Swedish party wants sit-down urination Reply

More insanity from Brave New World’s leading nation. It’s hard to believe these people are the descendants  of the Vikings.

SORMLAND, Sweden, June 11 (UPI) — Left Party members of a Swedish county council said they want to encourage men using the council’s toilets to sit during urination.

The Left Party in Sormland said it wants the Sormland County Council to pass a motion requiring toilets reserved for stand-up urination to be labeled, Swedish news agency TT reported Monday.

The party said sit-down urination is more hygienic and reduces the risk of bathroom users having to negotiate their way around puddles en route to the toilet.


Tell the American Medical Association to Support GMO Labeling 1

From Food Democracy Now!

This weekend the American Medical Association will consider an important resolution to call for the support of GMO labeling. The AMA is the nation’s largest and most respected association of doctors and medical students and their support of labeling genetically engineered foods will go a long way in protecting the health and rights of their patients.

The Indiana State Medical Association and the Illinois State Medical Society have both introduced resolutions to the American Medical Association supporting Federal legislation and/or regulations to require labeling of food with genetically engineered ingredients and they need your support today. Right now, the American Medical Association is accepting public comments until Monday, June 4th.


Roberto Unger, Obama’s Former Harvard Law School Professor, Says The President ‘Must Be Defeated’ Reply

From the Huffington Post

One of President Barack Obama’s former professors appears to have turned against him, according to a recent YouTube video.

“President Obama must be defeated in the coming election,” Roberto Unger, a longtime professor at Harvard Law School who taught Obama, said in a video posted on May 22. “He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.”


Manning Down: The Mote in the Manosphere’s Eye 12

By Andy Nowicki

Ferdinand Bardamu, master of ceremonies at the seminal mansophere blog In Mala Fide, has opted to take his website to the cyber-scrapheap while he heads for some ill-defined greener pastures. I don’t know Ferd personally, though he has been kind enough to link to many of my articles, and I will always adore the implacably profane honesty of the opening sentence of his review of The Columbine Pilgrim (“Holy fuck, this is one messed-up book.”); thus, I wish him well.

Ferd and I recently engaged in a vigorous exchange of ideas on the subject of embracing one’s “beta”-hood vs. striving to be “alpha”; though Ferd’s side of the debate isn’t curently available, you can see my two articles, “In Defense of Squares” and “Reply to Bardamu” (www.counter-currents.com/2012/04/reply-to-bardamu). Though we differed radically in our perspectives, it was an amicable debate. It has been eye-opening for me to discover and explore the online “manosphere” lately, as its adherents are one segment of the uneasy coalition of malcontents with modernity that make up the Alternative Right.


It Has Come to This: Greek Towns Reverting to Barter Economies 1

From The Blaze

has forced many Greeks to rely on barter-style economies.

“I want to use euro but it’s very expensive and I believe trade is better,” said Volos resident Artemis Zafiriou of in a recent NBC Newsreport.

The town of Volos is not special. It’s one of the many Greek communities that have been hit hard by the financial crisis and high unemployment, forcing a growing number of individuals to trade goods and service in return for essentials. For instance, Zafiriou and her “partner” “sell ”chicken eggs, homemade marmalade, and soap at an open-air market in town,” according to NBC’s Yuka Tachibana.

“Looking like a mix between a flea market and a farmers’ market, it is packed with colorful stalls displaying fresh produce, home-baked bread, second-hand clothes and jewelry,” Tachibana writes.


Paleconservative website describes ARV/ATS as “Marxist” Reply

We just can’t win. LOL! The comments by this “conservative” are otherwise quite well-considered:

F.A. Hayek’s stance to combat the leviathan monster of the State is to go local. Rockwell continues:  “We need a Hayekian solution to the US. We need small states trading with each other. How many? It really doesn’t matter so long as one is not overly large geographically or in terms of population. It could be 10 states or 100. At some point, the number of political units created would have to be left to the people themselves, to be decided by local plebiscite. After all, at that point, all political alliances between units would have to be voluntary and clearly dissolvable.”  

In a significant tract from a Marxist viewpoint, Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement in North America, a cogent point is made:


Commies and Left-Anarchists on the ARV/ATS Perspective Reply

A shitty commie website has this to say about yours truly:

In this context, I want to make a few explanatory comments about some anarchists that I cite. I’m interested in the section of anarchism in the tradition of Bakunin, Parsons, Malatesta, and Durruti that is variously described as social anarchism, class struggle anarchism, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. I’m only concerned in passing with the primitivists, the “national anarchists,” or any of the various schools of lifestyle or individualist anarchism, and I am aware of the distinctions between these approaches and those of the class struggle social anarchists. I also wanted to use modern sources connected to some important areas of on-going anarchist experience and theory in Spain, Italy, and Latin America.


Wisconsin: It was always theirs anyway Reply

By Kevin Carson

Following the major news networks’ projections of Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall vote Tuesday, the dominant reaction among anti-Walker activists was apocalyptic. “If out-of-state corporate interests can outspend us ten-to-one, and that’s enough to beat all this grassroots organizing and public outrage, then democracy is dead.”

Well, no. Technically, it’s just more dirt on top of the grave.

Frankly, I’m surprised at the popular reaction to the vote. What did they expect? The state has always been an “executive committee of the ruling class.” Citizens United may have stripped the mask off the system and exposed it in its full vulgarity, but the political system has been rigged in the interests of the big money players since there was a political system. To quote Charles Johnson:

“If you put all your hope for social change in legal reform … then … you will find yourself outmaneuvered at every turn by those who have the deepest pockets and the best media access and the tightest connections. There is no hope for turning this system against them; because, after all, the system was made for them and the system was made by them. Reformist political campaigns inevitably turn out to suck a lot of time and money into the politics — with just about none of the reform coming out on the other end.”


Who Wants to Overthrow the Government? Not “Anarchist” Shawn Wilbur Reply

Says Wilbur:

“More than anything, my beef with the pan-secessionists is that they want me to overthrow the government with them (although they’re likely to think I’m a commie, and maybe a queer), but they want me to accept “liberty” on a low bid. If I overthrow governments, then the low bid bullshit goes too.”

Of course, this guy has no use for the C4SS or Molinari Institute either….Sheesh!

That said, he does some good work making the writings of classical anarchists and other historic radicals available.

Blowback, or Impossible Dilemmas of Declining Powers Reply

By Immanuel Wallerstein

ntelligence Agency (CIA) that originally meant the unintended negative consequences to a country of its own espionage operations. For example, if a secret CIA operation led to a revenge attack on U.S. individuals who were unaware of the CIA’s operation, this was considered “blowback.” But these days, many of the operations are not all that secret (for example, the U.S. use of drones in Pakistan or Yemen). And the “revenge” attacks are often publicly avowed. Nevertheless, countries don’t seem to cease engaging in such operations.

We need a more useful definition of blowback to explain how and why it’s occurring all over the place. I think the first element is that the countries engaging in such operations today are powerful, yes, but less powerful than they used to be. When they were at the acme of their power, they could ignore blowback as minor unintended consequences. But when they are less powerful than before, the consequences are not so minor, yet they seem to feel the need to pursue the operations even more vigorously and even more openly.

Let us look at two famous instances of blowback. One concerns the United States. In the 1980s, the United States wished to push the Soviet Union’s military forces out of Afghanistan. They therefore supported the mujahidin. One of the most famous leaders of the groups they supported was Osama bin Laden. Once the Soviet troops withdrew, Osama bin Laden created Al-Qaeda and began to attack the United States.

A second famous instance concerns Israel. In the 1970s, Israel regarded Yasser Arafat and the PLO as its principal opponent. Seeking to weaken the strength of the PLO among Palestinians, they gave financial aid to the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, known as Hamas. As Hamas grew, it did weaken the PLO somewhat. But at a certain point, Hamas became an even more vehement and effective opponent of the Israeli state than had been the PLO.

Today, everyone knows these instances. Others involving Great Britain and France could be cited as well. Nor does this end the list of blowback countries. Why then do they continue to behave in ways that seem to undermine their own objectives? They do this precisely because their power is declining.

We need to look at it as a matter of temporalities in state policy. Blowback occurs when the declining power engages in behavior that, in the short run, achieves some immediate objective but, in the middle run, makes their power decline even more and even faster, and therefore in the longer run is self-defeating. The obvious thing to do is not to go down this road any more. The covert operations no longer really work in terms of the long-run objectives of the country.

To stick with my examples: Don’t President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu understand this? And if they do, why are they continuing the operations, even boasting about them? Actually, I think that both these men do understand the ineffectiveness of these operations, and so do their intelligence agencies. But they face immediate dilemmas.


One Hundred Years Later, The Return Of The Anarchists? Reply

By Daniel Tovrov

A hundred years ago, anarchists were the scourge of civil society. In the 20th century’s adolescence, the American brand of anarchism proselytized by immigrants from Europe like Emma Goldman took on a violent strain — President William McKinley was assassinated, Wall Street was bombed, Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti (allegedly) robbed a bank in Massachusetts and were eventually electrocuted in 1921, mail bombs wrapped in brown paper were sent politicians all over the country.

In Europe, anarchism ascended as a counterweight to the rise of fascism and far-right-wing politics, and the movement thrived for a time before World War II as various leftist radical organizations fought for their place in the rebuilding of the continent.

But during and after the radical 1960s, anarchism and its perceived threat to the social order gave way to other fears. Politicians were no longer afraid of mail bombs, but first missiles from Russia and later of jihadists and white powder in envelopes. But today, with a tidal wave of protests flooding the world in the past year and the weight of a four-year-old economic crisis still crushing millions, if not billions, of people, anarchism seems to be again finding traction.

On Wednesday, Italian authorities beefed up security around high-profile figures after a group called the Informal Anarchist Federation claimed responsibility for shooting Roberto Adinolfi, a senior executive of the Italian nuclear engineering company Ansaldo Nucleare, in the kneecap last month. National police also arrested a number of the organization’s members, saying this week that it was responding to an “anarcho-revolutionary threat” after a campaign of package-bomb attacks against banks and tax-collection agencies. In Greece, anarchists are blamed for hurling Molotov cocktails at police, and in the United States it was widely reported that anarchists shouted “What do we want? Dead cops!” during a rally in Chicago in May.

But despite these events, anarchism and violence are not synonymous. In broad terms, anarchism is the ideology of self-organization and voluntary mutual aid. Anarchists reject the ruling order and the principle of hierarchy because, according to the New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists, those enforced social orders inevitably create systematic inequality and injustice.

“Anarchism is a lot of things,” explained Shawn Carrié, an anarchist active in the Occupy Wall Street movement, “but anarchism has been repressed like so many other alternative social ideologies for decades. It’s apparent, because when you think ‘anarchism,’ you think bomb-throwing and people in black masks. But anarchism has nothing to do with that.”

The black masks have become, unfairly or not, the face of the modern anarchist movement. They are the trademark of something called the Black Bloc, which stems from a three-decades old tactic of wearing black clothing and masks during protests, but has arguably grown into its own offshoot movement in the past year. Not only are they present at Occupy marches across the United States, the Black Bloc has also appeared at the NATO summit in Chicago, and at protests in Rome, Athens and Berlin.


How the Sustainability Movement Defies Conservative/Liberal Labels Reply

By Stuart Bramhall

My decision to focus my activism in the sustainability movement has nothing to do with the horror stories climate change and Peak Oil aficionados tell about the horrible future my children and grandchildren face. I have never found terrifying or guilt-tripping people an effective way to engage them politically. It always seems far more likely to generate demoralization and apathy. I choose to focus my time and energy on sustainability-related issues based on the conviction that people who wish to survive coming economic and ecological crisis will need be extremely well organized. After thirty years of organizing, I find that sustainability engages people at the neighborhood and community level in a way no other issue can.

My friends and neighbors get it. They are all affected by the skyrocketing cost of fossil fuels, mainly because high energy and transportation costs make everything more expensive. They are all acutely aware that something in society has to change drastically. This realization makes them open, to varying degrees, to trying new, less energy intensive ways of doing business and meeting their families’ basic needs.

The only stumbling block I face in organizing around sustainability is efforts by the corporate media to demonize us as liberals or “greenies.” I can see why they do this. Corporate media coverage of climate change and sustainability-related topics is heavily dominated by the fossil fuel industry, which has a vested interest in discouraging people from reducing their use of oil, natural gas and coal.

How Terms like “Conservative” and “Liberal” Lost Their Meaning


Let Them Drink Coke Reply

By Paul Gottfried

New York Mayor Bloomberg has recommended that a 16-ounce limit be placed on the size of soft drinks sold at city restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums, and arenas. This seemed necessary because of an epidemic of obesity in his municipality, where over 50% of the residents are now judged to be overweight. I’m not sure what “overweight” means for NYC officials, but I’ve noticed lots of fatsos waddling around on their streets.

Over the last thirty years Americans have been increasing their food intake by almost 300 calories daily. Limiting soft-drink consumption would ostensibly help combat this public danger in the same way that earlier measures such as posting calorie counts on restaurant menus and prohibiting trans fats in restaurant food aimed to trim New Yorkers’ waistlines. Apparently, these earlier measures hadn’t done the trick, so Bloomberg is now pulling out the big guns against soda pop. Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson has confidently assured us that “People will come to see this very much in the interest of public health.”

“Where were these journalists when it came to criticizing much bigger infringements on individual liberties?”

There is no reason to think that Bloomberg’s law will have much effect on the average New Yorker’s girth. At least for now, consumers will be allowed to purchase as many sugary drinks as their money and appetite will permit. Although it may cost more to buy these additional high-calorie drinks, New Yorkers will not be prevented from doing so.

I’m probably sugar-averse, a natural condition that has allowed me to reach my present age without the diabetes that afflicts other family members. If all the Pepsis and other foul-tasting drinks in stores and restaurants disappeared overnight, it wouldn’t bother me.