Liberty for Whom? 2

By Michael Parish

Regular followers of this blog will know that I am unyielding in my contempt for the left-liberarian tendency, whose proponents I and others have engaged in debate to no effect. Hence the disproportionate amount of space I dedicate to sliming them here. As of late, the main point of contention between us has been the immigration cesspool, and its attendant implications vis a vis political philsosophy. I recently came across this slice of bleeding heart bullshit at the C4SS blog, courtesy of site regular (and ALL auxiliary member) Darien Worden. Analyze this…

“Liberty For All Means Immigrants Too”

But of course. We can’t forget the precious immigrants.

“It is dissapointing to see people express concern for liberty while advocating government restrictions on the liberty of immigrants. Immigrants should not be seen as a threat to liberty, but as potential allies in the fight for liberty.”

You can only buy into this if your understanding of our social-democratic system is seriously lacking. As they emerge as a demographic in this country, the immigrants and their children will likely evolve into another whining interest group, thumping a list of grievances and corresponding demands…and, in the name of “inclusiveness”, the managerial regime will expand to accomodate them. This is another foot deeper into the same quicksand we’re already mired in, not a rope to assist in our escape.

Liberty means nothing if the freedom of any group is placed above individual liberty. And people do not stop being individuals if they are born in a different country. All individuals have the right to claim the fullest liberty to do as they will, as long as they do not violate the liberty of others. Moving to a different part of the world and trying to improve one’s life-with or without permission from a government-does not violate anyone’s liberty.”

And….here comes the Jacobin universalism. Suddenly, everyone everywhere possesses the inaliable right to live wherever they fancy…because this guy says so. Might I inquire as to where this right originates and why it is universally applicable? Given that liberty is a relativist concept, possessing no quantitative or qualitative property, it would be far more sensible to view rights as concieved through the particulars of cultures…of which each individual is a part. That someone uproots from their place of origin and moves elsewhere is of relevance not to states, but to the peoples already established in their immigration destination.

National borders are invasive of liberty. Most, including the U.S.-Mexico border, were drawn by conquest at the orders of elitists in capitols. Borders designate which politicians are to control which people. They invade the lives of individuals who want to interact with people on the other side or to escape the conditions that governments have inflicted on people within certain boundaries.

No one has the “right” to move wherever they choose irrespective of the wishes of those native to the place they’ll be moving. As such, national borders are hardly “invasive of liberty.” Borders are drawn by cultural groups to represent where one regional identity ends and the next begins. That the dominant group on side doesn’t care to interact with the next does not constitute a rights violation. If governments have inflicted undesirable conditions on their citizens then the optimal course of action would be to remain and fight said government, not escape from their troubles in a foreign land. I am weary of this sort of legal-material reductionism.

“The reality of border enforcement is brutal and draconian. Patrols at the safest crossings send immigrants into the most dangerous desert areas. Many die slowly, and others tresspass desperately. A series of secret prisons, some in warehouses not designed for long term confinement, form a modern American gulag system. New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee has documented much of evidence of widespread, pervasive abuse of immigration detainees. One of the many who died in Immigration and Customs Detention was Jason Ng. A father of two who was arrested for immigration paperwork violations compounded by by beauracratic error, Ng died after being refused medical treatment. “

I’m the very last person to wave pom poms for the American police state, but I must point out that for every illegal that suffers in detention a great many more make it into the country, resulting in deleterious effects on the well-being of those already here. In order to prevent abuses of the sort he (rightly) deplores here, I would advocate dissolving the police state and restoring control over immigration at the state and local level, where the issue can be handled on a human scale.

Studies suggest that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natives. But whatever the case, punishing people for crimes other individuals have committed is fundamentally unjust. And crime is incentivized by any form of prohibition, including The War On Drugs, and by locking people out of the mainstream by assigning them the status of “illegal” humans.

He’s correct in pointing out the dubiousness of prohibition, but the notion that lawbreaking on the part of immigrants can be blamed on alienation over their legal status is laughable. Also, the title “human”, when devoid of any concrete particulars, is as meaningless as a blank slate.

“Immigrants do not generally take advantage of the U.S. welfare system anymore than natives do. In the article “Immigration: An Open Or Closed Door”, The International Society For Individual Rights notes that immigrants pay much in taxes and recieve little benefits from services. And if they did pay less in taxes, that just means the monster state gets less to use to harm people.”

Oh I beg to differ, as the exorbitant cost of immigration to native inhabitants has been well documented, by Peter Brimelow and others. Given their undocumented status they do not pay income taxes, which is the largest of them all, and the state’s main source of revenue. “And if they did pay less in taxes” that would just mean U.S. citizens are getting fucked over.

“Immigrants do not take jobs from natives. Soceity does not contain a fixes number of jobs or a fixed amount of wealth. Jobs are created when there is a demand that needs to be filled, and value is created by production and trade-by the interactions of numerous individuals. Politicians, not workers, make the economy more rigid and less productive. They stunt economic growth through land use regulations, restrictions that hamper starting businesses,corporate welfare, inflation, and military-industrial complex waste.

Actually by agreeing to work for lower wages immigrants do take jobs from natives, which those doing the hiring are more than happy to give them. Oh, and we’re all familar with free market basics and the workings of the U.S. corporate state, buddy.

“And no one has a higher claim to a job because of national or ethnic status. Supporting nationalist ideas of privelege means standing with the politicians who are making things worse, instead of with people trying to get by. Those concerned about job loss or wage reduction should stand with immigrants for higher wages and better conditions instead of deepening the divisions that can be used against workers.”

In an organically constituted society the economy exists to serve pre-existing social relations, rather than serve as the basis for social relations (which is all left-libertarianism is, aside from rationalized abstractions.) This naturally leads to preferential hiring for the native-born. This is not “privelege”, it’s common sense. Supporting open borders means standing with the Reagan, Bush, and Bush The Second, all of whom supported mass immigration and amnesty, and with the industrialists who bak-roll the entire pro-immigration agenda in this country…instead of the majority of the native population who hold dim views on this mass exodus. Those concerned about job loss and wage reduction should consciously reject the multiculti mantra of “diversity” that’s used to Trojan Horse these sagging economic fortunes.

An aspect of culture that cannot survive without being enforced by government agencies is unfit to exist. English has been around long enough and is spoken in enough places that it can easily continue to be an language of communication between multiple ethnic groups. And there is nothing wrong with teaching English to immigrants or knowing other languages. What business is it of anyone else’s is some people want to talk to each other differently. Culture is enhanced by interaction. If it is locked in place by isolation it is more likely to stagnte than strengthen.”

Agreed wholeheartedly. This is why bilingual voting cards, multiple language instructions, and other accomodations for Spanish speakers need to be abandoned.

“Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have good reason to be against the government and for true liberty. Wide-spread cooperation among immigrant and native born freedom lovers will make our would-be masters tremble at the sound of advancing liberty.”

This is true, but immigrants generally are not “freedom lovers” (is this a return of Bush-speak?!)…they’re just here into integrate themsleves into the system as it currently exists, not fundamentally realter it in ways that extend beyond language. Oh, and I highly doubt a handful of Mexicans posting on the C4SS message board will induce any trembling in our masters.

Anarchism Revisted Reply

by Quagmire

Originally posted on the American New Right blog

As Preston and his comrades are busily outlining a functional anti-state strategy (and as a functional anti-state movement is busily coalescing around them) they have grown into a lightning rod for thunderstorms of left-wing hysterics. These have predictably emanated from those echo chambers of our institutions of lower learning known officially as the left-libertarian message boards.While I dedicated a past entry to defending his honor, I’ve neglected to pair my defense with a sturdy offense. My contempt for these over-protected mocha sippers is apparent from even the most cursory glance at this blog. My rationale for such a low evaluation, however, is not. So, while avoiding a backslide into rhetorical strawmen and ad hominem assaults, I have prepared this expanatory eviscreation.

A defining factor in the left-libertarian mindset is a decisive split from reality, one that renders them incapable of understanding, much less opposing, our current state of affairs. This is not unique to this faction, but likewise plagues the broader left of which they are an obvious subset. Specifically, they all but base their approach on the Marcusean identity politics inherited from the now graying New Left. This should not shock us in the least, given their origins as products of our academic idiot factories where those remnants have long held sway. Like their youthful disciples, these stale leftovers hail not from the underclass hordes whose interests they’ve appointed themselves to speak for, but from the very same strata they (correctly) attribute their misery to.

Somewhere between washing the mud off their legs and swapping cocaine for rogaine they found themselves at the helm of the very establishment they once told us we could never trust (a helm inherited, no doubt, from their bourgeoise folks.) With this dubious ascension the hollow nature of their rebellion became apparent so they started singing a different song. The establishment is your friend, the caring mama bear who will shelter you from white hoods, shaved heads, and tanned necks… and all the other nefarious nasties lurking under every bed and in every closet. Such scares are but a figment of the alzheimer’s encroached imagination of this mama bear. This time it’s the parents who are seeing and hearing things. And, another historic first, this time the kids actually listen to their parents. And…no break with tradition here…the kids repeat what they hear.

This effectively traps us in a cultural way back machine, with university engineered and approved TAPS teams chasing after ghosts that stopped hauntin’ these parts long ago, blind to their own status we should pull our covers over our heads for. When the well-off (and well-financed) anti-establishment agitators stormed the castle, they didn’t take a wrecking ball to it. They walzed on into the throne room of the new ousted monarch, assumed the throne, and unleashed a terror over the kingdom all their own. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The aging W.A.S.P. feudal lords were thrown out, but the feudal system itself was not…their positions were merely assumed by those cut from a more colorful cloth.

So, if you’ll allow me to transition from medeaval conquest back to modern hauntings, we arrive at an unsettling conclusion. Not only do the young false exorcists of the modern Left lack the theological know-how to properly expel spirits, they themselves are the spirits that need exorcising. So, if you’ll allow me me to time-warp yet again back to the middle-ages, we find that it is in fact the former lords and ladies of our cultural kingdom that need to take up arms. For those taking up arms with thems, the strategic implications are clear…and which I will share in common English.

In this world of “hate speech” legislation and “sensitivity training”, is it really that radical a move to wail about “institutionalized racism”…or to defend free speech and open inquiry for the insensitive? Is it that bold to crusade in favor of “women’s rights” in this era of family courts and university-mandated feminist studies…or to act on behalf of father’s rights? Is railing against “homosphobia” that radical a cause in a country where the lifestly is mostly viewed as an amusing novelty…or to agitate for freedom of speech and association for bible thumpers who find it a bit over the top? Is it that courageous to prattle on about “peace” and “non-violence”…or to snag a position on your local NRA chapter’s leadership board? I find these truths self evident. It’s indeed an odd paradox where conservatism has become radical and leftism reactionary.

The liberal-capitalist status quo takes as its basis the atomized individual, and its reason de’ etre that individual’s whims and wants. In this societal conception, these faceless particles construct their own mini-realities through an impersonal web of economic interaction and exchange. Preffered social relations are those concieved materially, with those that aren’t submerged under pavement. This process, starting at the dawn of modernity and within recent decades shifting into high gear, is effectively dissolving traditional ethnic groups, national boundaires, and cultures. How can effective ressistance, then, be found among those who dismiss such things as archaic abstractions (to be disposed of, naturally, so we can finally discover our universal “humanity”)?

For all the shrieking over alt.anarchism’s supposed “collectivism”, I fail to detect any flaw in a social system hardwired for organically constituted communities. If living and working with those you share commonalities with is such cardinal sin, why not just have the nanny state intervene for reprogramming purposes? Because a liberal universalist agenda doesn’t fit all, but a state enforcing it does, the answer to the debate over which side is more prone to authoritarian slipups is clear.

In his televised 1971 debate with Noam Chomsky, no less a leftist icon as Michel Foucault dismissed then contemporary radical movements on the grounds that their underlying philosophy was often wholly in line with that of the prevailing regime. His AIDS-related passing in 1984 was unfortunate, as he never got to see the realization of this observation among the inanities posted on the LL messageboards.

Two Great Economics Articles Reply

One from the Right, by Thomas Sowell

Elites may have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for society as a whole cannot possibly have as much experience as the millions of people whose decisions they preempt. The education and intellects of the elites may lead them to have more sweeping presumptions, but that just makes them more dangerous to the freedom, as well as the well-being, of the people as a whole.

One from the Left, by Kevin Carson

By making capital and land artificially scarce and expensive, the state forces workers to sell their labor in a buyer’s market and thereby reduces the bargaining power of labor. The owners of land and capital are thereby enabled to collect scarcity rents.

The economic effects are destabilizing. Income shifts from workers, who work mainly to meet their consumption needs, to rentiers with a high propensity to save and invest.  The result is a chronic tendency toward overaccumulation and underconsumption.

At the same time, the state subsidizes the most centralized, capital-intensive forms of production, leading to mass-production industry with overbuilt plant and equipment that’s constantly plagued with idle capacity.

Please Place Contact Information on Your Blogs Reply

It has been called to my attention that many of the ATS/ARV affiliated blogs and webpages do not include contact information. To build a local group in your area, obviously people will need a quick and effective method of getting in touch with you. Please consider posting a link to an email address that you check regularly on your blogsites. It can be very frustrating to readers if they can’t figure out how to contact you.

It could also really help your credibility if you made a public blog post introducing who you are and a picture of what you look like, providing this is feasible so far as security matters go. Nothing says lack of credibility more than anonymous websites with no personal accountability.

Another idea might be to write a blog post explaining how our positions might be applied to your local area. The American Indian/Alaska Native Attack the System blog has done a very good job of this thus far. Also, check out Andrew Yeoman’s comments on applying BANA’s ideas to the Bay Area. Let’s say your local affiliate of ATS or N-A or anarcho-libertarian or whatever group were to achieve political preeminence in your local area. What would you do in such a situation?

In my case, I’m particularly interested in networking with ATS readers and/or N-As, paleo-anarchists, an-caps, etc. in the southern states of the U.S. with an emphasis on urban areas like Richmond, Memphis, Nashville, Charleston, Raleigh, Columbia, New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, Jackson, Tampa, etc. How would we go about applying ATS ideas to the American south? When many people think of secession, they automatically think of the South for obvious reasons. What should our relationship be to existing secessionist or regionalist organizations in the South such as the League of the South or the Southern National Congress?

Identifying the Ideology of the Enemy Reply

“In the nineteenth century, a liberal was a person who championed individual liberty in a context of laissez-faire economics, who defined liberty as the absence of coercion, and who regarded the state as an ever-present threat to personal freedom and responsibility. Today, a liberal is a person who champions social justice in a context of socialist economics, who defines liberty as access to the means for a good life, and who regards the state as a benevolent provider whose duty is to protect people from poverty, racism, sexism, illness, and drugs.

-Thomas Szasz

Understanding Who The Real Enemy Is 12

“I am a child of the South. [Head of DHS] Janet Napolitano tells me I need to be afraid of people who are labeled white supremacists, but I was raised around white supremacists. I am not afraid of white supremacists. I am concerned about my own government. The Patriot Act did not come from white supremacists, it came from the White House and Congress. The Citizens United decision [granting corporations full political personhood] did not come from white supremacists; it came from the Supreme Court. I am willing to reach across traditional barriers that have been skillfully constructed by people who benefit from the way the system is organized.”

-Former congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney

Left-anarchists and left-libertarians, take lessons!

Dramatic Collapse or Gradual Decline? 5

Which is the future of the United States?

Bill Lind has argued that the U.S. more closely resembles the Spanish empire as much as any previous “superpower” and will suffer a similar fate. The Spanish essentially bankrupted themselves through aggressive warfare and experienced gradual decline over the next three centuries.

Bob Higgs has likewise argued for the gradualist perspective. America’s growing debts to international banks and ever-expanding liabilities for the funding of domestic entitlement programs will force the empire to retreat over time.

On the other hand,  plenty of people have argued for a dramatic collapse. The reasons for the impending collapse have been attributed to everything from monetary policy to peak oil to racial/ethnic conflict to nuclear terrorism. Igor Panarin is a proponent of the dramatic collapse thesis who’s gotten some attention recently.

In recent years, I’ve tended to move away from the “dramatic collapse” scenario towards a more gradualist outlook. The reason for this is that as I review the decline of previous states or societies more thoroughly, I’ve found quite a few examples of societies that were in far worse condition than the U.S. at present and yet continued to survive for centuries longer. Even many regimes around the world today that are in much worse shape than the U.S. (Zimbabwe, for instance, to use but one example) have not experienced the collapse of their actual state.

It seems most likely that the U.S. will continue to experience rapid demographic change combined with widening class divisions under the reign of an ever more repressive state. The American empire may well start to recede due to continued military failure, demoralization, loss of public support, and cost prohibitions. In other words, the System may start becoming less aggressive externally and more aggressive internally, particularly as demographic conflict, political dissatisfaction, and economic unrest escalate.

Of course, another terrorist attack of the 9-11 model would significantly reformulate the equation.

How to Establish an Independent Bay Area 1

by Andrew Yeoman

[Note: I have been corresponding with the author of the recent SF Gate piece about getting the Bay Area independent. Here is the most important part of that correspondence so far.]

In my opinion, the Bay Area would have to be a confederation with a large amount of autonomy given to local areas like San Francisco and Marin/Sonoma that have very different political agendas. I’m sure a mutually beneficial agreement could be reached with Sierra authorities for water supply. I was at a pagan camping event a couple weeks ago near Reno and one of the locals made the opinion known that in their view California stops south of the Sacramento border! I didn’t quite agree but since he is an old school Californian I could understand his vantage point.

The National Anarchist solution I was thinking of would allow the existence of democratic tribal and local neighborhood councils that could be based on various ethnic or lifestyle interest groups (gay, Asians, blacks, whites, Indians, or no Identity if so desired, etc) that would work in tandem with an economic advisory council that would coordinate economic and labor issues and a parallel board of natural resources. They executive could hold sessions in their local communities and meet at San Francisco City Hall for monthly or quarterly meetings. It would seem to make sense to have police and judicial jurisdictions the same as they are now, unless otherwise needing to be updated. An area like the Bay Area will always have strong demand for tourism, young professionals, shipping, and technology and those would be the base economies to drive economic growth or sustainability.

I think the biggest obstacles are political rather than cultural. Culturally, the Bay Area is ripe for this to happen: most Bay Area residents view themselves as Northern Californian and have no real connection to Southern California or Sacramento. Creating the political will to make this happen is a different story: most people have never conceived of not having a Federal or State government and presenting new thinking to the public is extremely difficult. Their would have to be tangible immediate benefits from doing so. Lower taxes would appeal to many but I think most people would rather have the security of paying high taxes rather than switch to an unknown. I go running a lot and I notice lots of signs with for sale and sitting empty. Another thing that would appeal to many besides lower taxes is no longer honoring housing defaults to the banks. That would cause the financial system an enema and get lots of support from residents.

To make it look realistic a mock Bay Area Authority would have to be established and have representatives from the various cities and hold due process and rules of order and all the other (not fun!) tasks of government. With a track record of “open source” and orderly proceedings the BAA could then be viewed as a plausible alternative to the present system to a segment of the population and make symbolic proclamations (say, gay marriage for San Francisco, issue non binding marriage agreements, etc). The key to this working would to prevent the ambitious to making the BAA their personal dictatorship so the highest post such as a Secretary may make the most sense unless authorized by the councils.

If a SHTF scenario ever made the legit authorities unable to work the BAA could step in for disaster relief, etc. The key is to just not take actions that would be viewed as a rebellion by government authorities as like myself I’m sure you value your personal freedom!

Updated News Digest July 16-18, 2010 Reply

American Revolutionary Vanguard: Denounced by Leftists as Fascists, by Fascists as Communists

“Marcuse Is Dead…And We Have Killed Him.” -Quagmire, ATS Reader

“What we fight is is _State_ socialism, leveling from above, bureaucracy; what we advocate is free association and union, the absence of authority, mind freed from all fetters, independence and well-being of all. Before all others it is we who preach _tolerance_ for all – whether we think their opinions right or wrong – we do not wish to crush them by force or otherwise… If our ideas are wrong, let those who know better teach us better.”

Gustav Landauer, Social Democracy in Germany, Freedom Press 1896

Don’t Fear the Right: They Are Potential Class Allies by David Spero

Vermont Public Radio: The Voice of the American Empire by Thomas Naylor

Economics in Freefall by Paul Craig Roberts

Homeland Security Mission Creep: “Intellectual Property Crime” by Kevin Carson

Homeland Security Mission Creep: The Drug War by Kevin Carson

The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment by C.S. Lewis

Obama: A Global Menace by Nat Hentoff

What Is a “Strong” Defense? by Christopher Preble

Secessionists and Fireworks at the National Mall by Ross Kenyon

Why the FED is Steering the Economy into Deflation by Mike Whitney

The Weimar Syndrome by James Turk

Techno-Fascist Drones by Thomas Naylor

The Fall of Obama by Alexander Cockburn

The Human Price of Sanctions by Andrew Cockburn

The Unchallenged Power of the Israel Lobby by James Abourezk

The High Price of American Hubris by American Hubris

Could U.S. Propaganda Be Any Lamer? by Justin Raimondo

How Bank of America Got Away with a Huge Swindle by Dave Lindorff

Bradley Manning: American Patriot by Justin Raimondo

Hardly a Conservative Model by Daniel Larison

R.I.P. Tuli Kupferberg by Paul Krassner

Chomsky’s Inner Conservative by Charles Glass

Americans Are the Redcoats Now by Brent Gardner-Smith

Can the Iranian Model Save Mississippi? by Ralph Nader

Keep Cops Out of Schools by Chase Madar

Days of PIG Violence in New Orleans by Jordan Flaherty

A Mentor to Men Behind Walls by Anthony Papa

How Progressives and Liberals Are Different by Sam Smith

A Crack Law By Any Other Name by Roberto Rodriguez

The Best of Times, the Worst of Times by Alexander Cockburn

The Worst Supreme Court Decision of the Term by Joanne Mariner

The Obama Regime’s War Upon European America by Bede

Obama’s War of Choice…on Arizona by Pat Buchanan

America is in a Societal Meltdown by Chuck Baldwin

Freedom to Hunt and More by R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr.

Planet Islam by Jim Goad

Forget Mexico, Let’s Wall Off D.C. by John Derbyshire

Finding a Racist in a Haystack by Gavin McInnes

The Lynch Squad by Paul Gottfried

The Race Card Is Becoming Irrelevant by John Kass

Thou Shalt Kill: The American Warmongers Bible by Laurence Vance

The New Eugenics by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Stop Policing Our Thoughts by Brendan O’Neill

Repudiate Government Debt by Butler Shaffer

Revolution and Repression in America by Andrew Gavin Marshall

The U.S. Is Addicted to the Warfare State by William Norman Grigg

Phoenix Home Invaders Shot by Robbers Already in Home by Brittany Williams

Spontaneous Order

AlternativeRight.Com Is Now Live!

Community Organizing and National-Anarchism presentation by Andrew Yeoman

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

United Anarchism Vs United Nationism

Fall of the New World Order

The Tyranny of “Tolerance”

“A centralised democracy may be as tyrannical as an absolute monarch; and if the vigour of the nation is to continue unimpaired, each individual, each family, each district, must preserve as far as possible its independence, its self-completeness, its powers and its privilege to manage its own affairs and think its own thoughts.

–James Anthony Froude (1818-1894), author and historian.
Source: Short Studies on Great Subjects

“Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both. It is as cowardly to betray an offender to justice, even though his offences be against yourself, as it is not to avenge an injury by violence. It is dastardly and contemptible in a wounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself.”
– From Porello, The Rise and Fall of the Cleveland Mafia

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

The Revolution Within Anarchism

Forty Years in the Wilderness?

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

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Don’t Talk to the Police

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