A Quick and Dirty Summary of My Political Views Reply

By The People’s Post Modernist

The Absurd Man

First and Foremost, I am an Egosit/Stirnerite. The metaphysical ideas of the Creative Nothing” spoke volumes to me upon reading about it for the first time. We all may exist in a void but it is our void and the more time we spend relishing in this absurdity and meaninglessness the more we reinforce our place in it allowing us to act with our unbound will (as opposed to mere ideology) in order to cope with the invent able death of our gods.

Mutualist/Distributist economics; This is one one is is pretty self-explanatory. I firmly believe that the only way for proper voluntary action to exist is by establishing an informal method of societal organization chiefly concerned with maximizing individual freedom and livelihood by radically decentralizing the MOP.

Left-Nietzschean; Again, fairly simple. A rejection on modernism/humanism swapped out for a celebration of genius and power. In this wake, we will create a new cultural paradigm in which both Masters and Slaves are rendered obsolete. Embracing the deconstructionist rhetoric of Nietzsche ad other similar thinkers, also leads us (slowly but surely)to a radical skepticism regarding societal institutions (see Foucault)

An Insurectioanry Praxis influenced by Mao, specifically Mao’s contributions to dialectical materialism, the mass line as a form of larger scale organization and his “National Communism” ext), Che Guevara primarily for his military tactics and Italian Individualist Anarchism (The Rebel’s Dark Laughter – By; Bruno Felipe is a personal favorite of mine)… Bruno was certainly a genuine anti-fa before it was trendy.

I’m also influenced by elements of Ernst Junger, (his “conservative revolution and metaphysical “Anarch” are criminally under-looked for how influential they’ve been in the realm of metaphysics) and certain elements of National Anarchism (Freedom of association/dissociation, Anti-Zionist/Globalist fronts and a rejection of Humanism/Neo-Liberalism). I’ve also come to believe that all of these ideas could be incorporated into 3rd world-ism, used to promote 3rd-world/Indigenous liberation/radical decolonization and to empower international, anti-Western nationalist groups which we shouldn’t write off as allies because the mere use of the word “Nationalism”)

The Faces of Freedom Reply

By The People’s Post Modernist

The Absurd Man

As a caveat, I feel it is necessary it address the the metaphysics of freedom and the subsequent embodiment of ideas. Anarchists are first and foremost concerned with the concrete (funny considering how many write off anarchist movements as “idealistic”). As people of all stripes who value freedom (in an abstract sense) and seek to abolish centralized institutions which infringe on it, we concern ourselves with the not only the material but the metaphysical (see Junger) foundations of freedom and its impact (how metaphysical anarchic concepts are embodied by institutions and ideologies). I find the following outline to be helpful for a frame of reference

Self-Organizing/Anarchic systems of organization/archetypes;

National Anarchism – Freedom of Mobility
Anarcho Capitalism – Economic Freedom
Anarcho Communism/Syndicalism – Social Freedom

Institutional systems of organization/archetypes;

Neo-liberalism/Centrism/Humanism – “Rights”
Right-Wing Nationalism/Populism – “Culture”

It’s easy enough to deconstruct the “spooks” embodied by Institutional systems of organization but we often forsake critiquing our own positions. By not doing this, we risk slipping into “institutional” territory (legislated moralism and the problems which that entails). If we’re being honest, all of the above anarchic systems fail to a certain degree because they place too much of an emphasis on one type of freedom. Instead of evaluating ideas from a meta-systemic point of view in an effort to maximize all three types of freedoms, many anarchists unconsciously promote institutional rhetoric by concerning themselves with “causes” as opposed to will and action (we’ve certainly seen this with the left in recent years).

Now, it’s time to elaborate on the different types of freedoms embodied in varying anarchic systems.

Social Freedom
The ability to organize along ideological lines (either individually or collectively) that the individual or community sees as desirable. In a broader sense, this requires decentralizing power structures and abolishing external authority imposed by the state apparatus (institutions, “culture,” Morality ext) which limits people’s capacity to act directly in their self-interest (largely pertaining to varying forms of self organization and self-expression) and ensure a certain metric of security/solidarity within these forms of organization.

More…

6 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die Reply

By Christina Hoff Sommers

Time

Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women:

MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property.

FACTS: This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz, repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today.

Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in The Atlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change.

MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States.

FACTS: This sensational claim is a favorite of politicians, celebrities and journalists. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore turned it into a cause célèbre. Both conservatives and liberal reformers deploy it. Former President Jimmy Carter recently said that the sexual enslavement of girls in the U.S. today is worse than American slavery in the 19th century.

READ MORE

Women Still Face Oppression Today in the U.S. Reply

By Mina Ghaninejad

The Rattler

In August of 1920, women were granted the right to vote by the implementation of the 19th amendment. Since then, women have slowly progressed into having the same rights as men. And although most people would assume that women have reached the same status as men, given the modern era, that is simply not the case.

Women today are still oppressed in multiple ways, and yet we as a society turn a blind eye to the oppression that physically and emotionally harm women as a gender and as individuals. Not only are women financially oppressed, women are also socially and sexually oppressed in more than one circumstance in which men would not be.

In 2012, statistics from catalyst.org, documented the median annual income for both sexes. While women earned $37,791, men earned $49,398. In the educational field, statistics proved that the higher the degree, the higher the difference between pay. While the average median women with doctoral degrees get paid $1,371 weekly, men get paid $1,734.  Women with only a bachelor’s degree earn $930 while men earn $1,199.

In 2013, the average everyday female worker gets paid only 78% of what men earn. Though women in all states face unequal pay, some states only give women 66% of what men earn in states such as Louisiana, while in Washington, D.C, women receive 91% of what men earn.

In 2014, the Senate Republicans refused to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. This law has been persistent on being passed since 2012, however once again for the third time, it was shot down by Congress. The Paycheck Fairness Act allows employers to talk about their wages more freely and easily. The Act also forces employers to explain why the different sexes earn different wages, and to close the pay gap between males and females. And while every Democrat voted for the bill to be passed, every Republican in the Senate voted against the bill, though claiming they support equal pay for equal work. The Senates reason for the refusal of the bill was that it would ‘increase civil lawsuits, and would be pointless since discrimination based on sexes is already illegal in the United States’.

READ MORE

Sorry, Everyone, America Isn’t That Racist Reply

A couple of older articles by John McWhorter and Orlando Patterson make similar though less conservative arguments as this article.

By Greg Jones

The Federalist

It’s called “proof by example,” and it happens all the time. We take one event and point to it as evidence of a trend or, even worse, a universal fact—a dog attacked my child, therefore all dogs are vicious and should be put down. Despite its popularity, particularly in political debate, proof by example is a logical fallacy. But logic is officially an endangered species in today’s hyperpartisan political environment.

Recent events nationwide, particularly the cold-blooded murder of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, at the hands of a revoltingly racist white supremacist, have propelled this faulty reasoning to new heights. Dangerous ones, in fact: the conversation surrounding race in America has rapidly evolved into a hyperbolic echo chamber into which today’s pundits, politicians, and professors repeatedly shout their false narrative.

OMGs, Guys, We’re So Racist!

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson declared, “America will only end racism when it stops being racist.” If anyone is guilty of proof by example, it’s Robinson: “The gunman who so coldly killed those innocent worshipers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church did not exist in a vacuum. He inhaled deeply of the race hatred that constantly bubbles up like foul gas from a sewer.”

Things are so bad that The New York Times’s Timothy Egan proposed that Barack Obama apologize on behalf of his country for slavery. You read that correctly. The president didn’t do that, but he did remind us that “racism remains a blight that we have to combat together.”

The most serious accusation, however, was lobbed from what has become the most ridiculously reactionary arena in all of American cultural and political life: academia. In response to the Charleston slayings, Occidental College Professor Caroline Heldman labeled America a “white supremacist society.” You hear that? Constant racism; America is a sewer; we are all white supremacists. Apparently the America of 2015 is identical to the America of 1860.

The Data Contradicts These Spurious Claims of Mass Racism

News to me, and if I had to guess to 99 percent of the other 300-plus million Americans that peacefully coexist with members of all races day in and day out. Unless, of course, I am so lucky as to “exist in a vacuum” of peace and tranquility light years beyond what most Americans experience. Judging from my neighborhood, and a few commonly ignored statistics, I highly doubt it.

More…

The Oppression of Black People, The Crimes of This System and the Revolution We Need Reply

A article from the Revolutionary Communist Party that defends the hard left position on race in the USA.

Revolution

“The young man was shot 41 times while reaching for his wallet”…“the 13-year-old was shot dead in mid-afternoon when police mistook his toy gun for a pistol”… “the unarmed young man, shot by police 50 times, died on the morning of his wedding day”… “the young woman, unconscious from having suffered a seizure, was shot 12 times by police standing around her locked car”… “the victim, arrested for disorderly conduct, was tortured and raped with a stick in the back of the station-house by the arresting officers.”

Does it surprise you to know that in each of the above cases the victim was Black?1

If you live in the USA, it almost certainly doesn’t.

Think what that means: that without even being told, you knew these victims of police murder and brutality were Black. Those cases—and the thousands more like them that have occurred just in the past few decades—add rivers of tears to an ocean of pain.  And they are symptoms of a larger, still deeper problem.

But some today claim that America is a “post-racial society.” They say the “barriers to Black advancement” have been largely overcome. Many go so far as to put the main blame for the severe problems faced by Black people today on…Black people themselves. Others claim that better education, or more traditional families, or religion, or elections will solve things.

So the questions must be sharply posed: what really IS the problem? What is the source of it? And what is the solution?

This special issue of Revolution newspaper will answer those questions. We’ll show how the oppression of Black people has been at the very heart of the fabric and functioning of this country, since its beginning and up to the present time, and what has actually caused these centuries of suffering. We’ll analyze the massive struggles waged against this oppression, showing why, even when they’ve won concessions, their powerful call for justice has been betrayed by the system each time—and what lessons can be drawn for a revolutionary struggle that actually could win liberation. We’ll get into how a revolution could deal with and overcome that oppression, bringing in an entirely different, and far better, system as part of getting to a whole new, emancipated world. We’ll analyze other programs and show how anything short of revolution is a false path and a dead end. And we’ll point to why such a revolution is possible—yes, even in the U.S.—and what must be done to actually prepare for and carry out such a revolution.

READ MORE

Eldridge Cleaver: The Black Panther who Became a Libertarian Reply

This is an interesting interview conducted by Bill Kauffman in 1986 with the former Minister of Information of the Black Panther Party, Eldridge Cleaver, who was leader of the armed struggle wing of the Panthers in the 1960s, was involved in a shoot out with the cops in Oakland in 1968, jumped bail and spent 8 years in Cuba, Ben Bella’s Algeria, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. Kim Il-Sung’s wife  named Cleaver’s daughter. But his experience of living in Communist states turned him into a libertarian.

By Bill Kauffman and Lynn Scarlett

Reason

The Black Panthers scared the hell out of America in the 1960s. Emerging from the ghettos of Oakland, they scorned the establishment black leadership as Uncle Toms and took to the streets demanding “total liberty for black people or total destruction for America,” in the words of Minister of Information Eldridge Cleaver.

In and out of reform schools and prisons since the age of 13 and an avowed “insurrectionary” rapist, Cleaver discovered radical politics and a flair for writing in Folsom Prison. Upon his release in 1966 he joined the fledgling Black Panther Party and started writing for the monthly Ramparts.

Cleaver burst upon the national scene in 1968 with the publication of Soul on Ice, a collection of his prison writings. Hip, revolutionary, and teeming with hatred for “everything American—including baseball and hot dogs,” Soul on Ice became the Bible of Black Power and Eldridge Cleaver the intellectuals’ favorite black radical.

The Black Panthers’ early rhetoric had been decentralist, but the organization soon degenerated into Maoist politics and senseless violence. On April 6, 1968, Cleaver participated in a shootout with Oakland police—’60s legend has it that three carloads of Panthers were ambushed while Cleaver was urinating in a side street—in which 17-year-old Black Panther Bobby Hutton was killed. (Cleaver offers a different version of these events below.)

To avoid being sent back to prison for his part in the Hutton shootout, Cleaver skipped the country, taking refuge in Cuba. He spent the next seven years wandering through the communist world, with sojourns in Algeria, North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union before finally settling in France. But in 1975, homesick and deeply disillusioned with revolutionary politics, Eldridge Cleaver came home. “Pig power in America was infuriating,” he wrote upon his return. “But pig power in the communist framework was awesome and unaccountable.”

The repatriated Cleaver was denounced by his former comrades as an apostate, a turncoat, even an FBI informer. His conversion to Christianity and anticommunist pronouncements combined to give him a right-wing reputation—a reputation, as this interview makes clear, that is a far cry from the truth.

More…

Arizona Legislature Ends Income Taxation on Gold & Silver Reply

By Jp Cortez

Phoenix, Arizona (May 10th, 2017) – Sound money advocates scored a major victory today when the Arizona state senate voted 16-13 to remove all income taxation of precious metals at the state level. The measure heads to Governor Doug Ducey, who is expected to sign it into law.

Under House Bill 2014, introduced by Representative Mark Finchem (R-Tucson), Arizona taxpayers will simply back out all precious metals “gains” and “losses” reported on their federal tax returns from the calculation of their Arizona adjusted gross income (AGI).

If taxpayers own gold to protect themselves against the devaluation of America’s paper currency, thanks to the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve, they frequently end up with a “gain” when exchanging those metals back into dollars. However, this is not necessarily a real gain in terms of a gain in actual purchasing power. This “gain” is often a nominal gain because of the slow but steady devaluation of the dollar.  Yet the government nevertheless assesses a tax.

Sound Money Defense League, former presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, and Campaign for Liberty helped secure passage of HB 2014 because it begins to dismantle the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

“Arizona is helping lead the way in defending sound money and making it less difficult for citizens to protect themselves from the inflation and financial turmoil that flows from the abusive Federal Reserve System,” said Stefan Gleason, Director of the Sound Money Defense League.

Dr. Ron Paul noted, “HB 2014 is a very important and timely piece of legislation. The Federal Reserve’s failure to reignite the economy with record-low interest rates since the last crash is a sign that we may soon see the dollar’s collapse. It is therefore imperative that the law protect people’s right to use alternatives to what may soon be virtually worthless Federal Reserve Notes.”

A few state legislatures, including Utah and Idaho, have also taken steps toward eliminating income taxation on the monetary metals.  Other states are rolling back sales taxes on gold and silver or setting up precious metals depositories to help citizens save and transact in gold and silver bullion.

Read more about what states can do to promote sound money policies here.

Jp Cortez is a graduate of Auburn University and a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina. He is a Mises University alumnus. He is the Assistant Director of the Sound Money Defense League, an organization working to bring back gold and silver as America’s constitutional money. Follow him on twitter, @JpCortez27

 

Is It True That Not a Single Senator—Even Bernie Sanders—Cares About Palestinian Plight? Reply

The entire political class, from the most liberal Democrats to the most conservative Republicans, are the enemy.

By Ben Norton and Adam Johnson

Alternet

All 100 members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to the United Nations on April 27 that spread misleading pro-Israel myths. Included as signatories were the Senate’s two progressive leaders, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

AlterNet repeatedly contacted the offices of Sanders and Warren with a request for comment. Neither replied.

The 725-word letter does not mention Israel’s illegal military occupation of Palestinian land, which marks its 50th anniversary this June. Nor does it acknowledge Israel’s illegal colonization of Palestinian territory through ever-expanding settlements.

Even the U.S., Israel’s closest ally, has agreed at the U.N. that Israel’s occupation and settlements are flagrant violations of international law. The senators’ letter glosses over this elementary fact, and does not even acknowledge the existence of the Palestinian people.

The bipartisan senatorial campaign against the U.N. was led by hard-right neoconservative Republican Marco Rubio and Reagan-Republican-turned-Democrat Christopher Coons.

“Although, as Republicans and Democrats, we disagree on many issues, we are united in our desire to see the United Nations improve its treatment of Israel,” the senators wrote in the letter, which also demonizes the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

They claimed “member states and agencies are using the U.N.’s privileged platform to advance an anti-Israel agenda.”

U.N.’s Pro-Israel Bias

In reality, the evidence shows that the U.N. has a pro-Israel bias. Emails leaked from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonstrate how the U.S. State Department successfully exerted pressure with the goal of “deferring” U.N. action on Israeli war crimes, as previously detailed in my report in Salon.

While the State Department conceded that the 2009 U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, known commonly as the Goldstone Report, was only “moderate,” it was still not pro-Israel enough for the U.S. Messages from top officials illustrate how the government pushed to water down the report, “reframing the debate” about the atrocities and “moving away from the U.N.”

Moreover, U.S. government cables released by WikiLeaks show how former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon worked with the U.S. and Israeli governments to weaken the 2009 U.N. report on the war crimes Israel had committed in its recent war in Gaza, known as Operation Cast Lead.

The idea that the United Nations was “singled out for special scrutiny” is conventional wisdom in U.S. political circles. Those who make this argument, as the senators do in the letter, point to Agenda Item 7, a standing agenda item on the U.N. Human Rights Council docket that debates Israeli human rights violations. Crucial context missing from this talking point is that the focus on Israel’s human rights record by less powerful U.N. bodies like the Human Rights Council is the logical byproduct of a U.N. Security Council—by far the most powerful and consequential U.N. body—doing nothing to curb Israel’s human rights abuses through the decades.

READ MORE

The Iron Jaws of the Police State: Trump’s America Is a Constitution-Free Zone Reply

“Policing is broken… It has evolved as a paramilitary, bureaucratic, organizational arrangement that distances police officers from the communities they’ve been sworn to protect and serve. When we have shooting after shooting after shooting that most people would define as at least questionable, it’s time to look, not just at a few bad apples, but the barrel. And I’m convinced that it is the barrel that is rotted.”— Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief

By John W. Whitehead

Rutherford Institute

Please.

Somebody give Attorney General Jeff Sessions a copy of the Constitution.

And while you’re at it, get a copy to President Trump, too.

In fact, you might want to share a copy with the nation’s police officers, as well.

I have my doubts that any of these individuals—all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution—have ever read any of the nation’s founding documents.

Had they actually read and understood the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be no militarized police, no mass surveillance, no police shootings of unarmed individuals, no SWAT team raids, no tasering of children, no asset forfeiture schemes or any of the other government-sanctioned abuses that get passed off as law and order these days.

We’ve got serious problems in this country, and they won’t be solved on the golf course, by wining and dining corporate CEOs, giving local police forces more military equipment, locking down the nation, or pretending that the only threats to our freedoms are posed by forces beyond our borders or by “anti-government” extremists hiding among us.

So far, Trump’s first 100 days in office have been no different from Obama’s last 100 days, at least when it comes to the government’s ongoing war on our freedoms.

Government corruption remains at an all-time high.

Police shootings and misconduct have continued unabated.

The nation’s endless wars continue to push us to the brink of financial ruin.

And “we the people” are still being treated as if we have no rights, are entitled to no protections, and exist solely for the purpose of sustaining the American police state with our hard-earned tax dollars.

Just take the policing crisis in this country, for instance.

Sessions—the chief lawyer for the government and the head of the Justice Department, which is entrusted with ensuring that the nation’s laws are faithfully carried out and holding government officials accountable to abiding by their oaths of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution”—doesn’t think we’ve got a policing problem in America.

In fact, Sessions thinks the police are doing a great job (apart from “the individual misdeeds of bad actors,” that is).

For that matter, so does Trump.

Really, really great.

READ MORE

France Elections: What Makes Marine Le Pen Far Right? Reply

The GOP isn’t the party of Reagan. It’s the party of Nixon. Reply

Anti-Trumpians need to get over the “Trump is a fascist” hysteria. Trump is a neo-Nixonian (which is bad enough) not a neo-Nazi.

By Daniel McCarthy

The Week

The Richard Nixon renaissance is upon us. And it’s a comeback every bit as remarkable as Nixon’s return from the political wilderness to win the White House in 1968.

Late last month, Bob Dole wrote an essay arguing that “Washington could use a man like Nixon again.” This week, Pat Buchanan publishes a second memoir of his time with the 37th president, Nixon’s White House Wars. But the real Nixon revival isn’t in print. It’s in the Oval Office.

President Trump is easily the most Nixonian figure to inhabit the White House since Nixon himself. And under Trump, the Republicans are again becoming Nixon’s party. Look around you: The long idealized party of Reagan, this is not.

To understand the Republican Party of the last half-century, it’s helpful to draw a distinction between what’s “conservative” and what’s “right-wing.” Nixon, like Trump, was right-wing but not conservative — that is, neither of them cared a whit for ideological purity as a matter of principle. Trump, like Nixon, is no believer in small-government dogma. Nixon’s opening to China scandalized the conservatives of his time much as Trump’s “America First” language shocked the keepers of conservatism’s foreign-policy orthodoxy last year.

READ MORE

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle Reply

I’m actually agnostic on the question of climate change/global warming. However, I generally favor the use of sources of energy other than fossil fuels, natural gas, and nuclear power to the greatest degree possible (with “possible” being the operative word) on the grounds of health and environmental aesthetics.

By Bill Butler

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts – I’ve already made up my mind” audience. There may be future media presentations by those who wish to promote ignorant political viewpoints instead of presenting factual knowledge. (Or possibly, the individuals involved have never passed a high school science course and don’t understand that there is a difference.

READ MORE

Global Warming Swindle Reply

By Thomas Sowell

Townhall.Com

Britain’s Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media — but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.

One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that “all” the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats — and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were “consulted,” but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

READ MORE

Afro-Colombians Face Genocidal Attacks from United States-Backed Death Squads Reply

US imperialism is what those who are genuinely concerned about the mass killing of people with black and brown skin should be protesting, not Milo Yiannopolous and Ann Coulter.

By D. Amari Jackson

Atlanta Black Star

On December 20, 1996, in the Colombian riverside village of Riosucio, the mass killings of Afro-Colombians began. At the time, though the country’s relentless civil war between the government and rebel groups had raged for decades, much of the violence had spared the rural, mineral-rich region of Choco where 85 percent of residents are Afro-Latino. That would brutally change as paramilitary death squads—backed by powerful government and commercial interests both in Colombia and the United States—murdered hundreds and displaced thousands in response to the establishment of residential land rights by Afro-Colombians in Riosucio and nearby towns. The violence would continue and, despite a November 2016 treaty officially ending the five-decade conflict, consume the region while substantially contributing to the current displacement of 2 million Afro-Colombians.

READ MORE

Maoism Against Free Speech 3

A lecture by lunatic Maoist Sunsara Taylor of the Revolutionary Communist Party on why free speech sucks. These are the kinds of folks for whom our “anti-fascist” anarchist  friends have become dupes. It’s interesting that the anarcho-leftoids do not learn anything from their own history. From the days of the First International onward (actually, from the time of “The Free Ones” onward), anarchists and Marxists have always been mortal enemies.

Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Killed More? Reply

A reminder of who is our true enemy, i.e. the State. As the late paleoconservative turned anarchist Joseph Sobran once said, “If human beings were rational, they would talk about the state the way Jews talk about Nazis.” It’s also a shame that these discussions of mass killings carried out by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao usually leave out the body count generated by US and other forms of Western imperialism.

By Timothy Snyder

New York Times

Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?

In the second half of the twentieth century, Americans were taught to see both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the greatest of evils. Hitler was worse, because his regime propagated the unprecedented horror of the Holocaust, the attempt to eradicate an entire people on racial grounds. Yet Stalin was also worse, because his regime killed far, far more people, tens of millions it was often claimed, in the endless wastes of the Gulag. For decades, and even today, this confidence about the difference between the two regimes—quality versus quantity—has set the ground rules for the politics of memory. Even historians of the Holocaust generally take for granted that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, thus placing themselves under greater pressure to stress the special character of the Holocaust, since this is what made the Nazi regime worse than the Stalinist one.

Discussion of numbers can blunt our sense of the horrific personal character of each killing and the irreducible tragedy of each death. As anyone who has lost a loved one knows, the difference between zero and one is an infinity. Though we have a harder time grasping this, the same is true for the difference between, say, 780,862 and 780,863—which happens to be the best estimate of the number of people murdered at Treblinka. Large numbers matter because they are an accumulation of small numbers: that is, precious individual lives. Today, after two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.

READ MORE

Trump to Arm Syrian Kurds, Even as Turkey Strongly Objects Reply

How ironic that the overlords of the American Empire might be backing the Murray Bookchin-inspired libertarian socialist insurgents of the Kurdish territory. But this is actually in keeping with a strategy that I have long advocated for anarchist, anti-state and anti-imperalist movements around the world, i.e. building on the ground resistance while seeking aid from the official enemy of whatever state they’re fighting. Consequently, the on the ground resistance movements located in the nations of the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis should seek aid from the nations of the BICS-Shia-Global South axis, and vice versa. It is perfectly appropriate for the Kurds to accept aid from the USA just as it would be perfectly appropriate for the EZLN, Calexit or the Republic of Texas to accept aid from the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese.

By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt

New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump has approved a plan to arm Syrian Kurds so they can participate in the battle to retake Raqqa from the Islamic State, a strategy that has drawn deep opposition from Turkey, a NATO ally.

American military commanders have long argued that arming the Y.P.G., a Kurdish militia fighting alongside Syrian Arab forces against the Islamic State, is the fastest way to seize Raqqa, the capital of the militants’ self-proclaimed caliphate.

And Mr. Trump, who made fighting Islamist militants a priority during his campaign, again showed the high regard he has for Pentagon generals by endorsing their advice when faced with a policy dilemma.

READ MORE