I get an honorable mention in this, although I am incorrectly identified as a “white nationalist.” If I am being denounced by The Nation and Breitbart within a few days of each other I must be doing something right. I used to think that leftist articles that mistakenly describe me as WN were just a matter of sloppy thinking and lazy research. But increasingly I am seeing people of color, including friends of mine, being attacked at WN as well. It just seems like WN is an all-encompassing smear word that’s used nowadays, now that “communist” and even “terrorist” have lost their bite. There always has to be some category of “official bad people” that dissidents can be relegated to.
By Donna Minkowitz
In the way to Richard Spencer’s top-secret white-supremacist conference on November 19, a young African-American woman drove me in her Uber from Washington, DC, to the rolling hills of Maryland horse country. On the peaceful drive past large, beautiful estates, she told me how she’d had to work three jobs—as a DHL courier, Amazon-warehouse deliverywoman, and Uber driver—just to continue to live in ever-more-expensive DC, where she’d grown up. When we finally got to the winery that Spencer’s National Policy Institute had booked, Mike Enoch of the Daily Shoah podcast, who promulgated the slur “dindu nuffins” for African Americans, was holding forth on the horrors of “corporate neoliberalism.”
Then Eli Mosley of the campus group Identity Evropa, who calls Jews “oven-dodging…kikes,” took Enoch one further: “We need to be explicitly anti-capitalist. There’s no other way forward for our movement.” As 60 mostly young, male racists gathered around him, Mosley, whose real name is Elliott Kline, confidently predicted, “Twenty eighteen is going to be the year of leftists joining the white-nationalist movement!”
By Jeff Deist
Dr. Robert Murphy and I enjoyed a robust discussion of the current political landscape this past weekend at the University of Central Florida. A significant percentage of attendees, maybe half, agreed with the proposition that the US is past the point of political solutions. Everyone agreed, regardless of their age and background, that the possibility of America breaking — violently or voluntarily — is very real.
My talk focused on the value of smaller polities. Given the stubborn tendency for governments to emerge and endure in human societies, we should focus our efforts on creating smaller political units that more closely allow for a Misesian vision of democratic self-determination. This may not satisfy libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, but neither will trying to persuade a winning electorate of 70 million Americans to vote for even a reasonably liberty-minded presidential candidate.
Mass democracy, in a decidedly diverse nation of 320 million people, is a recipe for disaster. And we’re seeing that disaster unfold in the cold civil war known as the Trump era. Increasingly federalized state power, combined with our winner-takes-all, top-down rule by DC, creates terrible zero-sum outcomes for millions. Five people on the Supreme Court wield an extra-constitutional power that creates deep and lasting cultural divides. 535 members of Congress have the ability to spend, tax, regulate, inflate, and war us into oblivion.
A few salient points from my presentation:
By Trey Goff
[Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations by Tom. W. Bell]
When I first met him, Tom W. Bell seemed more like the successful lawyer/entrepreneur type than he did the type of guy to write an intensely well-sourced book synthesizing information from a variety of fields. On that front, he pleasantly surprised me: this book is an excellent, abundantly well-sourced paean to consent, choice, and competitive governance.
Bell begins the book by explaining how smaller, consent-rich and decentralized government is creating a “bottom-up, peaceful revolution” in the way governance is organized around the world. He cites the usual examples of Chinese special economic zones and SEZs all around the world generally as evidence of this. All of this has been surveyed extensively by other authors as well, but Bell does an excellent jo of succinctly re-presenting it here. However, Bell forays into a field I’ve not seen broached elsewhere by examining previous examples of special jurisdiction-type entities within the United States. Specifically, he details the extensive use of foreign trade zones (FTZs) throughout the United States as an example of special jurisdictions closer to home. These zones exempt the businesses within them from many aspects of US customs, excise taxes, and import taxes. These zones are ubiquitous and play host to a sizeable portion of US foreign trade. He closes this survey of the evidence of special jurisdictions by dedicating a chapter to some interesting examples: Henry Ford’s spectacularly failed attempt to make a massive city in the middle of the Brazilian rain forest (Fordlandia), Honduran ZEDEs, and seasteads.
Todd Lewis recently told me that a libertarian society might well be an actual civil war between the “fascist” Hoppean militia, the “communist” C4SS militia, with the centrist Walter Blockian milita began attacked by both sides as a traitor for collaborating with the enemy. I suspect Todd is probably correct. Eventually, an anarcho-Lucky Luciano would have to step in, create an anarcho-Commission, and put end to the nonsense by carving out different territories for warring factions.
On Wednesday, December 6th, 2017, Students for Liberty fired Noah Mickel, a student activist, and a campus coordinator for SFL since Mr. Mickel graduated high school (Correction: “since Mr. Mickel completed his first year in college”). The official reason for this firing is “violating the respectful communication policy,” but there is ample reason to doubt this justification.
To start, Mr. Mickel is a right-libertarian who unapologetically supports libertarian theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, whose works Students for Liberty has banned at their events. Mr. Mickel wasn’t exactly quiet about his views, and he has caused other SFL staff members to engage in what many would call disrespectful communication. Take the example of SFL’s Academic Programs Senior Chair, who went off on a Twitter tirade against Mr. Mickel, myself, and five other libertarian students (three of whom are recently resigned SFL Campus Coordinators) because they took a picture with Dr. Hoppe. See the thread here. But perhaps here is my favorite response from this major figure in Students for Liberty. You tell me if this is “respectful communication.”
Totalitarian humanism is only the latest manifestation of a more traditional enemy. Ultimately, our enemy is not any one ideology but the state itself, as Albert Jay Nock pointed out.
By Sean Gabb
Last month, I wrote a defence of Charlie Elphicke, my Member of Parliament. He had been suspended from the Conservative Party while the Police investigated him for an alleged sexual assault. He has still not been arrested or charged. He has still not been told the nature of the complaint against him. It may be that he is about to be unmasked as a serial sex-murderer. More likely, the sinister clowns who direct law enforcement in this country have found nothing that even they regard as an assault worth prosecuting. But, if the former of these possibilities might embarrass me, the general reflections I made on his case stand by themselves. What I wish now to do is to elaborate on these reflections.
I begin by granting that ideologies are in themselves important. They are sets of propositions about the world that are true or false in much the same way as a scientific hypothesis is true or false. They are true or false regardless of what motives people may have for adopting them. This being granted, every person is born with a set of dispositions that draws him to accepting a particular ideology. Some of us are born with a dislike of pushing others around. This will not invariably make us into free market libertarians. But it will incline us to less intrusive formulations of whatever ideology is accepted. There are liberal Catholics and liberal Moslems. There have even been liberal Marxists. Others are born with a will to dominate. These will gather round the most fashionable intolerant ideology on offer.
Last month, I used the examples of Calvinism and Cultural Marxism. These were and are legitimising ideologies. Each has different formal propositions. Each has different enemies. Each has different effects on the character. But their essential function, so far as they can be made hegemonic, is to justify the gaining and use of power by an authoritarian élite – or by “The Puritans.”
If you want to see this case made at greater length, I refer you to my earlier essay. The case briefly stated, I turn to what may follow from it.
This is to suggest that direct argument with the Puritans is of limited value. Our own Puritans are Cultural Marxists for reasons other than the truth or falsehood of Cultural Marxism. Because its surface claims about treating people as individuals, and not being rude to them, are broadly in line with public opinion, it is an ideal legitimising ideology. If our Puritans had, after about 1970, taken up traditional Calvinism, or Orthodox Marxism-Leninism, or National Socialism, they would have got nowhere. The social liberalism of the previous two decades would have rolled straight over them. Instead, there was the combination, in Britain and America, of a large cohort of those inclined to Puritanism and an ideology, or set of ideologies, that could be shaped into a powerful legitimising ideology. It may be that the universe as a whole is locked into a rigid scheme of cause and effect. In this case, what happened was inevitable. But looking only at those parts of the universe we can understand and control, I think there was an element of contingency here. We are where we are because of a largely accidental discovery by the Puritans of a legitimising ideology that worked for them.
I got a mention in Breitbart, lol. Listen to the original interview with Press TV here.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel renders him the “most pro-Zionist” commander-in-chief to have ever held the high office, declared Iran’s state-controlled news agency Press TV, citing an analyst.
State sponsor of terrorism Iran does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and has continually threatened to destroy it. The Shiite powerhouse joined various predominantly Muslim countries, jihadist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), and Pope Francis in condemning President Trump’s decision.
On Wednesday, Trump announced that the U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has directed his administration to move America’s diplomatic mission from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
“I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” declared Trump. “While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.”
Soon after Trump made his historic decision public, Keith Preston, director of attackthesystem.com, told Press TV:
This is not surprising that Trump would make this announcement. One thing that needs to be recognized about the Trump administration’s foreign policy is that the Trump administration is zealously pro-Israel.
The Trump administration is ardently pro-Zionist, even more, pro-Zionist than many past administrations have been, arguably the most pro-Zionist administration in U.S. history.
Lately, I’ve been reading Michael Schmidt’s and Lucien van der Walt’s “Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Counter Power Vol. 1).” A summary of the book is available on Wikipedia, and a PDF version is available from LibCom. The book can be purchased from Amazon. Apparently, Schmidt is now on the outs with the left-wing anarchist milieu for, among other things, having once said good things about yours truly.
Bill Lind’s analysis of the emerging world order is absolutely correct. If I were a statist, I would be taking the exact same position as Bill Lind, i.e. that the main threat that states now face is not each other but the rise of non-state actors and fourth generation warfare forces. The difference is that Bill, being a Hobbesian conservative, is rooting for the statists while I, as an anarchist, am rooting for “the other side.” It is easy enough to envision a future, more radical version of the Non-Aligned Movement of the kind proposed by the International Secessionary Movement, representing a global alliance of startup societies, waging a common insurgency against the emerging global imperial system.
By William S. Lind
As President Trump knows well, he has not been very successful in getting the measures he wants through Congress. One way to improve his chances of doing so is to change the context.
Relations with Russia provide an example. The president knows our hostility towards Russia makes no sense. Communism has fallen, we have no interests that should lead us to oppose Russia and Russia is resuming her 19th century role as the most conservative of the great powers. Russia should be our ally, not our enemy.
The Washington establishment wants a hostile relationship with Russia because it is still thinking in the context of a world of states in conflict. Any other powerful state (including China) that does not bow to American hegemony must be seen as an enemy. The purpose of all the clucking and squawking about the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia is to scare the administration away from improving relations with Moscow. Unfortunately, that trick seems to be working.
But what if the administration responded by changing the context? President Trump could easily explain to the American people that the real threat we face is not any other state (except perhaps North Korea) but “terrorism” (really 4GW) from non-state entities, of which ISIS is only one. To beat the terrorists, we need an alliance with Russia and China, because they are the other two great powers. In fact, that alliance would only be the beginning. We should work with Moscow and Beijing to create an alliance of all states against violent non-state entities. If we want a relatively peaceful, ordered, and safe 21st century, that is what we have to do.
Bill Lind argues that the solution to the recent brouhaha over sexual harassment is a return to Victorian mores. I would make the polar opposite argument,i.e. that present day hysteria over “sexual harassment” is in fact a kind of neo-Victorianism, along with other manifestations of PC, e.g. anti-smoking puritans, the food police, feminist crusades against sex workers, the language police, helicopter parenting, safe spaces, trigger warnings, sensitivity training, etc. All modern nations maintain laws against rape and sexual assault. These are violent crimes that are normally punished severely by the courts. Most functional businesses with competent leadership maintain rules against sexual harassment in the workplace, and terminate employees who violate the rules. Are there people who do all these things anyway, is spite of laws or rules? Yes, just as there are people who commit murder, armed robbery, and burglary even though they are assuming the risk of prison or execution, and there are employees who show up for work intoxicated even though they are risking termination. Nothing more needs to be said.
By William S. Lind
No law is more deeply engraved in human nature than that which leads men to make advances towards women and women to flirt with men. It was written there long before history began, before time began to be reckoned. Why? Because it is necessary for the perpetuation of the human race.
Today, cultural Marxism seeks to overturn this law, or at least half of it. Women are to be allowed to do whatever they want, befitting their “victim” status in cultural Marxism’s hierarchy of saints and sinners. But men–should one so much as look at a woman with a gleam in his eye, he is to be damned to eternal shame, cast out of public life, deprived of employment, and ordered to undergo psychological “re-education”, presumably so he can become a better person by turning gay.
19th Century 21st Century
“Throne and Altar” =Traditional capitalist elites (big oil, agriculture, manufacturing)
Pro-royalist peasants=Populist nationalists (Trumpists, Le Penists, UKIP)
Rising bourgeoisie=techno-oligarchs, professional/managerial class
information/knowledge class, elites among traditional outgroups
Social Democrats (Bernstein)=Berniebros, Green Party
Communists (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky)=Antifa/SJWs/Neo-Communists
Establishment Classical Liberals (Spencer, Sumner)=Kochs, CATO Institute
Radical Classical Liberals (Bastiat, Molinari)=Mises Institute
Eugenicists/Racists (Galton, Chamberlain)=Alt-Right/White nationalists
Anarcho-Communists/Syndicalists=Left-Anarchists (LibCom, Anarkismo, AK Press, C4SS)
The remaining question is the issue of how to classify those of us who are attempting to formulate some kind of anarchist or radical tendency that is independent of the Left paradigm, e.g. post-leftists, agorists, primitivists, egoists, transhumanists, Zeitgeist/Venus Project, radical an-caps, startup societies, neo-tribalists, eco-villagers, national-anarchists, panarchists, neo-mutualists, neo-Georgists, etc. I’m inclined to think that the closest analogy would be to the utopian colonies, religious communes, early anarchists (Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy), early socialists, and radical utopian thinkers from the 19th century (some of whose works read more like science fiction than political theory). In fact, ideas of this kind often defined the Left of the 19th century before leftism came to be identified with either reformist parliamentary social democracy or revolutionary Marxism (which many an-coms and an-syns also veered towards).
A great discussion between Gareth Porter and Tom Woods on Vietnam. Listen here. This is a must listen for anyone who is interested in how US imperialism actually works.
We’ve all heard the usual arguments: the U.S. government entered the Vietnam War because of the domino theory, or because of SEATO treaty obligations, or whatever. The recent Ken Burns PBS series on the war, for example, repeats many conventional arguments about the war.
Gareth Porter, on the other hand, joins me to discuss rather a different interpretation of the war. We cover the origins of the war, the nature of the war (were civilians deliberately targeted?), the Cambodian incursion, and a lot more.
By Paul Craig Roberts
“Where is the leftwing when we need it” is a question I have asked at times. Some of my readers who confuse the left with Antifa and Identity politics have been confused by my question. Why, they ask, do I want more Antifa thugs and Identity Politics hatred of white people?
The answer is that Antifa and Identity Politics are the antithesis of the left. The real left is pro-working class, pro all of the working class, all races, genders, sexual preferences. Identity Politics splinters the working class into victims of white heterosexual males and destroys the cohesivenss of the working class, thereby making it easer for exploiters to exploit. Antifa aids in this process by focusing hatred on whites by accusing only whites of racism.
It was Karl Marx who said: “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”
It is Identity Politics that says, “Workers of the world disunite, splinter into victim groups and hate white males.” In other words, Identity Politics is the worst enemy the working class has ever had. Capitalist expoitation unifies the working class, but Identity Politics divides the working class and makes it easier for capitalists to exploit and for politicians to ignore.
Does my call for a resurrected leftwing mean that I am a Marxist?”
An amusing attack on ATS from an antifa writer named Shane Burley who, in keeping with antifa practice, fails get the point. The ATS position has more in common with the fictional United Federation of Planets from “Star Trek” than it would with 20th century totalitarian ideologies, including the “prime directive” and the Vulcan philosophy of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations”.
“For we have agreed that our worlds hold these truths to be self-evident: that all species are created equal, that their citizens are endowed with certain incontrovertible rights, protected by their societies; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of those states-of-being each individual society holds in greatest esteem…” – Excerpt from the Preamble to the Constitution of the United Federation of Planets
This is an interesting critique of the perspective of myself and others who favor a broad interpretation of “anarchism without adjectives.” Basically, the argument comes to “anarchism should be exclusive to leftists only” combined with an “anarcho-Sam Harrisism” approach to moral philosophy.
I’m generally not fond of the phrase “anarchism without adjectives” anymore because the phrase has begun to be thrown around by people on the far right to mean something quite different from what it originally meant. I like the idea of anarchism without adjectives as it was applied by anarchists in the 1880 through the early 1900s. They wanted to eliminate the in-fighting between collectivists, communists, and mutualists within the anarchist tradition. The various schools of anarchist thought all had a lot in common and it was held that anarchists should work together. There was an implicit faith in direct democracy and the ability of anarchists to reach some sort of consensus at the local level during and after the revolution. There may be differences of opinion among anarchists, but people could gather in general assemblies and discuss their differences and come to an agreement, settling for some arrangement that is mutually acceptable to everyone. The kinds of arrangements that arise under anarchism will be diverse. The general assemblies in various communities might each arrive at slightly different agreements. This is what anarchism without adjectives originally referred to—the notion that there might be room for differences of opinion among anarchists and room for various alternative anarchistic arrangements to co-exist alongside one another.
In more recent times, people like Keith Preston, Mike Shanklin, and William Schnack have been advocating a very different sort of “anarchism without adjectives.” These people have been advocating a sort of separatist tribalism without a democratic basis. In their estimation, various propertarian arrangements are equally as acceptable as democratic anarchism. Thus, pseudo-anarchist ideologies like “anarcho-capitalism,” “anarcho-monarchism,” and “anarcho-feudalism” are acceptable under their “panarchism” or “pan-anarchism.” Instead of identifying anarchism with a lack of rulers and the rejection of unjustified authority, these individuals define their “anarchism” in terms of the lack of a centralized State and the push for decentralization. These modern theorists also tend to be hostile to democracy and tend to favor the privatization of the State. They tend to be okay with all the coercive and unjust aspects of the modern State, so long as those aspects are abstracted from the State itself. Such theorists are often okay with structural racism, sexism, and capitalistic property as long as those institutions are upheld by private police and private courts rather than by any centralized justice system. I reject this new “anarchism without adjectives” in favor of the original anarchism without adjectives. All right-wing ideologies are incompatible with anarchism.
An ongoing dispute between myself and some in the anarcho-communist, syndicalist, and platformist camps has to do with the issue of “anarchism without adjectives.” I define anarchism as the historic human struggle against authority that goes back to ancient times, whereas their perspective defines anarchism as sectarian anarcho-communism as it was in the late 19th and early 20th century along. Reading LibCom is often like reading warmed over 1930s Trotskyist material.
A critique of AWA as non-specific sectarianism by Rage Against Capital
Since the rise of things like “Anarcho-capitalism” and the modern mutualist/”Left-Libertarian” movement social Anarchists have had to deal with something calling itself “Anarchism Without Adjectives”. Now this term has some historical relevance in the social Anarchist project, however it has since been disconnected from it’s original meaning and offered up in a kind of vague and moralistic manner. Many people who identify with this label come to the view that making any prescription of how the revolution will or should unfold is “authoritarian”. This leads to platformists and syndicalists like myself being viewed as soft Leninists, or Bolsehviks by said people even though both tenancies broke from the Bolshevik and Leninist line. This has left a lot of room for so called “ancaps” to continue their failed campaigns at hijacking political Anarchism for the far right with many of them cloaking their right wing ideology in a thin veil of pragmatism. They usually say something like “Well, we should probably try both Anarchist/Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism to see what works”. These people take on the label of “Anarchist Without Adjectives” when really they are just glorified ancaps. Anacaps already state that if social Anarchism works for many people then they will “let” it prosper. These people have essentially the same “voluntaryist” methodology as ancaps do and often advocate identical views of the market as sacrosanct.
This all means that AWA as it’s called leads to what Kropotkin might call “authoritarian individualism” where adherents reject any kind of social preparation for a revolutionary change in society and instead posit that the only way to do things that is consistent with Anarchist politics is essentially letting the chips fall where they may. If you cross this absolutist form of individualistic politics you are immediately branded as a “Leninist”, “Marxist”, “Bolshevik”, “authoritarian”, ect..
I want to give some historical context so that we can understand AWA fully which it’s modern day advocates seem not to be able to do.
Instead of a Blog
Positing for a moment the existence of a national state after the American revolutionary war, what should its attitude toward foreign lands be? I believe the answer is “none.”
Jefferson had no business conducting operations against the British in the War of 1812, nor against the Barbary Pirates. Though it may have escaped the notice of the Empire of Liberty’s spiritual architect, neither the Atlantic Ocean nor the shores of Tripoli are within the boundaries of the 13 colonies. What happens to people abroad – even Americans – is no business of the Feds. When Americans go abroad to do business, to fight revolutions, or to plunder natives the burden is upon themselves and the national governments of those regions to protect them. The American tax-payer or soldier has no obligation to defend the adventures of some bootlegger, nor does the American Federal Government have jurisdiction over them.
The national state should have no attitude toward the legitimacy of foreign states – it should neither recognize nor criticize them. In their public life, the duty of politicians is to sit down and shut the fuck up. Their opinions are not sought, nor relevant. They are to behave, in every way possible, as soulless automatons who are only due to come online when the specifically granted constitutional powers are invoked. When it is unclear, the bias should be toward inactivity.
Commerce with foreign nations – including the sale of heavy munitions – should be entirely within the sphere of private citizens. Likewise, the importation of arms in the United States – arms of any sort whatsoever – are no business of the Federal government. If US citizens wish to travel abroad as pirates, mercenaries, and revolutionaries the Federal government shall take no notice of this – nor shall they be responsible to extradite him for any crimes allegedly committed outside of its jurisdiction.
The sole, proper use of the money and military forces at the disposal of the Federal government (in this hypothetical scenario) would be to prevent the physical invasion by foreign armies against the constituent states. Beyond that, they have no ambit of operation, and can not draw upon one penny of the public funds either to support or undermine any foreign regime.
This is both good and bad news. Bad in the sense that the US empire, the leading killer in the world today, certainly needs to be abolished. Good in the sense that it would probably be best if the US empire was abolished in a way similar to the abolition of the British empire than the Roman empire. A full scale civilizational collapse like what Rome experienced in the Western region of the empire normally leads to terrible conditions, such as poverty, illiteracy, disease, and civil war. When the Soviet empire collapsed the average life expectancy in Russia was reduced by 20 years. However, the British empire was abolished with the British society remaining in tact and continuing as an advanced industrial state.
By Paul Ratner
We look to history to figure out if the past is either a prologue or a lesson to the present. In terms of political history, the comparison between the United States and the Roman Empire is attractive because not only do these two represent the most powerful nations of their time, the U.S. actually modeled some of its institutions and thinking after the Roman example. The recent political strife plaguing the U.S. seems to be getting worse by the day and invites the question whether America, like its ancient predecessor, is headed for a downfall. Certainly, from the historical perspective, no empire has lasted forever (so far) and the U.S. is due for a challenge.
Residents and officials packed a council meeting Monday evening, where former U.S. attorney Timothy Heaphy presented the findings of the independent review, which sharply criticized the police department for lacking the proper training and preparation to respond to the violent rally. At the first meeting since the report was publicly released Friday, residents expressed their anger and frustration with city officials and police.