the intensity and intricacy of his works of the 90’s to keep on coming, I’m afraid that a book like the one reviewed here signals that he has is past his peak, and do no care enough about the stories (and thus, his readers) he weave, to round it off in a graceful manner that doesn’t insult the audience.
*** END

Updated News Digest April 5, 2009 Reply

Quotes of the Week:

“I read the Social Democratic newspapers. I saw their disgusting attitude towards anything that bore even the slightest revolutionary character, and I realized that there could be no reconciliation between a revolutionary party and a party trying to earn a reputation for ‘moderation’ in the eyes of the government and the bourgeoisie.”

                                                                                 -Peter Kropotkin

States Rebellion Pending by Walter Williams

David Allan Coe: American Rebel by Will Forbis

“The FARC Think These Americans Are Pussies” by Christina Oxenberg

Tory Hacks Give Lip Service to Localism and Communitarianism by Sasha Issenberg (thanks Ean!)

911 Truths by Jack Hunter

On Loving to Hate the South by Paul Gottfried

Globomoney by Richard Spencer

Conspiracy Theories by Dylan Hales

Obama’s Attack on the Middle Class by Paul Craig Roberts

Is Notre Dame Still Catholic? by Pat Buchanan

Terror Begins At Home by Philip Jenkins

Neocon Obama Fans by Harrison Bergeron 2

Saint Wal-Mart? by Roderick Long

Patri Friedman on Seasteading (hat tip to Kevin Carson)

Open Source Health Care

Hollywood’s Democratic-Capitalist Self Censorship by Francois Tremblay

Which Politician Came Up With the Idea That Dying for Your Country is a Good Thing? by Sheldon Richman

They Really Give Nobel Prizes Away Like Candy These Days by Paul Krugman

R.I.P. Burt Blumert (1929-2009) by Wally Conger

Sheldon Richman on Arkansas Public TV 

Libertarian Essays by Roy Halliday 

All Hail Tax Resistance! from The Picket Line

Lessons from the Gulag Archepelago from The Picket Line

Virginia: Human Rights Abuses at Red Onion Supermax Prison 

UK: Protests Against Capitalism and the G20 

More Reasons To Be Against Happiness by TGGP

Early Mormon Cooperative Economics (thanks Chris!)

Barack of Kabul by Eric Margolis

Explaining the Boom and the Bust by Bob Murphy

Newsweek Actually Tells the Truth for Once? by Glenn Greenwald

End the War on Drugs by Ron Paul

We’re On the Edge of the Abyss by Peter Schiff

Burt Blumert: Liberty’s Benefactors by Lew Rockwell

Here Come the Food Police by Vin Suprynowicz

Fiat Money and Inflation by Chris Clancy

Civil War by Bill Bonner

The Obamamites Go to War by Justin Raimondo

To Reduce Violence, End the Drug War by Justin Raimondo

Stop Arming Israel by Philip Giraldi

Yes, We Have No Bananastan by Jeff Huber

Another Lost War? by William S. Lind

U.S. Cries Wolf Over China? by David Isenberg

National Anarchist-Syndicalist Union 

Leftism 101 by Lawrence Jarach

Prospects for Global Depression and Unrest by John Robb

Oppose Internet Censorship from National-Anarchists Australia/New Zealand

A New Global Debt Crisis by Nicholas Dearden

The Obama Betrayal by Dave Lindorff

“We’ll Make You See Death” by Joanne Mariner

Obama’s Pakistan Gambit by Ron Jacobs

Economic Inequality: The Foundation of the Racial Divide? by Dedrick Muhammad

What Next in Afghanistan? by Patrick Cockburn

Where’s All the Money Coming From? by Ralph Nader

Obama Bombs by Ray McGovern

Syria Calling by Seymour Hersh

The New Far Right Philo-Semitism 

Is Angelina Jolie Bad for Africa? 

“I’m Having a Very Good Crisis,” says George Soros 

The New American Interviews Antiwar.Com’s Eric Garris Part I Part II

What Is the State? by Lew Rockwell

Civil Unrest, Ghost Malls and Another American Revolution Interview with Gerald Celente

The Role of Government in a Free Society Lecture by Walter Williams

Asshole PIG Resigns 

Minneapolis PIGS Plant Gun on Teen After Murdering Him 

Mexico Has a U.S. Problem, Not a Drug Problem by Fred Reed

Blessed Are the Warmakers? Laurence Vance interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Neocon Victimology by Glenn Greenwald

Why Do PIGS Kills Dogs? by J.D. Tuccille

Guns, Gold, Secession by Karen De Coster

New World Disorder by Gary North

Dead Banks Walking by Lila Rajiva

The Scam of Political Representation by Gerard Casey

The Outlook for the Dollar Peter Schiff interviewed by Eli Neusner

Collapse: The Dollar’s Destination by Mike Rozeff

It’s All A Conspiracy! by Richard Spencer, Dylan Hales and Jack Hunter

Catholics and the Left John Zmirak interviewed by Richard Spencer

The Green Revolution Saved Lives? by Kevin Carson

The New Proudhon Library from Shawn Wilbur

John Taylor Gatto: State-Controlled Consciousness from Francois Tremblay

Tax Day Protests Planned from The Picket Line

Sheldon Richman on the Financial Crisis from Social Memory Complex

Affluenza and the Economic Meltdown of America by Thomas N. Naylor

Will There Be Anarchy After the 1930s? 

Modesto Citizens Retaliate Against PIGS 

Carter Conservatism by Sean Scallon

Obama and the Ruling Class  by David Macaray

Assassination Attempt Against St. Louis Green Party Leader by Don Fitz

Surging Further Into the Afghan Abyss by Chris Floyd

Dershowitz Encounters a Worrying Future by Michael Scheuer

Mandatory National Service on the Way? James Bovard interviewed by Scott Horton

The Truth About Guantanamo Lawrence Wilkerson interviewed by Scott Horton

Repeating Vietnam War Errors in Afghanistan by Matt Steinglass

How Do We Save NATO? We Quit by Andrew Bacevich

Fake Faith and Epic Crimes by John Pilger

The Greatest Blunder in British History by Laurence Vance

New Issue of Black Oak Presents by Michael Kleen (thanks Flavio!)

Is India Headed for Hyperinflation? by Subroto Roy (thanks Peter!)

Fucking Retards (thanks Ean!)

The Forest for the Trees by Ean Frick

An Introduction to Carl Schmitt by Gary Ulmen

National Lampoon by Austin Bramwell

How I Became a Domestic Terrorist by Ilana Mercer

Let’s Play Pretend by Peter Schiff

The Real Federal Deficit  by Tim Worstall

On the Justice of Clearing Ward Churchill by Dylan Hales

Being Honest About Abe by Jack Hunter

Should We Kill the Fed? by Pat Buchanan

Homesteading Detroit: On Urban Farming by No Third Solution

An Exercise to Clear Your Mind by Francois Tremblay

Bring on the Summer of Rage! by Charlie Brooker

Defining Terms by Thomas Fleming (thanks Chris!)

Republic Magazine: Issue # 14 (thanks Flavio!)

But in Anarchy, Who Would Make the Roads? (thanks Peter!)

Coming to a Town Near You, the BANA Newstand! 

An Interview with Noam Chomsky 

Solidarity with the Students: An Open Letter from Greek Soldiers 

Veganarchists on the London Insurrection 

PIGS/Protestors Clash in Paris 

From Twin Towers to Twin Camelots by Alexander Cockburn

Homeless in Tent City, USA by Kathy Sanborn

Girding for a Depression by Morici

The War on Drugs is a War on You by Michael Boldin

Biden, Nixon and Latin America by Saul Landau

Nuclear Power Plants: Fooling with Disaster? by Sue Sturgis

Was Gaza Israel’s Waterloo? by John Goekler

The Federal Railroading of Victoria Sprouse by William Anderson and Candice Jackson

Death to D.A.R.E. by William Norman Grigg

The Humanitarian with the Printing Press by Anthony Gregory

The PIGS Are Out to Get You by Brian Cohoon

Marijuana Reduces Tumors 

Christianity is Not a Neocon Death Cult by Tom Woods

Small Town Anarchy by J.L. Bryan (thanks Folk n’ Faith!)

There Will Be Hyper Inflation  by Thorstein Polleit

The Fair Tax is a Scam by Laurence Vance

The Goldberg Syndrome by Justin Raimondo

How to Combat Mexican Drug Cartels by Ivan Eland

Obama’s Neoliberals: Selling His Afghan War by Jeremy Scahill

An Ominous Parallel by Jacob Hornberger

Obstruction of Justice by Chris Hedges

Updated News Digest March 30, 2009 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“As an anarch, I am determined to go along with nothing, ultimately take nothing seriously-at least not nihilistically, but rather as a border guard in no man’s land, who sharpens his eyes and ears between the tides.”

                                                                                            -Ernst Junger

“My notion of the law as written is that it was conceived to catch every whore and make every mean man rich.”

                                                                                               -Norman Mailer

The Dangerous Movement for States’ Rights by Dylan Hales

Sarah the Populist? by Paul Gottfried

State of Revolution by Jack Hunter

What Happened to the War on Terror? by Jack Hunter

Going Weimar by Pat Buchanan

States, Not Washington, D.C., Need Our Attention by Chuck Baldwin

Attending Anarchist Events from Bay Area National Anarchists

New Australian National-Anarchist Video 

Are You a Domestic Terrorist? 

On Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Larry Gambone

Hollywood Always Loves the State from Out of Step

Off the PIGS!! 

Our Next Debacle by Harrison Bergeron 2

Obama’s Gang of Four by Thomas N. Naylor

Obama’s Team of Losers by Michael Donnelly

Denial and Evasion on Afghanistan by Norman Solomon

Cat-and-Mouse Off Hainan Island by William S. Lind

IDF Fired on Medics in Gaza 

Capitalism From the Standpoint of Its Victims by M. Shahid Alam

Israel’s Most Revolting Law by Uri Avnery

Bush the Teacher by Ralph Nader

The Rules of Engagement in Gaza: Fire on the Rescuers by Amira Hass

The Stark Facts About Violence Against Women by Elizabeth Schulte

The Intellectual Origins of “Militant Democracy” by Dain Fitzgerald

Terror Begins at Home by Philip Jenkins

The Attempt to Silence Walter Block by Tom DiLorenzo

A Fifteen-Year-Depression by Phil Davis

FDA Totalitarianism by Bill Sardi

The Case for Norman Mailer Conservatism a classic from Murray Rothbard, 1969

The Virtues of Patriarchy by Bob Higgs (as Aster begins to snivel and drivel in-between slurps, “Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo, I’m so oppressed, sniffle, sniffle, sob, sob, poor, poor me, boo-hoo-hoo”)

The American Empire: A Finale by Justin Raimondo

Tangled Webs by Philip Giraldi

The Long War Generals by Jeff Huber

Non-Interventionists Need Not  Apply by Michael Scheuer

NATO: Still Mission-Creeping at 60  by Alexander Cockburn

Obama Doesn’t Talk Like Bush, He Just Acts Like Him by Ted Rall

Russia: Big Threat or Paper Bear? by Eric Margolis

It’s Time to Let Go of NATO by Pat Buchanan

Politics, Jews and Israel by Razib Khan

Barney’s Bitches by Ilana Mercer

Thomas Woods interviewed by Richard Spencer 

Reefer Madness by Jack Hunter

War and the Neoconservative Mind by Jack Hunter

Containing Jihad by Mark Hackard

Old Right, New Beck? by Dylan Hales

Is the Bailout Plan Breeding a Greater Crisis? by Paul Craig Roberts

What the Drug Warriors Have Given Us by Sheldon Richman

Cost Plus Mark-Up and Mandatory Overhead by Kevin Carson

The Fallacy of Prevention From theConverted

What Games Are Conditions? by Francois Tremblay

London Protesters Threaten Bankers, Evoke Executions 

Obama’s Fall Guy  by Alexander Cockburn

How the Scam Works by Michael Hudson

The Insolence Abroad: A Defense of Iceland by Gregory A. Burris

The Broken Stone of Corporatism by Stephen Martin

The Mafia Without Moralizing by Kim Nicolini

Why Do We Need a Health Insurance Industry? by Dave Lindorff

The Big Con on Iraq by Gareth Porter

Billions More for Failed Banks by Dean Baker

Sexting: A First Amendment Challenge by David Rosen

Another System Atrocity 

The Portuguese National-Syndicalist Movement by Flavio Goncalves

The War on Drugs is Now the War on Guns by Mike Gaddy

Drug War Idiocy by Jacob Hornberger

The Threat of Hyper-Depression by Bob Murphy

How I Got In Trouble Walter Block interviewed by Lew Rockwell

How Do a Free People Lose Their Liberty? by Bob Higgs

Get a Van! You’ll Need a Back-Up Home by Joe Schembrie

Breaking with Israel by Justin Raimondo

The Nation Formerly Known As Yugoslavia by Justin Raimondo

Judge Terrified of Citizen (poor baby) by Paul Hein

I’m Tired of What My Country Has Become by Don Cooper

Traveling in China by Chris Clancy

The Truth About Guantanamo Lawrence Wilkerson interviewed by Scott Horton

Diplomacy in the Obama Administration Philip Giraldi interviewed by Scott Horton

The Facts About Iran’s Uranium Enrichment Program Muhammad Sahimi interviewed by Scott Horton

The “Rule of Law” Nuisance by Glenn Greenwald

Obama’s Afghan Quagmire Deepens by Simon Tisdall

A Terrorist-Producing Machine by Jacob Hornberger

China: Don’t Buy Government Bonds by Sheldon Richman

Afghanistan: Waiting for the “Exit Strategy” by Robert Dreyfuss

Lost History Hurts Obama’s Iran Bid by Robert Parry

The Global Impact of U.S. War on Terror, Part Two by Joanne Mariner

Debate Over Israel Lobby Clout Returns by Nathan Guttman

U.S. Spills Afghan War Into Pakistan by M K Bhadrakumar

Will Israel Be Brought to Book? by Seumas Milne

National-Anarchists in the Military

Hero of War Song from Rise Against

The Only Place Where Freedom Has Any Meaning by Jeremy Weiland

Dead Culture Walking by Brenda Walker

Bash Back: Solidarity with Cop Killers 

Pink and Black Attack: New Gay Anarchist Publication 

A Ban on Global Currency? by Red Phillips

Bush Administration Torturers to be Put on Trial by Harrison Bergeron 2

Too Big to Fail? by Arno J. Mayer

Updated News Digest March 22, 2009 3

Quotes of the Week:

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” -Edmund Burke

“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.”

                                                                        -Pierre Joseph Proudhon

“The State calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”

                                                                                      -Max Stirner

My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black

A Washington, D.C. Heretic is Punished by Eric Margolis

America’s Ivy League College: The Dumbass Factory by C. J. Maloney

Traveling in the New China by Chris Clancy

The Ides of March Got a Bad Rap by Cheryl Vanbuskirk

Et Tu, Switzerland? by Balz Bruppacher

Drunk Driving Laws Are Absurd by Mark R. Crovelli

The Drug War vs Civilization Anthony Gregory interviewed by Scott Horton

Continuity and Change by Justin Raimondo

These Secretaries Can’t Even Type by Jeff Huber

Taliban Plan Drags Obama Deeper by Gareth Porter

Obama Follows Bush on Detainees by William Fisher

Who Are the “Worst of the Worst”? by Andy Worthington

Of Patriots and Assassins by Pat Buchanan

John Stossel Takes Down Sean Hannity 

Zionism is the Problem by Ben Ehrenreich

What We Don’t Know About Iraq by Philip Bennett

How Abu Ghraib Was Politically Defused, Part One by James Bovard

Ending Our Imperial Foreign Policy by Fareed Zakaria

The More Things Change… by Srdja Trifkovic

Racist Jim Clyburn by Jack Hunter

The Domestic Costs of Empire from Richmond Left-Libertarian Alliance

San Francisco PIGS Attack Demonstrators 

Wobblies March in San Diego 

Racist Abuse of Pennsylvania Prisoners 

Shut Down IMF/World Bank Meeting 

Santa Cruz Anarchist Convergence, May 7-11 

Obama and the Empire by Bill and Kathleen Christison

Victory for the Left in El Salvador by Richard Gott

Americans Want Justice for Wall Street Crooks by Ralph Nader

Coxey’s Army Will March Again! by Stephen Fleischman

Dismantling the Killer Elite by William Norman Grigg

EU Bans “Miss” and “Mrs” As Sexist (the journey into the Cultural Marxist Twilight Zone continues)

California to Legalize Marijuana? 

What Should We Do in the Face of Private Firearms Confiscation? by Mike Gaddy

The Emerging Marxist Church by Bill Anderson

The Confiscation of Privately Owned Weapons by Tim Case

What Happened to the War? by Laurence Vance

Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay by Lawrence Wilkerson

Compulsory National Service On Its Way? 

A Great Debate on Afghanistan by Jacob Hornberger

My Life in the New Left by Kevin MacDonald

Systemic Failure by Pat Buchanan

Israel’s American Chattel by Paul Craig Roberts

Was the Bailout Itself a Scam? by Paul Craig Roberts

Launching Lifeboats Before the Ship Sinks by Paul Craig Roberts

Empire, Secession and the Left Kirkpatrick Sale interviewed by Jack Hunter and Dylan Hales

States’ Rights and the Left by Jack Hunter

A Lexicon of Conservative Bullshit by Dylan Hales

Is Capitalism Making Life Better? by Noam Chomsky (hat tip to Francois Tremblay)

Massive French Protests and Ontario Factory Occupation by Larry Gambone

Economics: The Abysmal Science by Thomas N. Naylor

Open Letter to the Antiwar Movement 

London PIGS Fear Insurrection at G-20 Meeting 

Conservatives In Name Only by Filmer

The Economy in Two Eras of Democrats by Sam Smith

Bedouin Villages Left in the Dark Ages by Jonathan Cook

Where Are We Leaving Iraqi Women? by Yifat Susskind

U.S. Human Rights Abuses in the War on Terror by Joanne Mariner

A Grand Bargain for the Culture Wars by TGGP

We’re Dropping Down an Economic Hole by Gerald Celente

The U.S. Dollar, R.I.P. by Peter Schiff

An Open Letter to Chuck Norris by Chuck Norris

The Big Takeover by Matt Taibbi

Warning from Bosnia for Iraq by Ivan Eland

Iran: A Way Forward by Philip Giraldi

Obama’s New Message to Iran  by Glenn Greenwald

Obama and the Neocon Middle East Agenda by Stephen Sniegoski

Negotiate with the Taliban, Free John Walker Lindh by Kelley Vlahos

Why It Matters That the Army Was on the Streets of Samson, Alabama by J.D. Tuccille

Chuck Norris: Revolutionary? 

Cops Cause Crime by Francois Tremblay

Canning for the Revolution by Chris Lempa

Enemies of What State? by Kevin Carson

Institutionalized Sadism by Rad Geek

Annual Anti-Police March in Montreal 

On the Edge of the Volcano by Alexander Cockburn

When Things Fall Apart by Paul Craig Roberts

Slumdogs vs Billionaires by P. Sainath

Local Currencies by John Robb

Targeting Banksters? by John Robb

Updated News Digest March 15, 2009 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“All universal moral principles are idle fancies.  All, all is theft, all is unceasing and rigorous competition in nature;…Are not laws dangerous which inhibit the passions? Compare the centuries of anarchy with those of the strongest legalism in any country you like and you will see that it is only when the laws are silent that the greatest actions appear.”

                                                                                      -Marquis De Sade

We Are All Collapsitarians Now by Kevin Kelly

The Pestilence of Fanaticism by U.S. Senator James A. Reed, 1925

Social Characteristics of Tribalism by Bay Area National Anarchists

9th Annual Berkeley Anarchist Students of Theory and Research and Development from Bay Area National Anarchists

All You Need to Know About the Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair 

Communism vs Agorism from No Third Solution

Randian Collective Action from theConverted

Considering Redistribution of Property from No Third Solution

Axis of the Expendable: Frum vs Limbaugh by Jack Hunter

Lyndon Baines Obama by Pat Buchanan

Conservatism: Ideology of the Old? by Razib Khan

Little Miss Zionist Gossip Queen by Adam Kharij

It’s the End of the World As We Know It by Nina Kouprianova

Did Somebody Say “Democracy”? by Kevin R. C. Gutzman

The Paleo-Punks by Dylan Hales

“The Greatest Depression” Underway from Second Vermont Republic

Too Big…Period by Ralph Nader

Stop Demonizing Iranians by Eric Margolis

Doomsday by Doug French

The Neocons Are Losing Their Grip by Glenn Greenwald

Enough with the “Diversity” by Walter Block

Sentence First, Trial Never by William Norman Grigg

Gunowners Are In Trouble by Mike Gaddy

A Victim of the State Speaks Out by Becky Akers

Signs of Progress and Danger by Justin Raimondo

Imagine An Occupied America by Ron Paul

A Convenient Scapegoat by Philip Giraldi

Enduring Blunder by Jeff Huber

Why the U.S. Under Obama Is Still a Dictatorship by Andy Worthington

Seeds Sprouting in the Rubble by Kevin Carson

Corporate Extortion from theConverted

That’s Politics for You by Sheldon Richman

Tax Revolt in Argentina from The Picket Line

The American Criminal Injustice System by Paul Craig Roberts

Decentralism or Bust Dylan Hales and Richard Spencer interviewed by Jack Hunter

Lessons From Kirkpatrick Sale by Dylan Hales

Can’t Get Enough Frum vs Limbaugh by Red Phillips

The Coming Evangelical Collapse by Dostoevsky

Bottom Feeders at the Trough  by Sharon Smith

Israeli Spying in the United States by Christopher Ketcham

Obama Caves in to the Lobby by Ray McGovern

The Doublespeak of a Discredited IMF by Eric Toussaint and Damien Millet

Prisons, Profits and the Banality of Evil by Chris Floyd

Making a Difference by Bay Area National Anarchists

The Fed Has Destroyed Your Retirement by Gary North

Home Defense in the Coming Depression Greg Perry interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Caesar Is Not God by Ryan McMaken

Do We Want the Republicans Back? by Laurence Vance

The Economics of Depression Lew Rockwell interviewed by Brian Wilson

The Drug War vs Civilization by Anthony Gregory

China: The Next Big Enemy? by Justin Raimondo

The Groundwork Has Already Been Laid for Martial Law by John Whitehead

Don’t Fear China Doug Bandow interviewed by Scott Horton

Why Is Obama Defending John Yoo? by Daphne Eviatar

Empire of Bases by Hugh Gusterson

Barack Obama, Meet Team B by Scott Ritter

The Necons Strike Back by Robert Parry

Dick Cheney’s Death Squad by Seymour Hersh

The Totalitarian Therapeutic State by Sheldon Richman

Go to Cancun With Your Virginity, Leave With 20 Kilos of Heroin 

In Defense of McCarthyism by Dylan Hales

The Parable of the Shopping Mall by Alexander Cockburn

Is This Really the End of Neoliberalism? by David Harvey

How Israel Gives Jews a Bad Name by Saul Landau

Drug War Doublespeak by Laura Carlsen

Imprisoning Immigrants for Profit by Tom Barry

Criminalizing Poverty by Chris Mobley and Leela Yellesetty

Anarchist-Communist Appeal Against NATO Summit 

San Diego IWW Demonstration for Fired Organizer 

Texas Police Exploit Black Motorists 

It’s “Racist” to Oppose Afghan War by Harrison Bergeron 2

Wrong Classical Liberal Predictions by TGGP

Individualism and Self-Defense by Mike Gaddy

A Vintage Fight Over Wine by Michael A. Lerner

The Destruction of Mexico by Guy Lawson

Crisis in Pakistan Eric Margolis interviewed by Scott Horton

Charles Freeman’s Victory by Justin Raimondo

In Memory of Rachel Corrie by Gila Svirsky

Updated News Digest March 8, 2009 Reply

Quotes of the Week:

“Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.”

                                                                               -H. L. Mencken

“The anarch understands that the particular identity of the authorities over him has come about randomly, with no inner connection with his true inner nature – he merely happens to be born or live in their domain, for the time being. Whether a Greek or an American, within a communist, capitalist or fascist structure – how could such a random association with his own nature expect special deference or respect from him? But he knows that he needs the authority for his own purposes and as a practical man, he therefore learns about its particularities and adjusts his behaviour accordingly.

Consciously recognizing the absence of any credible superior virtues or mandates in the authorities requires him to be more reliant on his own judgements and critical faculties. His understanding of history gives him a basis on which to critically judge the offers and boasts of authorities – he does not naively buy whatever is sold to him.”

                                                                                                         -Karl Fraser

National-Anarchism and Tribalism, Part One by Andrew Yeoman

National-Anarchism and Tribalism, Part Two by Andrew Yeoman

Left-Libertarianism Explained from The Radical Whole

A Kinder, Gentler Totalitarianism by Robert Weissberg

Pitchfork Time by Pat Buchanan

What’s Wrong with the Right? by Jack Hunter and Richard Spencer

A Banana Republic by 2012? by Paul Craig Roberts

Outlaw Thoughts by Doug French

The Denationalization of Money by Mike Gaddy

Ruling Class Libertarianism by Lew Rockwell

Banksters and Leftists: The Unholy Historic Alliance by Lew Rockwell

Bob Schieffer interviews Ron Paul 

Bob Schieffer interviews Ron Paul, Part Two

Obama, Pull Out of Iraq, or Dig In by Eric Margolis

Working in “Communist” China by Chris Clancy

The Communist Origins of Political Correctness by Agustin Blazquez

Is Obama a Potential Dictator? by Glenn Greenwald

Obama is Grabbing Your Medical Records by James Bovard

The Government Cannot Spend Its Way Out of a Depression Bob Higgs interviewed by Dennis Praeger

Radical Rethink Needed in Washington, D.C. by Philip Giraldi

It’s Obama’s War, Now by Chris Hedges

Mission Accomplished Indefinitely by Jeff Huber

Iran, the Jews and Germany by Roger Cohen

Obama’s State Secrets Echo Bush by Nat Hentoff

Obama’s Retreat on Iraq by Steve Chapman

Conservatives Need a Humbler Foreign Policy by Gene Healy

Lessons from LBJ’s Failed Presidency by Bob Herbert

Shouldn’t MoveOn Oppose Obama on Afghanistan? by John Nichols

New York Was Supposed to Have Been Immortal, But in the End It Couldn’t Deliver by Thomas Naylor

The Economics of Autonomous Zones 

Ethnic Cleansing and Israel by Conn Hallinan

The Changing Game in Afghanistan by Brian M. Downing

Banana Republic, USA by Tom Woods

Is the Political Class Deliberately Blocking an Economic Recovery? by Bill Anderson

Two Checks on Tyranny by Jacob Hornberger

Increase Revenues for California-Legalize Marijuana by Dale Gieringer

Voting Sucks! 

Hegemony or Survival? Noam Chomsky interviewed by Scott Horton

Endless War by Margaret Kimberley

Intel Head Draws Ire of Israel Lobby by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe

War Comes Home to Britain by John Pilger

Read the Fine Print by Ivan Eland

Playing Defense by Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey

Is It Now Okay to Talk About Hitler’s Assumption of Dictatorial Power? by Jacob Hornberger

Obama’s Coalition of the Unwilling by Amy Goodman

Setbacks for Pro-Israel Hawks in the U.S. by Bernd Debusmann

War Crimes and Double Standards by Robert Parry

Iran in the Crosshairs by Gareth Porter and Ray McGovern

The Ultimate Earmark: U.S. Military Aid to Israel by Bill and Kathleen Christison

Afghanistan: For Your Reading Pleasure by Robert Dreyfuss

Can Anti-Prohibition Cops Be Trusted? 

Shoplifting in a Free Store from Silent Radical’s Blog

Ask An Anarchist from Rad Geek

Responses to “Anarchism and Radical Governments” by Larry Gambone

Interview with Tucker Carlson by Red Phillips

Being Serious About Torture…Or Not by William Blum

Blueprint for a Police State by Marjorie Cohn

Will the Winds of Change Reach El Salvador? by Mark Engler

What’s Hezbollah Done for Us Lately? by Franklin Lamb

Porn Star Blows PIG,  Avoids Drug Arrest 

Manufacturing Fictive Kinship by John Robb

Kropotkin on Ants (from Mutual Aid) 

A Rambling Discussion of National-Anarchism 

Support the Center for a Stateless Society 

Sean Gabb Review’s Kevin Carson’s Organization Theory 

Legalize Drugs-Or See Mexico Become Afghanistan South! by Pat Buchanan

Montana Has It Right on 2nd Amendment by Chuck Baldwin

What We’re Fighting  by Evan McLaren

The Last Word on CPAC by Richard Spencer

Tax Revolt by Dylan Hales

Losing Majority by Dylan Hales

A Confession to Austrian Libertarians by Jeremy Weiland

Stylistic Reaganism and Right-Wing Existentialism by Ean Frick

Beating Back Obamanomics by Lew Rockwell

Recession and Recovery  by Bob Higgs

The Greatest Crash in History by Tom Woods

Harlots High and Low by Alexander Cockburn

Georgia Injustice by Rebekah Ward

My Day at the Terror Charity by Patrick Cockburn

We Want Obama to Fail by Peter Schiff

The Deck Chairs Are Fine Where They Are by Tom Woods

If Only Paul Krugman Were a Moron by Lila Rajiva

No More Reefer Madness by Steve Huntley

The Coming Second American Civil War? 

Drug Wars in Mexico Alan Bock interviewed by Scott Horton

U.S. Out of Afghanistan Jeff Huber interviewed by Scott Horton

Obama’s Appointments  Jim Lobe interviewed by Scott Horton

Bush Tyranny: Why Did So Few Americans Give a Damn? by William Pfaff

Afghanistan’s Graveyard of Invaders by Jurgen Todenhofer

Things Fall Apart (including the EU) by Richard Spencer

Front Porch Socialism by Dylan Hales

Freedom to Consume, or Not by Sheldon Richman

Updated News Digest March 1, 2009 1

Quote of the Week:

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”

                                                                              -Friedrich Nietzsche

“Journalists and opinion makers who now deride what was revolutionary and progressive about modern capitalism (an easier life and a higher standard of living) do so as to stay ahead of the curve so they can welcome with open arms the new class war between the People (the majority of the population, those who work for a living) and the Elite (the plutocrats and oligarchs, their enablers and co-conspirators in the government, and their defenders in the MSM and upper academia) and ensure they are on the winning side. These court ‘intellectuals’ (if we can even dignify them with such a word) will speak of the very real and often underexplained and underestimated economic crisis with the same level of urgency as the entirely fictional environmental crisis, itself a secularized catastrophe fantasy designed to give these postmodern Puritans something to feel morally superior about with their lifestyle politics of Whole Foods activism and urbanite entitlement.”

                                                                                  -Ean Frick

 

On the Essentials of the High Modernist Era and the Current Crisis by Ean Frick

Maybe the Meltdown Wasn’t What You Think by Peter Brimelow

Why the U.S. Stimulus Package is Bound to Fail by David Harvey

Slumdog Success Story from Distributist Review

ACORN Initiates Civil Disobedience to Stop Foreclosures by Fernanda Santos

The PIGS Are At It Again from Rad Geek

Self-Management in Cuba, Part 3? by Larry Gambone

Choose Responsibility: Abolish the Drinking Age by from Thus Spoke Belinsky

How the Economy Was Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

American Homelessness Indicts Elite Heartlessness by Donald A. Collins

Why Merge Turkey with Europe? Why Merge Mexico with the U.S.? by Taki Theodoracopulos

How the Jews Got Their Smarts by Razib Khan

The Baptism of the State by Richard Spencer

Do You Really Want a “Conservation on Race”? by Pat Buchanan

Our Enemy, the GOP by Paul Gottfried

Get Those Shovels Ready to Dig Our Economic Graves by Bill Bonner

Weary Cogs in the Imperial Machine by Mark Crovelli

The Tax Attack on Persecuted Smokers by Philip Hensley

The Friendly Iranians by Will Hide

The Israel-Firsters Gasping, Dying Smear Tactics by Glenn Greenwald

Obama Should Follow Gorbachev’s Example by Eric Margolis

Republican National Socialism by Mike Tennant

Getting On With It in China  by Chris Clancy

Federal Repression of Secessionists? by Carol Moore

Twenty States Are Talking About Secession 

Puritannically Correct Cruelty by William Norman Grigg

The Rise of Avigdor Lieberman by Justin Raimondo

Empire at the End of Its Rope by Alan Bock

Cambodia’s Missing Accused by John Pilger

Peace or Peril by Chris Hedges

Obama’s Bananastan by Jeff Huber

Who Is Binyam Mohamed? by Andy Worthington

Don’t Let the Iran Headlines Scare You by Robert Dreyfuss

We Need a Truth Commission to Uncover Bush-Era Wrongdoing by James Cavallaro

Israel is Blind to Its Own Arab Citizens by Fareed Zakaria

Obama’s “Humane” Guantanamo is a Joke by Andy Worthington

Obama’s Embrace of Bush/Cheney “Terrorism” Policies by Glenn Greenwald

GI Resistance in Chicago 

Tax Time  from Second Vermont Republic

Is Nationalization Inevitable? by Peter Morici

The New War in Iraq by Patrick Cockburn

Going Up Against Big Coal in West Virginia by Mike Roselle

Obama Steps on the Pentagon Escalator by Franklin Spinney

How Credit Unions Survived the Crash by Ralph Nader

Kennedy and the Corporate Lobbies Craft a Health Plan by Helen Redmond

Murderous Atlanta PIGS Sentenced to Fed Time (don’t drop the soap, piggies!)

A Particular Universalism by TGGP

Affirmative Action Around the World by Thomas Sowell

Who Pulls the Strings: Zionism or Capitalism? Norman Finkelstein and James Petras debate

The New York Times is Going Under-Hooray!! by Eric Englund

Race Cowards in Academia by Walter Williams

Billions for Bankers, Nothing for Homeowners by Dave Gonigam

Understanding Environmentalism by Vin Suprynowicz

The Obamanians Are Dangerously Wrong by Lew Rockwell

Race Agitator by William Norman Grigg

The Sickening Media by Glenn Greenwald

Ron Paul vs Paul Volcker 

Will There Be Civil Unrest in the U.S.? 

The Forerunner to Obamanomics by Lew Rockwell

Gun Owners in the Age of Obama by Mike Gaddy

The Silence of the Liberals by Justin Raimondo

To Russia, With Hate by Justin Raimondo

Balancing Beijing by Doug Bandow

Start Closing Overseas Bases Now by David Vine

Beware Treating Afghanistan Like Iraq by Patrick Cockburn

What Obama’s Risking in Afghanistan by John Bruhns

Return of the War Party  by Pat Buchanan

Obamaland by Charles Glass

Affirmative Action GOP by Jack Hunter

Poverty Does Not Cause Terrorism by Austin Bramwell

The Transition to a Relocalized Manufacturing Economy by Kevin Carson

So Much for the Freedom to Protest by Francois Tremblay

South Carolina House Adopts State Sovereignty Resolution 

Alternatives to Panic: Rising from the Ashes of the Old Economy by P. B. Floyd

Teacher and Student: The New Class Struggle by Niranjan Ramakrishna

Obama’s Non-Withdrawal Withdrawal Plan by Chris Floyd

Afghanistan: Chaos Central by Chris Sands

All About Greed by Sheldon Richman

Wall Street Journal Says Limited Liability Plays a Role in Current Crisis 

The Pentagon is a Money Toilet by John Zmirak

We Should Laugh at Race-Based Jokes, Says Clint Eastwood 

PIG Assaults 15-Year-Old Girl 

It Would Be Cheaper to Fight WW2 Again by Robert Higgs

Glenn Beck is a Worthless Piece of Shit

The Economics of Empire David Henderson interviewed by Scott Horton

Drawdown Plan May Leave Combat  Brigades in Iraq by Gareth Porter

Obama’s Afghan Problem by Thomas Eddlem

Doomed to Repeat History in Afghanistan by Joseph Galloway

Starting the Second Korean War by Doug Bandow

Obama’s War on Terror by Joanne Mariner

Obama’s Iraq Plan Ain’t It by Robert Dreyfuss

Obama’s Debt Orgy by Peter Schiff

Anarchism and Radical Governments by Larry Gambone

PIGS Occupy California High School 

Is Nancy Pelosi Really Against War Crimes? by Alexander Cockburn

From Bush to Obama: Seven Years of Wartime Propaganda by Anthony DiMaggio

The Banks War on Workers by Mischa Gaus

Ruining Young Lives for Profit by Nicole Colson

National-Anarchist Beach Cleanse by Bay Area National Anarchists

Updated News Digest February 22, 2009 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger.

Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity. For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and  tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.”

                                                                                     -Russell Kirk

The Feminazi War Against Liberty, Family, and All Good Things by Stephen Baskerville

Boomers-Your Financial Crisis Has Arrived by James Quinn

Help, Help, I’m Being Repressed! classic scene from a classic film

New Boss, Worse Than the Old Boss? by Lew Rockwell

The Looting Bush Family Russ Baker interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Western Aggression Against Iran by Eric Margolis

State Money vs. Private Money by Gary North

Talk Show Leninism by William Norman Grigg

Pro-Smuggling: Because I Have a Brain by Cristina C. Espina

The Nanny State by Laurence Vance

Hold Them Accountable by Justin Raimondo

Renounce Extraordinary Rendition by Philip Giraldi

“Anti-Semitic Pandemic” by Ran HaCohen

Reckoning for Bush? by William Fisher

The Draft: Just Say No by Ron Paul

Hamas Pushed to the Wall Over Cease-Fire by Mel Frykberg

Obama Defends Torturers and Wiretappers by Thomas Eddlem

Obama Embraces Bush’s Abuses by Bruce Fein

Avoiding Another Cold War by Scott Ritter

We Are All Extremists Now! by Seuman Milne

Where Will Obama Take U.S. in Afghanistan? by Alan Bock

Crisis Over Kosovo by Ian Bancroft

Israel is Trapped, and the Chance for Peace is Ever More Remote by Bruce Anderson

Crises vs. Liberty by Jacob Hornberger

Obama’s War in Iraq May Be Longer Than Bush’s War in Iraq by Thomas Ricks

Obama: The President of Special Interests by Paul Craig Roberts

The Metrics of National Decline by Pat Buchanan

Who Remembers “Guns and Butter”? by Paul Craig Roberts

Has the Schiff  Hit the Fan? by Karen De Coster

Bipartisan Generational Theft by Jack Hunter

BBC Priggery by Derek Turner

Meltdown Tom Woods and Richard Spencer interviewed by Jack Hunter

Why Pay Less? by Cristina Oxenberg

Idiocracy by Paul Gottfried

Center For a Stateless Society -Fundraiser by Brad Spangler

Entrepreneurs in Everything by Niccolo Adami

Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force” Has Been Established 

Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

British Man Fined Over Racist Abuse…of Germans 

North Idaho Polygamist Sect Draws Scrutiny 

To Alter or Abolish by David Bardallis

The Obama Deception 

The Politics of Economic Disaster 

Beating Back Modern Lincolnism by Patroon

Evolutionary Conservatism by MRob

The Oligarchs Escape Plan by Michael Hudson

The One-Dimensional Congress by Ralph Nader

Commodifying the Revolution by John Ross

Who Is a Terrorist? by Matt Svensson

Iraq Reconstruction: The Greatest Fraud in U.S. History by Patrick Cockburn

The Meltdown: Whose Fault is It? by P. Sainath

Did George Washington Smoke Pot? by Harvey Wasserman

White Recession, Black Depression by Dedrick Muhammad

Sean Hannity-Secessionist?

Hideous He-She Hag of the Week (but not all trannies are PC turdballs-don’t be prejudiced!)

The Politics of Johann Wolfgang Goethe by Hans Hermann Hoppe

“This is the Modern Underground Railroad” 

Get Out of the Euro by Gary North

Mexicans Are Dying in the U.S. Drug War by Steven Greenhut

Time Magazine is Finished! by Dave Gonigam

The Comic Opera of Democracy by William S. Lind

Where the Wild Things Are (The Soviet-Afghani War 1979-1989) by C. J. Maloney

Smuggling: Personal Free Trade by Cristina Espina

America’s Confused Cause in Central Asia by William Pfaff

Hollywood’s New Censors by John Pilger

Counter Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

It Isn’t All About Me by Justin Raimondo

Will Obama Close the School of the Americas? by Chris Steele

Peace or the Draft William Astore interviewed by Scott Horton

The Israeli Elections Jason Ditz interviewed by Scott Horton

The Super Judge Who Wants to Rule the World by Srdja Trifkovic

“We Will Behead the Infidels of Those Who Construct Negative Images of Muslims!” 

Public Schooling and Criminal Texting by Rad Geek

A Nation of Cowards? by Stonewall

Arizona Anarchist Assembly 

Sticks and Stones-New Anarchist Periodical 

The Cleanser by Norman Finkelstein

Aftermath of a Beheading by Wajahat Ali

Afghan Pitfalls by M. Shahid Alam

The Mormon Worker 

America’s Privileged Apparatchik Class by Stephanie Fitch

Self-Management in Cuba? by Larry Gambone

Spectral Analysis  by Roderick Long

Death to the New Class  from Rad Geek

Self-Management in Cuba, Part 2? by Larry Gambone

“He Was a Man of His Times” by Francois Tremblay

The Long Retreat by Pat Buchanan

From One Assault on the Constitution to Another by Paul Craig Roberts

The Status of Women vs Diversity? by Brenda Walker

A Conversation About Race by Richard Spencer

Young Americans for Liberty Jeff Frazee interviewed by Richard Spencer and Jack  Hunter

Do We Need More Race Talk? by Lila Rajiva

Castro Did Not Improve the Lives of Cubans by Humberto Fontova

Swiss Peoples Party Stands Up to U.S. Imperialism 

Soros and Volcker: Worse Than the Great Depression 

More Americans Support Marijuana Legalization Than the Stimulus Package 

Preparing for a Domestic Surge? by William Norman Grigg

“We Are Not Responsible” by Pat Buchanan

Liking Ike by Lew Rockwell

Beyond Open and Closed Borders by Laurence Vance

Obama’s Policy on Civil Liberties: Bush Lite? by Ivan Eland

Twilight in Afghanistan? by Philip Giraldi

Our Enemy, the President by Daniel McCarthy

Smearing The American Conservative by Glenn Greenwald

Don’t Bet on Obama Reining in Defense Spending by Benjamin H. Friedman

The Emerging State Sovereignty Movement by Patroon

Liberals Jump On Obama’s War Bandwagon by Justin Raimondo

The Prince of Darkness Denies Own Existence by Dana Milbank

The Lawyer’s Tale  by Alexander Cockburn

Using the Recession to Hammer Workers by David Lindorff

War Criminals Must Be Prosecuted by Marjorie Cohn

Updated News Digest February 15, 2009 Reply

Quotes of the Week:

“Nowadays the Capitalist cry is: “Nationalize what you like; municipalize all you can; turn the courts of justice into courts martial and your parliaments and corporations into boards of directors with your most popular mob orators in the chair, provided the rent, the interest, and the profits come to us as before, and the proletariat still gets nothing but its keep.”

This is the great corruption of Socialism which threatens us at present. It
calls itself Fascism in Italy, National Socialism (Nazi for short) in Germany,
New Deal in the United States, and is clever enough to remain nameless in
England; but everywhere it means the same thing: Socialist production and
Unsocialist distribution. So far, out of the frying pan into the fire.”

                – George Bernard Shaw, Everybody’s Political What’s What (1944)

“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it.”

                                                                                                -H.L. Mencken

American Triumphalism: A Postmortem by Andrew Bacevich

The Two Faces of Libertarianism by Austin Bramwell

The New Neocons by Barron YoungSmith

The Ron Paul Youth: Young Americans for Liberty 

The Gist of Paul Gottfried by Thomas F. Bertonneau

Why Are American Literacy Rates So Low? by Christina Oxenberg

New New Nationalism by Pat Buchanan

Will the Surge Work? by Jack Hunter

Tony Blankley: Imperialist Scumbag Supremo by Dylan Hales

Obama’s Savior-Based Economy by Michelle Malkin

President and Congress Grovel Before the Fed by Chuck Baldwin

Ship of Fools-May You Live in Interesting Times by Paul Craig Roberts

Are We All Socialists Now? by Robert Higgs

Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?  by Peter Richards

Thank You for Not Breeding by Francois Tremblay

Death to the PIGS 

The Cases for Pessimism and Optimism by Wendy McElroy

History is Written by the Idiots by Francois Tremblay

Disrobing the System: Obama vs “Real Change” from Slingshot

Thoughts on the Crisis: What is Planned for Us and the Alternatives by Andrew N. Flood

Is the Global Economy Fixable? by Thomas N. Naylor

How Do People in Gaza Keep Going? by Kathy Kelly

A Commodity Called Misery by Joe Bageant

Seek Truth, But Prosecute Liars by Dave Lindorff

Taking the Bong by Binoy Kampmark

Conservatism is Dead by Sam Tanenhaus

R.I.P. Henry Ashby Turner by William Grimes

Australian Bush Fire Tragedy by National Anarchists of Australia/New Zealand

Police Watching “White Enclave” from AnarchoNation

Tribes on the High Seas from AnarchoNation

Andy Griffith and Civil Society by Darrin Knode

The Left, the Right and the State Lew Rockwell interviewed by Scott Horton

The Patent-Copyright Regime by Jeffrey Tucker

The Evil of Immunity for PIGS by Bill Anderson

Obama is Making You Poorer by Lew Rockwell

The Growing Army of Angry Men by Mark Crovelli

Obama’s Cure is Worse Than the Ailment by Eric Margolis

No Free Speech in Britain by Sean Gabb

Instead of a Stimulus-Do Nothing! Seriously! by Robert Higgs

The Porn Bailout by Doug French

The Enslavers by William Norman Grigg

The Audacity of Mendacity by Justin Raimondo

Kyrgyzstan’s Revenge by Justin Raimondo

Obama Wants a Surge of His Own by Charles Pena

Obama Lies for Israel by Grant F. Smith

Is An Empire Necessary? by Bruce Fein

The 180-Degree Reversal of Obama’s State Secrets Position by Glenn Greenwald

The Holocaust is Over by David Gordon

What if Avigdor Lieberman Were in Austria? by Glenn Greenwald

The Biden Speech: The Downside by Robert Dreyfuss

The Plight of the Skanks by Richard Spencer

Obamania in Canuckistan by Nina Kouprianova

The Old California by Justin Raimondo

The Economic Apocalypse Isn’t So Bad by Richard Spencer

Dylan Hales interviewed by Jack Hunter 

Abraham Lincoln: Taking the Gloss Off the Great Emancipator by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

What Is Anarchism? by Rad Geek

Americans Favor a Probe of War on Terror Excesses 

Secession Workshops and Seminars Now Available 

The Largest Wave of Suicides in History 

Change We Can Smoke? by Fred Gardner

A Call to End All Renditions by Marjorie Cohn

Who’s Running Guantanamo? by Andy Worthington

Judges Nabbed for Jailing Kids for Kickbacks by Dave Lindorff

Against Military Slavery by Karen Kwiatkowski

Abe the Mass Murderer: A Lincoln Scholar Comes Clean by Tom DiLorenzo

Economic Meltdown Tom Woods interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Tim Geithner and the Ruling Class by Morgan Reynolds

Killer Greens Down Under by Andrea Petrie

Fred Reed Retires-We’ll Miss You, Fred! 

Gerald Celente on FOX 

More Gerald Celente: “The Worst Economic Collapse Ever” 

Obama Backs Bush “State Secrets” Position by J.D. Tuccille

The History of Schools from InfoAll

The Worker As Tool 

A Pierre Joseph Proudhon Reader 

Anarchism and Its Many Sects by Shawn Wilbur

How Will Obama’s Deficits Be Financed? by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama’s Great Game by Pat Buchanan

Geithner Lays an Egg by Peter Schiff

Being Honest About Abe by Jack Hunter

Libertarians, Freaks and Kooks by Dylan Hales

Comic Libertarianism by Tom Piatak and Kevin Michael Grace

Darwinian Traditionalism by Matthew Roberts

France: It Couldn’t Happen Here, Could It? by Ted Rall

On the Rocks by Alexander Cockburn

Pakistan On the Brink by Brian M. Downing

Israel’s Ball Boys by Christopher Ketcham

Why Can Judd Gregg See What Obama Can’t? by Dave Lindorff

A Short History of Business Handouts by Stephen Lendman

How the American Empire Will Fall by Tom Schmidt

Joint Venture by David Usborne

Should You Join the Military? by Laurence Vance

Stimulus to Depression Lew Rockwell on the Mark and Jim Show

Out of Iraq? by Justin Raimondo

Barack Obama’s Empire Chris Floyd interviewed by Scott Horton

The International Silence on Gaza by Ann Wright

Can Procedural Utility Lend a Hand to Paleo-Libertarianism? by Dain Fitzgerald

Updated News Digest February 8, 2009 2

Quote of the Week:

“A war for Kuwait? A war for an oil-can! The rest is vanity; the rest is crime
… an unimaginative, ‘democratic capitalist’ Republican regime, early in 1991, committed the United States, very possibly, to a new imperialism.

                                            –Russell Kirk, The Politics of Prudence

Cystic Fibrosis Fundraiser by Bay Area National Anarchists-Donate! 

Cultural Marxism in Canada: Prosecuting Polygamy, Protecting Gay Marriage 

How to Save Money Like a Mormon by Jennifer Dobner

Israel Hopes to Colonize Parts of Iraq as “Greater Israel” by Wayne Madsen

When Did We Stop Caring About Civilian Deaths During Wartime? by Robert Fisk

Elect the Cops-The Response by Dylan Hales

Trial of Neo-Nazi Leader to Have Important 1st Amendment Implications 

America: A Bankrupt and Discredited Country by Paul Craig Roberts

War Tax Resistance lecture by David Schenk

Pro-Life Tax Resistance by Dr. Gerald DePyper

The Therapeutic State in North Carolina 

The Persecution of Michael Phelps 

Czech President Attacks Al Gore’s Climate Campaign 

Monetary Lessons from America’s Past lecture by Tom Woods

Putin to the West: Take Your Medicine by Justin Raimondo

The Return of Real Interventionism by Leon Hadar

Renditions May Expand Under Obama from AntiwarNews

Obama: Agent of Change? Well, Agent of Something… by Jeremy Sapienza

The Bogus War on Terror by Eric Margolis

End Legal Immunity for Government Officials by Bill Anderson

Going Bankrupt for “National Defense” by Tom Engelhardt and Chalmers Johnson

Our Rulers Are Destroying Our World by Bob Higgs

Coming: The Third American Hyperinflation by Mike Rozeff

Condemn the System, Not Michael Phelps by Paul Armentano

Served, Protected and Sodomized in Baltimore 

Ideology and the Internet  by Justin Raimondo

Repudiate the Monroe Doctrine by Phillip Brenner and Saul Landau

Politically, Hamas May Have Won by Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani

Obama’s Defense of Rumsfeld and Yoo by Jacob Hornberger

Neocons Spin Pentagon Budget Increase as Cut by Glenn Greenwald

What Cheney’s Daughter’s Senior Thesis Tells Us About the Bush Presidency by Zac Frank

Protect and Defend…The Military-Industrial Complex by Jeff Huber

Obama’s Wars by Bill Moyers

First, Jail All Bush’s Lawyers by Robert Parry

How the U.S. Created an Enemy in Iran by Brett Popplewell

Obama’s War Cabinet Stephen Zunes interviewed by Scott Horton

Putin’s Warning to America Justin Raimondo interviewed by Scott Horton

Military to Pledge Oath to Obama, Not Constitution by Michelle Chang

Nancy Pelosi’s New Deal by Pat Buchanan

The War on Terror is a Hoax by Paul Craig Roberts

I Saw Iceland Melt by Kevin DeAnna

Why Iceland Melted by Richard Spencer

How to Prevent Vermont from Going Down with the Titanic by Thomas N. Naylor

How Much Does It Cost Vermont to Remain in the Union? by Thomas N. Naylor

We, the Anarchists-An Interview with Stuart Christie by Chuck Morse

Resisting Anti-Panhandling Law by David Beyer

A Generals’ Revolt? by Dave Lindorff

Obama’s Lincoln Thing by Kirkpatrick Sale

What to Do About Wall Street by Ralph Nader

Reactionary Late Modernism: Back in Style! from Ean Frick

The 68ers In A Nutshell from Ean Frick

Former Trots Make Good from Ean Frick

The One-State Solution by Muammar Qaddafi

America First by Merle Haggard

The Therapeutic State Strikes in Australia and New Zealand

American Fascism by Karen Kwiatkowski

The Blessed Return of Right-Wing Paranoia by Anthony Gregory

French Cartoonist on Trial for “Anti-Semitism” 

The Iranian Revolution 30 Years On: Was it Worth it? by Angus McDowell

Stasi Britain: The Culture of Snitches by Melanie Phillips

Never Talk to the Cops 

Fractional Reserves Have Wrecked the Fascist State by Gary North

Stimulating Tyranny by William Norman Grigg

Endgame? What Endgame? by Justin Raimondo

The Nightmare of Netanyahu Returns by Johann Hari

Hold Israel Accountable for Gaza by George Bisharat

Geert Wilders and the Dutch Republic byDerek Turner

This is Just the Beginning by Peter Schiff

Reefer Madness by Jack Hunter

Those Darn Purists! by Grant Havers

Do Americans Cherish Freedom Anymore? by Chuck Baldwin

Whistleblowers and Management by Larry Gambone

More Than a Paycheck National War Tax Coordinating Committee

Simple Solutions to Stupid Problems by Rad Geek

Counter-Economic Optimism 

Authoritarians in Libertarian Clothing by Kevin Carson

Obama’s First Bad Week by Alexander Cockburn

Obama and the Empire by William Blum

Ten Reasons to Get High About Pot in 2009 by Norm Kent

Obama, Mitchell and the Palestinians by James Abourezk

Occupied Territory by Russell Mokhiber

Obama, Race and the Future of U.S. Politics by Bob Wing

Economy on a Thread by Dave Lindorff

The End of the Monroe Doctrine Saul Landau interviewed by Scott Horton

Why Not Apologize to Iran for the Coup? by Robert Naiman

Sorrows of Empire Chalmers Johnson interviewed by Scott Horton

Bush Jr.’s Foreign Policy Legacy Doug Bandow interviewed by Scott Horton

Obama, The Ruling Class and the Future of Secession 5

Thus far, the Obama presidency has moved along lines similar to what one might expect. The significance some would assign to his mulatto ancestry notwithstanding, Mr. Obama is very much an Establishment Man. The actions of the Obama administration in its earliest days indicate that the policies of this administration will largely be a continuation of those of the Bush administration. On economic policy, Obama has surrounded himself with neoliberals and called for deficit spending on additional bank and corporate welfare in the form of the “stimulus package.” The so-called “stimulus” is really just Phase Two of the extravagant “bailout” program enacted under President Bush. This should not be surprising, given that Obama’s primary financial backers during his campaign were Goldman-Sachs and other principal beneficiaries of the bailout, which Obama supported as a Senator. Of course, the “stimulus” program includes some additional social spending for the sake of appeasing various Democratic Party constituencies. This is the reason, along with sheer partisanship, that the Republicans are opposing the stimulus, which they are correct to do, even if they are doing so for all the wrong reasons.

On foreign policy, it appears that the Obama administration, whose foreign policy team is comprised mostly of recycled Clintonites, will continue to pursue the same set of foreign policy goals as the Bush administration. Obama has called for increased military spending, expanding the war in Afghanistan, perhaps to Pakistan, and it appears renditions will also continue. Obama does seem to be scaling back operations at Guantanamo, yet only as a public relations  maneuver so far as world opinion is concerned. It’s not like the prisoners at Guantanamo are going to be released. Indeed, it would appear that the only real difference between Bush and Obama on foreign policy is that the Obama government will be less bellicose in its formal rhetoric. As a protege’ of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama represents the liberal internationalist wing of the foreign policy elite, who are just as committed to the preservation of the Empire as the neoconservatives, but who are more cautious about openly giving the finger to allies, client states, and world opinion. Liberal internationalists realize that this is not conducive to the efficient administration of the Empire or its maintenance over the long haul, particularly given the current dependence of the U.S. economy on Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Arab lenders.

Obama also kowtows to the Israel Lobby, as illustrated by his appearance before AIPAC prior to his election to the presidency and his appointment of Rahm Emmanuel. James Petras has observed that the Obama administration contains as many arch-Zionists as any previous administration. There is also some indication that Israel will go to war with Iran under Obama’s watch, which could likely lead to actual U.S. participation in such a war. In fact, the overall amount of U.S. military intervention may escalate under Obama, as it did under Bill Clinton.

On “culture war” issues, Obama predictably leans somewhat to the left of the Bush government. So far, he has lifted the abortion-related “gag rule” and eased restrictions on stem cell research, and Obama has also signed an “equal pay for equal work” law as a reward for his middle-class feminist constituency. Yet Obama is far from being an ACLU civil libertarian. For instance, he voted as a Senator to authorize warrantless wiretaps and provide legal immunity to telecommunications companies engaged in such actions.

I’ve written before that the election of Obama signifies a demographic, cultural and generational shift among the American electorate. The left side of the “culture war” now has the upper hand, if it did not already. The Democrats will likely be the dominant political party for the forseeable future due to the fact that those groups who vote Democratic are growing in number and those who vote Republican are shrinking. The Obama coalition includes the left-wing of the “old elite” (demonstrated by the Kennedys support for Obama), the New Class center-left welfare state professionals, the “bourgeois bohemians” that David Brooks has written about, upwardly mobile members of the traditional outgroups now in ascension (blacks, immigrants, Jews, feminists, gays), newer ideological movements like environmentalism, younger people and a wide variety of public sector dependents. This coalition will probably prove to be stable enough to sustain itself over the next few decades even if matters like economic downturn occasionally produce a victory for the Republicans.  

Because the liberal side of the culture wars is gaining does not mean that the culture wars are over. While there is not enough of a constituency for the kind of cultural conservatism represented by the religious right  or the right-wing Republicans for these to achieve a majority in a national election, proponents of such an outlook are a large and vocal enough group to continue to be a force for political and cultural polarization for some time, even if their prospects for long-term victory are dim.

Indeed, the evidence indicates that the U.S. Congress of 2008 was the most polarized of any Congress in 120 years! The degree to which Americans are polarized has increased even in the last five years. Further, as Bill Bishop has shown, Americans are becoming more and more geographically segregated along cultural, ideological, religious, economic, ethnic, racial and generational lines.

As an old-fashioned anarchist who wishes to see an end to the U.S. empire internationally and the end of the Big Brother state domestically, I see this polarization as a welcome phenomenon. It is difficult for a state to survive when there is no consensus on primary values. If the cultural Left is going to be in the ascendency, then let’s hope that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et.al. turn up the volume even louder and keep the polarization coming.  Those guys really aren’t my cup of tea, but I’m all for increased divisiveness.

Divisiveness will likely escalate for a variety of reasons. One of these will be the widening gap between socio-economic classes, which Obama shows no signs of doing anything about. Another will be the social conflict associated with  increased statism as politics becomes a spoils system for different groups looking to plunder one another. Increased diversity will likely result in increased disharmony in many ways, and the massive American police state will likely be used to squelch economic unrest and sharpening demographic conflict.

If secession by regions and communities is the most viable method of dissolving the Empire, as I believe it is, then it would seem that we revolutionaries should devote ourselves to the following tasks:

1) Continue to popularize the idea of secession. A Zogby poll taken last year showed that twenty-two percent of Americans support the right of secession, with eighteen percent saying they would support a secession movement in their area. Additionally, forty-four percent say the U.S. political system is broken and cannot be fixed. We need to get these numbers up.

2) Continue to develop actual secession movements and build constituencies for these movements. For instance, the dominance of the cultural Left is likely to increase support for separatist ideas on the Right. There is a prototype for this in the rise of the militia movement during the Clinton era. Likewise, Obama is likely to prove to be a disappointment to many on the Left, both blacks and whites, and this combined with increased economic misfortune may generated secession movements from the Left. The nationwide, continent-wide proliferation of secessionist tendencies from the Right and Left against the ruling class Center would be a highly welcome event.

3) Encourage greater polarization. In some ways, we should think of Limbaugh, Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Barney Frank and Arianna Huffington as the public relations arm for a future pan-secessionist movement as it is figures such as these who serve to create the polarization likely to result in eventual political splintering.

4) Build cross-cultural, cross-ideological alliances against the ruling class common enemy whenever feasible. If Afro-centrics, Black Muslims, militiamen and Ku Klux Klansmen can engage in common action, then what the hell is wrong with the rest of us?