STIGMERGY: The C4SS Blog
Media Coordinator Weekly Update: January 2-8, 2017

Howdy folks! It’s the end of the first week of 2017, and that means it’s time, finally, for an update on what we’ve been doing over the past seven days!

No More Hiatus

The last couple of months have been hectic here at C4SS. After the 10th anniversary and the Oklahoma SFL Regional Conference – and then, astonishingly, after the election – life just sort of went into overdrive. A lot of what we’ve been doing since November has been behind-the-scenes, and we’re super excited to reveal what we’ve come up with. And we’re not resting on our laurels from there, either.

That said, you can expect the return of weekly updates, starting now. Life may not come at us any slower but these updates will stand strong, immovable, against the tide of hi- what was I saying? Oh yeah, these will be going up regularly.

The Week in Commentary

Every week, we release new commentaries out to the media on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The following statistics are taken following each distribution.

Kevin Carson swept week one of 2017, pumping out articles on open manufacturing, the manufactured “white genocide” outrage and Nestlé’s outrageous policy of simply taking drinking water from communities whenever and wherever it pleases.

2017 and ‘Killer Apps’ for the Transition” was republished at Counterpunch, the Augusta Free Press and the Gilmer Mirror. It marks Carson’s first article at Counterpunch since September 2016.

Who are the Real ‘Genociders?’” was republished at the Augusta Free Press. “No Right to Free Water – Except for Nestlé” has not received any pickups yet because it was published on Saturday, which means it is scheduled for Monday (1/9) distribution. We’ll update you on this arcticle’s reprint status next week.

The Week in Features

While we don’t normally run or count features in the pickup list, this week we did see the republication of Edmund Berger’s stellar late December 2016 feature, “The Coming State of Fear,” in Counterpunch alongside Kevin’s “Transition.” It also got into the Shillong Times in India. It’s a fantastic piece on the incoming president’s desire to start a second Cold War with Vladimir Putin.

Logan Yershov penned their first new C4SS contribution in nearly two years with their takedown of Jeff Deist, “Anarchism not Nationalism.” The feature examines Deist’s reasoning behind their piece, “Market Borders not Open Borders,” and dismantles their idea that, as Yershov put it, “libertarians should embrace the quick-fix solution of selling privatization through the lens of border security.”

The Week in Book and Film Reviews

We got two new reviews this weekend!

James C. Wilson has a review of “Steal This Film,” a movie by the League of Noble Peers which delves into the history of, narrowly, the Pirate Bay; and broadly, file sharing itself. His verdict:

Both parts of the film provide a thought-provoking exploration of ideas that have only become more relevant since its release. Copyright critics and opponents should not only watch the film but share it, copy it and distribute it too.

C4SS editor Chad Nelson has a review of “Cloak and Jaguar: Following a Cat From Desert to Courtroom,” by Janay Brun. The book details the life – and death – of the second-known male jaguar living in the United States, as well as the events that followed its demise by human hands. Chad’s verdict:

Brun’s book concludes with, among other things, the mention of a newly-spotted male jaguar (might he be Macho B’s son or grandson, she wonders?) who has been seen regularly in Macho B’s old stomping grounds. There is hope that individual actors like Brun, who now know about the vicious assault on these beautiful animals, will be motivated to sabotage the conservationists’ and state wildlife authorities’ inevitable efforts to capture and kill him.

Destroy the traps, cover the animals’ tracks, and let them live in peace with the freedom and anonymity they deserve!

Housekeeping

Throughout the next month we’ll be rolling some new features out. Until then, I do just want to mention that we are a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that relies on your tax-deductible donations to keep rolling along, putting anarchy into the hands of folks all over the world. Come say hi at ISFLC 2017, be like the generous individuals who have already donated this month, or follow us on Twitter at @c4ssdotorg.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? email me at trevor@c4ss.org or tweet at me at @trevor_c4ss.

Help Bring C4SS to ISFLC 2017!

The Center for a Stateless Society is a left wing market anarchist think tank that utilizes academic studies, book reviews, op-eds, and social media to put left market anarchist ideas at the forefront of libertarianism and to eventually bring about a world where individuals are liberated from oppressive states, structural poverty, and social injustice.

Simply, the Center’s mission is to build a new world in the shell of the old. With Donald Trump ascending to the U.S. Presidency, showing college students and young people the radically egalitarian nature of freed markets is absolutely crucial to tilting the culture away from nationalism, statism, and fascism, and towards one of tolerance, direct action, solidarity, social cooperation, and anarchy.

The International Students For Liberty Conference is the year’s premier gathering of libertarian minds from all over the world – and C4SS is a mere $800 away from getting an exhibitor table at this event. This is a wonderful opportunity to promote radical left anarchist ideas among young liberty lovers from around the globe.

Every penny counts and the Center appreciates any and all help you are willing to give. Let’s get C4SS to ISFLC 2017 and start building the new world!

Donate here.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 152

Stephen Kinzer discusses China as a psychological problem.

John Payne discusses the War on Drugs and police militarization.

Richard W. Behan discusses the criminal warmaking of Dubya.

Jonathan Cook discusses Israeli hegemony in Palestine.

Renee Parsons discusses the alliance between the Democratic Party and the CIA.

Medea Benjmain discusses the Saudi war in Yemen and U.S. backing.

Daniel L. Davis discusses the fight for Mosul in Iraq.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the conflict in Syria.

Matt Peppe discusses the accusations of Russian interference in the recent U.S. presidential election.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the new Cold War mentality.

Christine Guluzian discusses the current Philipines presidet and U.S. relations with his country.

Roderick Long discusses why there is nothing wrong with flag burning.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discusses the bill allowing Americans to sue foreign govts for their acts of terrorism directed against them.

Jon Schwartz dicusses John Bolton and Iraq policy.

George H. Smith discusses how to argue successfully.

Nat Perry discusses the powers Donald Trump will inherit from Obama.

Richaed M. Ebeling discusses Adam Smith’s philosophy.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the collectivist mindset and empire. I am not in agreement with his view of Rex Tillerson.

Neve Gordon discusses Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Israel.

Edward Hunt discusses warfare under Obama.

Abigall R. Blanco discusses the U.S. history of interference in other countries.

Conor Friedersdorf discusses the ticking time bomb scenario justification for torture.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the Russian hacking allegations.

Sam Biddle discusses the protest by IBM employees over cooperation with Trump.

William J. Astore discusses

Thomas L. Knapp discusses the state and Christmas.

Laurence M. Vance discusses conservative nanny statism.

Robert Fisk discusses Samatha power and selective atrocity listing.

David Swanson discusses what racist registeries look like.

Daniel Larison discusses the double standards of interventionists in foreign policy.

Michael Rieger discusses the origins of Japanese liberalism.

Immigration and Liberty Symposium

The Molinari Society will be holding its annual Symposium in conjunction with the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association at the Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, 202 East Pratt Street, in Baltimore, January 4-7, 2017. Here’s the current schedule info:

Molinari Society symposium: Libertarianism and Refugees
GFC. Thursday, 5 January 2017, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 noon.

presenters:
James P. Sterba (University of Notre Dame), “Libertarianism and the Rights of Refugees
Jan Narveson (University of Waterloo, Ontario), “Accommodating Refugees and Respecting Liberty

commentators:
Charles W. Johnson (Molinari Institute)
Roderick T. Long (Auburn University)

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to participate in person, but my comments will be read out in absentia.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 151

The New York Times editorial board discusses the Senate torture report and declassification.

Doug Bandow discusses the rule of law and Donald Trump. There is a lot of right-wing banality in this piece, but it is still of possible interest to free market libertarians,

The New York Times editorial board discusses the drug war fueled slaughter in the Philipines.

Nick Sibilla discusses why undercover cops should stop stings against Uber drivers.

Emma M. Ashford discusses why Trump’s admin should drop the clash of civilizations thesis.

Khaled Abou El Fadl discusses being treated as a national security threat at the U.S.-Canadian border.

Patrick Cockburn discusses ongoing events in the Syrian conflict.

Nikolas K. Gvosdev discusses Russian foreign policy.

A. Barton Hinkle discusses threats to freedom of speech.

Scott McConnell discusses the problems with Bolton.

Alex Nowrasteh discusses the right-wing version of political correctness.

Laurence M. Vance discusses the freedom to travel.

Daniel Kovalik discusses violence in Colombia.

Rory Fanning discusses Japan’s growing anti-war movement.

Robert Fisk discusses the Syrian conflict.

Philip Giraldi discusses the bipartisan interventionist consensus.

Bonnie Kristan discusses three bad ideas from Trump.

Daniel Larison discusses John Bolton’s foreign policy views.

Greg Thielmann discusses John Bolton.

Jim Lobe discusses the worldview of Michael Flynn.

Ramzy Baroud discusses media coverage of the Syrian conflict.

Jacob T. Levy discusses identity politics and the defense of liberty.

Peter Certo discusses CIA subversion abroad.

Spencer Woodman discusses how Peter Thiel stands to benefit from mass deportations under Trump.

Alex Emmons and Mohammed Ali Kafood discuss cluster bombs and their use in Yemen.

Jeremy Scahill discusses a secret intelligence head blog.

Sam Biddle discussess the evidence for and against Russian interference in the ;ast U.S. presidential election.

James Bovard discusses the hypocrisy of governments around the world on corruption.

Phyllis Bennis discusses civilian control of the military.

Virginia Postre discusses the racist history of some progressives.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 150

Mark Selden discusses the American firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan.

Daniel DePetris discusses the War on Terror.

Laurence M. Vance discusses flag burning.

Laurence M. Vance discusses marijuana and a free society. I don’t agree with his view of what is immoral, but his stance in favor of marijuana being legal is valuable.

Ramzy Baroud discusses the crisis of political leadership in Palestine.

Paul Derienzo discusses Trump’s pick for national security advisor.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the consequences of U.S. interventionism.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses FDR and U.S. interventionism.

Christopher Preble discusses Trump’s foreign policy picks.

Glenn Greenwald discusses a person who put out fake news to try to discredit Wikileaks.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the smear campaign against Keith Ellison.

Rebecca Gordon discusses the U.S. backed war in Yemen.

Glenn Greenwald discusses why anonymous statements to the Washington Post don’t constitute evidence.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses economic fascism and Trump. I am not sure if his historical claim about Mussolini being “democratically elected” is accurate though.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the Russia-Trump controvsery.

Scott Shackford discusses the outgoing Obama’s attitude on War on Terror practices and compares it to the actual behavior of his admin.

Abigail Hall-Blanco discusses why we should end the War on Drugs in Afghanistan.

Thomas Knapp discusses military spending and Trump.

Patrick Cockburn discusses Turkey and the recent bombings there.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses the philosophy of Adam Smith.

The LA Times editorial board discusses the legalization of street vending in LA.

Doug Bandow discusses Kuwait and political change.

David Swanson discusses the dubious track record of the CIA.

Patrick Cockburn discusses British involvement in the Middle East.

Erin McCarley discusses white nationalist ideology throughout American history.

Yoav Litvin discusses the situation of the Israeli left and the parallels to America.

Yves Engler discusses BDA and anti-semitism accusations in Canada.

Charles R. Larson discusses a book on the Boko Haram kidnapping of over a 100 girls.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses JFK and the military establishment.

Nick Turse discusses U.S. foreign policy in Africa.

Against Greatness

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about making America “great again” – from a man who seems not to care how many people’s liberty he violates in order to pursue his conception of national greatness.

In this context, I’m happy to announce the Molinari Institute’s latest t-shirt, which features a quotation from Jeffersonian political activist Abraham Bishop, one of the most radical of the American founders:

“A nation which makes greatness its polestar can never be free.”

Thanks to Sheldon Richman for introducing me to this line, which comes from an 1800 antiwar speech titled Oration on the Extent and Power of Political Delusion; here’s a bit of context:

A nation which makes greatness its polestar can never be free; beneath national greatness sink individual greatness, honor, wealth and freedom. But though history, experience and reasoning confirm these ideas; yet all-powerful delusion has been able to make the people of every nation lend a helping hand in putting on their own fetters and rivetting their own chains, and in this service delusion always employs men too great to speak the truth, and yet too powerful to be doubted. Their statements are believed – their projects adopted – their ends answered and the deluded subjects of all this artifice are left to passive obedience through life, and to entail a condition of unqualified non-resistance to a ruined posterity.

Bishop’s other works include an attack on church-state unions and a defense of the insurgent slaves in the Haitian revolution (showing himself, in that connection, a better Jeffersonian than Jefferson himself, who sided with the slaveowners). Bishop also championed women’s education and was an early critic of the Constitution. So he wasn’t an anarchist? Well, nobody’s perfect.

The Fake News Scandal Isn’t Quite What You Think It Is

Welcome to Missing Comma, a bi-weekly look at anarchy in the news.

It would be remiss of us to bring Missing Comma back in the current age without talking about the “fake news” scandal – specifically, how fake it is as a scandal.

For those who have somehow missed the last month of legacy media content, the “fake news” scandal began in earnest on Nov. 17, when the Washington Post published an interview at their internet culture blog, the Intersect, with fake news website creator Paul Horner.

In this interview, Horner said, “I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].”

Until this point, the narrative on fake news was that it was a problem, and skewed people’s views during a particularly contentious election season. After this interview, the story – at least as the legacy media portrayed it – changed into something completely different, and interest in the idea of “fake news” as presented shot way up.

Google Trends shows a skyrocketing increase in interest in “fake news” around Nov. 13.

After the Horner interview, fake news became the new buzzword in the political press to mean anything from outright fabrications to satire to clickbait to ideologically-based media. There are even entire campaigns – such as PropOrNot – which aim to seek out such media, under the banner of fighting “Russian propaganda.”

Bewilderingly, PropOrNot has included longtime libertarian stalwarts Antiwar.com and our friends-in-anarchism over at the AntiMedia on their list of “over 200” established media organizations, fake news sites and blogs they’re calling “Russian propagandists.” It’s pretty weird, and their report is… a mess. But we’ll tackle that another time.

In truth, fake news has become a zaxlebax, a package-deal anti-concept that encompasses all of these wildly different media forms and describes nearly none of them correctly. The Onion has never claimed to be anything but satire. Upworthy has never said they don’t use clickbait headlines, and they’re not trying to mislead the public. C4SS, Antiwar, Infoshop or the AntiMedia have never claimed to be objective, nor have they ever misled their readers into believing they were fueled by anything other than their respective ideologies. The only media that really fits the bill of “fake news” in the sense most folks mean by it are actual, fake news websites like “abcnews.com.co” and tabloid news.

These organizations and individuals have no issue writing fake news stories, creating things that never happened, weaponizing people’s naivety and bigotry.

And to their credit, the folks over at the Washington Post’s Intersect blog recognize this and did a write-up on it the other day.

Snip:

Fake news has, in a period of weeks, gone from a concern about how we share news online today to a meme — one that allows nearly any source of information to be “fake.” It seems inevitable that the Internet will continue to twist the term “fake news” into new definitions.

John Herrman at the New York Times also recognized the issue with fake news as a concept:

“Fake news” as shorthand will almost surely be returned upon the media tenfold. The fake news narrative, as widely understood and deployed, has already begun to encompass not just falsified, fabricated stories, but a wider swath of traditional media on Facebook and elsewhere. Fox News? Fake news. Mr. Trump’s misleading claims about Ford keeping jobs in America? Fake news. The entirety of hyperpartisan Facebook? Fake news. This wide formulation of “fake news” will be applied back to the traditional news media, which does not yet understand how threatened its ability is to declare things true, even when they are.

Essentially, there is no longer a premium on credibility, and the same tactics that led to the rise of the alt-right as a meaningful force are on full display now. Redirect concern, misdirect from intent, obfuscate the truth.

Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at NYU, puts it best in a column he wrote last week. He said:

So what I mean by a miss bigger than a missed story is this. It is one thing to bypass the journalists and go directly to voters. It’s another to pull up the press by its roots. It’s one thing to lie for political advantage. It’s another to keep lying to prove you have the power. The retreat from empiricism was a disturbance in 2004. Twelve years later it is a political style in utter ascendency. “When we act, we create our own reality” was a boast in the Bush White House, a bit of outrageousness intended to shock the reporter. Now we have Trump’s attempt to substitute his reality for news of the world. Covering Trump was a massive challenge. Recovering from him may be all but impossible for the political press.

As anarchists, we here at C4SS have always engaged in what is, essentially, a propagandistic mission: to evangelize anarchism to folks outside of academic or activist circles and create cultures of conversation about radical politics in small towns through the main vehicle of small-town talk – the local newspaper. But we have never done so by hiding our intentions or shying away from calling ourselves anarchists. As a result, we have, in recent years, seen diminishing returns from newspapers that once ran our work and now don’t. But telling the truth about our politics and then offering ideas surrounding that has always been our aim, and not one we’re going to drop.

There is an idea I’ve had about media since I started writing Missing Comma in 2013. Namely, it’s that you could apply the same ethics and integrity that power legacy media like the New York Times and Washington Post to media run, staffed and read by anarchists. That you could create media with the same standards of quality and ideas about gathering information and presenting it to people that “mainstream” press did, but without any of the pretense toward neutrality, or away from ideological viewpoints. I don’t know that we’ve done that yet. I’d like to see us try. It might make the next however many years easier.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist 149

David Swanson discusses why flag burning matters.

Ray McGovern discusses David Petraeus.

Thomas L. Knapp discusses flag burning.

Ramzy Baroud discusses a day of action on behalf of Palestine.

Stephen Kinzer discusses reconciling with Iran and Russia.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses blowback and U.S. foreign policy.

Glenn Greenwald discusses far nationalist movements and Islamophobia.

Alex Emmons and Lee Fang discuss the anti-Muslim DHS Trump pick.

Tom Engelhardt discusses the most dangerous country on Earth.

Mike Ludwig discusses how Trump’s admin will hurt people of color via the War on Drugs.

Phillip Carter and Loren DeJonge Schulman discuss Trump’s appointment of so many military officers to positions in the govt.

Sheldon Richman discusses why Trump and conservatives aren’t friends of liberty.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses ending the Cuban embargo.

David S. D’Amato discusses government and community.

Medea Benjamin discusses a tribunal on the Iraq War.

Joshua Frank discusses the accusation that CounterPunch publishes Russian propaganda.

Uri Avnery discusses forest fires and anti-Arab propaganda in Israel.

John Feffer discusses Trump’s predictability.

Christopher J. Fettweis discusses a book by two neoconservatives.

Uri Friedman discusses how Donald Trump will describe the War on Terror.

Pratap Chatterjee discusses what Obama could do in his remaining days as president to help make sure Trump doesn’t exercise too much horrific power.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses David Hume on economics and markets.

C.J. Polychroniou interviews Andrew Bacevich on U.S. foreign policy.

Michael J. Glennon discusses Trump and the national security state.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the income tax.

W.T. Whitney discusses the peace process in Colombia.

Patrick Cockburn discusses reporting out of Iraq and Syria.

Michael D. Yates discusses a book by an antiwar Vietnam veteran.

Eli Clifton discusses one of Trump’s national security appointee’s view on Islam.

David Swanson discusses Russia and U.S. foreign policy.

They Love Us When We’re Dead

I made this comment on Facebook a few weeks back, but I thought it was worth repeating here:

One thing that (many) social anarchists and (many) ancaps have in common is that they recognise anticapitalist individualist market anarchists as valuable comrades (albeit erring ones) as long as they’re dead 19th-century figures like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, and Voltairine de Cleyre, and even include them in their favourite anthologies, but as soon as they encounter actual living 21st-century examples of anticapitalist individualist market anarchists, they cringe in horror and shriek either “capitalist!” or “commie!” depending on the direction of deviation.

Everyone Wildly Surprised That Anarchists Are Anarchists

Again and again over the last month’s political turmoil folks from all political comers—and many that should damn well know better—have gone absolutely apoplectic to discover anarchists still consistently denouncing and opposing authoritarianism, from Castro to Trump, maoists to alt-righters. In short they’re seemingly wildly surprised that anarchists are anarchists. In one absurd instance I was personally called a “dogmatic hack” who “only cares about anti-authoritarianism.” Well yes. What did you think anarchism was about? Such hilarious expressions of shock have been widespread across social media. Among the left there’s been a unending feed of: “Wait, you even oppose left-wing dictators?!!” “Wait, you even oppose indigenous nationalists?!!” (And similar if more absurd consternation from those of a right-wing bent who are just shocked to discover that abolishing states would also involve abolishing borders, or that an ethical commitment to liberty means uncompromising opposition to noxious and oppressive collectivist ideologies like white supremacy and patriarchy.)

Now there are of course sometimes complex strategic considerations in practice, but anarchists are not going to stop holding anarchist values and working towards anarchist ends. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Yet the toxoplasma of the US election has once again revealed that so many people see anarchism not as an ethical philosophy or value set but either as a weird subculture within their tribe (or their enemy’s), or as a mere set of tools and tactics.

Anarchism is not defined by association. It’s not a flag of convenience. Its definition is given in the name: an-archia. Without rulership. We oppose all domination and constraint of people. We seek a world of perpetually expanding freedom and possibility as all the things that limit and control us are uprooted or bypassed. We think that such a vision is possible because we don’t ultimately see individual freedoms as conflicting with one another. We don’t carve the world up into distinct groups and clusters, rather we seek to build greater interconnection. This is because we look at freedom as a whole.

Anarchism is a simple statement: “The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. I am truly free only when all minds are equally free. The freedom of other minds, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise & confirmation.” —Bakunin

We care about all and seek to liberate all. Not merely our friends or countrymen. Not merely people within some cultural tribe. We’re not left-wingers plus bandannas. We’re not right-wingers plus bowties. We’re anarchists. We don’t fight for your group, we fight for freedom.

This means opposition to all constraints. From dictators to cops to politicians to the imposition of the majority’s wishes. From cancerous cognitive shortcuts that fetishize false entities like collective identities and organizations, to gods and spirits. From economic systems that keep billions in poverty and starvation that go by a certain name, to economic systems that keep billions in poverty and starvation that go by a different name. Etc. etc. etc.

The struggle for liberty does not terminate with some simplistic demand like a better system of property rights or the end of white supremacy and colonialism. It extends as infinitely as the cosmos, as deeply as any relationship between two minds can be. There is no “good enough” just as there are never “but surely this exception.” Anarchism is as uncompromising as it is audacious.

We cannot betray your team because we were never on the side of anyone but freedom.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 148

Bonnie Kristian discusses the folly of U.S. interventionism around the world.

William Seabolt discusses tax avoidance as an American tradition.

Laurence M. Vance discusses what Trump shouldn’t do as president.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the War on Drugs and Trump.

Sheldon Richman discusses a new book on love, marriage, and the state.

Peter Van Buren discusses the war on the first amendment.

Chris Floyd discusses the new scare around Russia.

Neve Gordon discusses right-wing Israeli political figures who ignore anti-semites in the Trump admin.

Andrew Levine discusses Jewishness and Trump.

Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton discuss accusations of pro-Russia media bias.

David Gordon discusses a book on Bernie Sanders and crony capitalism.

Eric Margolis discusses the 1956 Israeli invasion of Egypt.

David Swanson discusses truths uttered by Trump’s national security advisor.

Stanley L. Cohen discusses Israel.

Dave Lindorff discusses accusations that he writes pro-Russia propaganda.

Brian Cloughley discusses Trump’s potential secretary of defense.

Patrick Cockburn discusses Trump and torture.

Robert Fisk discusses Anne Frank.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses Castro’s end and the national security state.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses Adam Ferguson.

Ivan Eland discusses presidential war as unconstitutional.

Andrew J. Bacevich discusses why Americans war are not being won.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the War on Terror and Islam.

Wendy McElroy discusses the difference between republic and empire.

Doug Bandow discusses U.S. policy towards Cuba.

Rebecca Gould discusses how U.S. interventionism gave us Trump.

Trevor Timm discusses the war powers Trump will inherit from Obama.

Daniel Larison discusses Trump’s national security advisor’s take on Yemen.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses a book on a man who helped save Jews in WW2.

Doug Bandow discusses handing over NATO to Europe.

Burn a flag for Donald Trump

It seems silly to continue harping on the incoming tidal wave of fascism, but if there’s one thing C4SS – and the anarchist tradition in general – is good at, it’s making sure you don’t forget that we’re in for a long god damn ride.

screen-shot-2016-11-29-at-1-05-18-pm

Earlier today, Trump tweeted that anyone who burns the American flag should face “consequences,” including up to a year in prison, loss of citizenship or both. Flag burning is, by the way, a constitutionally-protected act of symbolic speech, which is something that would normally be important to this discussion but since we’re dealing with fascism-as-a-ruling-party it’s suddenly just an interesting sort of factoid.

Meaningless legalism aside, what Trump means when he says that flag-burners should be imprisoned and stripped of their citizenship is that dissenters and protesters should be imprisoned and stripped of their citizenship. (At the very least, the mental hop you need to take to go from one to the other is fantastically tiny.)

I’ve heard a lot of folks say that we should ignore the wacky things Donald Trump says in public and on Twitter. Their justifications usually revolve around two main planks: that Trump is a richer, now-more-powerful version of an internet troll in that if you ignore him he’ll find something else to focus on and stop saying bonkers things about freedom of speech, dissent, etc.; and that he’s saying this stuff because he knows the media will focus more on his wild proclamations than on his failed business empire, his myriad conflicts of interest and his general myopia about becoming president.

At this point I think the evidence bears itself out nicely that internet trolls don’t just go away if you starve them of attention. More importantly I think we’re finally presented with the proof that there’s a marked fucking difference between your garden variety, annoying internet trolls and the assortment of neo-fascists, cultural conservatives and thugs Trump now represents on an international stage.

If there has ever been any doubt that resistance to Trump is necessary, here’s your moment of clarity: even if he can’t do a quarter of the things he says he wants to do, even if he ends up becoming a mockery of fascism, a modern-day Charlie Chaplain-in-the Great Dictator, it’s still too fucking much. He’s still making proclamations that show us where he wants to take the country. It’s absolutely right to assert that we can’t ignore his failures and missteps – but we can’t ignore this, either. We can’t ignore what he says, or allow it to become normal in our ears and eyes and thoughts.

 

 

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 147

Ray McGovern discusses the installation of a pro-torture head at the CIA.

Murtaza Hussain discusses the drone program and a new documentary on it.

Christopher A. Preble discusses funding state sponsers of terroism.

Yasmeen Elkhoudary discusses why people in Gaza aren’t mourning HRC’s loss.

David Swanson discusses the use of camps during WW2 for enemy aliens.

Binoy Kampmark discusses undocumented migrants and Trump’s plans for them.

Charles R. Larson discusses a book called War Porn.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses a precursor to Adam Smith.

Patrick Cockburn discusses how Trump will launch new U.S. wars in the Middle East.

William Hartung discusses Trump’s military spending plans.

Glenn Greenwald discusses a meeting between the press and Trump.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses non-interventionism in foreign policy.

Laurence M. Vance discusses occupational licensing and the libertarian alternative.

Peter Van Buren discusses the powers Trump will have as president.

Doug Bandow discusses Trump’s foreign policy appointments.

Bruce Fein discusses American foreign policy’s focus on global dominance.

David Swanson discusses one of Trump’s national security state appointees.

Conn Hallinan discusses the War on Terror.

Alex Kane discusses Trump’s pick for national security advisor.

Lara Friedman discusses Jewish values and Israel.

Alan Grayson discusses the U.S. war in Iraq.

Ramzy Baroud discusses the Israel-Palestine issue.

Michael Brendan Dougherty discusses what the U.S. should do to end the war in Yemen.

David Swanson discusses U.S. foreign policy and healthy relationships.

Melvin Goodman discusses Trump’s campaign of militarization.

Matt Peppe discusses why we shouldn’t respect the presidency.

Paul Edwards discusses national genocide day.

Binoy Kampmark discusses refugees and the Australian govt.

Gareth Porter discusses Trump’s national security advisor’s role in creating a system of mass murder in Afghanistan.

William J. Astore discusses the notion that the U.S. is an indispenable nation.

Riseup’s Canary Has Died

UPDATE: Riseup has sent out a tweet asking people not to panic, asserting that they still have full control over their servers, and saying more information will come at some future date. Their studious failure to refute having a gag order basically certifies the existence of one. But again, don’t panic. A gag order doesn’t mean their servers are compromised. We have every reason to trust that Riseup would rather pull the plug.

Popular provider of web tools for activists and anarchists and backbone of much infrastructure for internet freedom, Riseup.net has almost certainly been issued a gag order by the US government.

Riseup regularly updates a canary located here certifying that they haven’t received a gag order, court orders or the like. That canary has gone dead (ie has not been updated). In addition just before it expired Riseup posted a tweet with Cohen lyrics “listen to the hummingbird, whose wings you cannot see, listen to the hummingbird, don’t listen to me” and a tweet saying “we have no plans on pulling the plug” with a screencap of the segment of their FAQ that says they’d rather pull the plug on services than comply with surveillance. Of course this entry in their FAQ also says you should back up email in preparation for such a shutdown.

My read is that Riseup is complying with the gag order while fighting the surveillance demanded in court. Riseup is made up of long-time anarchist activists who would feel obliged to go to prison rather than collaborate in snitching out others. However there is a small chance someone could crack from threats of decades in prison. Additionally there’s a much more substantive chance that regardless of their optimism Riseup may soon be forced to close everything down.

This is an incredibly unfortunate development given the Riseup collective’s longstanding role for many activists and radicals in providing email, listservs, VPNs, and assorted tools like Etherpad. However this should serve as a stark wakeup call about the dangers of relying on centralized services. The last decade has seen a collapse of the once varied and widely networked internet into a number of centralized services (like Facebook and Gmail, but also Riseup and Signal).

If you currently use Riseup you shouldn’t panic, but there are a number of productive steps you can take:

1) Backup all your emails on your Riseup account locally. This may require you to (install and) connect Thunderbird to your email account rather than just using the webmail through your browser. See this array of options for backing up while using IMAP.  (Additionally it’s a good idea to enable full disk encryption or separately encrypt your email back up. The EFF has guides for full disk encryption for Windows. For Macs see this. Ubuntu, Linux Mint and several other Linux variants provide full disk encryption as an option when first installing the operating system.)

2) Get another email address that you can use as a fallback. Riseup maintains a list of other server services run by radicals. Protonmail is based in Switzerland, although be a bit suspicious about the “encryption” claims they make, there are problems. There are many other email providers. Gandi is popular. Time to shop around or — if you’re a confident sysadmin — roll up your sleeves and run your own email server.

3) Set up another listserv with another provider if your group currently uses riseup for listservs.

4) You can set up email forwarding with Riseup. Either to pipe emails to your Riseup account to your new account or pipe emails to your new account to Riseup (if say you want to start popularizing a new email address but continue primarily answering through Riseup for the time being).

5) Remember that while some providers may encrypt emails once received on their server, all email is basically sent unencrypted between servers and often stored unencrypted. Every email is a postcard, readable by nearly everyone. Unless you and the person you’re corresponding with use PGP. So use PGP. It can be daunting to set up and to get a handle on using (the user interface is infamously non intuitive), however PGP is very useful and provides a good baseline. Email is a federated (moderately decentralized) protocol in wide use that will thus be one of the last services shut down by authoritarians (unlike encryption services that use centralized servers like Signal). The EFF has good guides to setting up PGP for Linux, Windows, and Mac. And Micah Lee has a good overview of it.

iRad II.1 in Print, iRad I.4 Online

After a couple of years’ hiatus (for financial reasons), The Industrial Radical is back! The fifth issue of the Molinari Institute’s left-libertarian market-anarchist magazine goes in the mail to subscribers this week. (The Molinari Institute is the parent organisation of the Center for a Stateless Society.)

The page files for this issue have been ready to go for a while, being originally intended for our Autumn 2013 issue – which means that some of the references to current events are a bit dated. (The next issue will be up to date, with all new content.) But the theoretical content remains timeless.

Issue II.1 features articles by Sebastian A.B., John Ahrens, Paul Buchheit, Kevin Carson, Dawie Coetzee, Nathan Goodman, Charles Johnson, Irfan Khawaja, Thomas Knapp, Jennifer McKitrick, Skyler Miller, Grant Mincy, and Sheldon Richman, on topics ranging from border security, technological design, prison abolition, jury nullification, police misconduct, overpopulation, and the Keystone XL pipeline, to the persecution of whistleblowers, feminist and antifeminist censorship, civil strife in Egypt and Syria, torture, necrophilia, and the economic structure of state capitalism.

Industrial Radical II.1 (Autumn 2016)

With each new issue published, we post the immediately preceding issue online. Hence a free pdf file of our previous issue (I.4, Summer 2013) is now available here. (See the first, second, and third issues also.)

Want to write for The Industrial Radical? See our information for authors and copyright policy (which, incidentally, will change from CC BY-SA to the less restrictive CC BY starting with the next issue).

Want to subscribe to The Industrial Radical? Visit our online shop.

Want to give an additional donation to the Molinari Institute (and help to prevent a future hiatus)? Contribute to our General Fund.

The Origins of Fascism In Democracy

People are quick to criticize the labeling of authoritarian political movements as fascist, saying it minimizes the term’s significance. This is both the right and wrong approach. This views sees fascism as a rare and exceptional mode of political rule, but democracy is shot through with the logic of fascism. Fascism is the absolute of all absorption of all private interests and power structures into the state. All within the state. Nothing outside the state. Democracy on the other hand says: All through the state. Nothing without the state. We see democracy as a method for solving all problems and as something we all take part in. Democracy is just a more diffuse valorization of power.

Many often advertise it simply as the best means to direct the activities of the state, but what could be presented as evidence against this ability? We’ve seen now the religious regard our society has for democracy by its mass celebration over our military “liberation” of foreign nations. They too need the practical sense inherent to democratic order, and damn the consequences!

Democracy prepares us for fascism. It teaches us to identify ourselves with political power by arming us with the illusion that we too possess it. All interests are at least political. Then that political power quickly becomes what is seen as unifying us. Through the state we are one and we are nothing without it. Then when someone comes to us, offering us nothing but the strength to harness that power, to do away with the state’s inefficiencies and its disloyalty to the people, its foreign influences, the people will clamor for it. National greatness becomes the measure and the source of all value.

The Emergence Of Collectibles & Money In The Paleolithic

Nick Szabo, a famous theorist of money and possible inventor of Bitcoin, returned this year with this post eviscerating the theory that the beads collected by early man were about conveying symbolic information. Instead Szabo argues compellingly that the critical component of the shell-bead technology that was so central to human existence for a hundred thousand years was its unforgeable costliness and thus constrained supply curve. Szabo’s post — and the rest of his work — is highly recommended.

In this far more persuasive picture than Graeber’s, money is arguably the technology that initially set humans apart from other animals and allowed us to scale up our social collaboration and calculation of altruism beyond our shitty memories. As such there is no primitive and fully communist man, distinctly innocent of money, to be returned to, rather humans have always been deeply enmeshed with markets and technology.

See this lengthy review of Graeber’s Debt for more analysis into why his account of the emergence of money is incomplete and problematic.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 146

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses whether Trump will follow in the footsteps of Bush-Obama or not.

Sharon Presely discusses political correctness.

Trevor Timm discusses Trump being handed the keys to the warfare state.

Ramona Wadi discusses the Letelier assassination.

David Swanson discusses building a movement.

Radley Balko discusses criminal justice reform and the recent election.

Joshua Frank discusses why we shouldn’t mourn Hilary’s loss.

Ramzy Baroud discusses a power struggle in Palestine.

Arun Gupta discusses Trump and racism.

Brian Cloughley discusses U.S. polucy with respect to China and Russia.

Emma Ashford discusses Trump’s possible foreign policy.

Rev. Chris J. Antal discusses learning from veterans.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the Trump presidency.

Jim Babka discusses loss and military personnel.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses indifference to death and destruction in American foreign policy.

Jon Basil Utley discusses Trump and the neoconservatives.

Tom Englehardt discusses the end of the American experiment and Trump.

Murtaza Hussian discusses the fears of Muslim Americans in the aftermath of Trump’s victory.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the importance of whistleblowing in the Trump era.

Ted Galen Carpenter discusses what Trump’s foreign policy will be like.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses whether Trump will give us another 4 years of Bush-Obama style foreign policy.

Phyllis Bennis discusses how to end the war in Syria.

Daniel L. Davis discusses the direction American foreign policy should go.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses the Fable of the Bees.

Laurence M. Vance discusses why he didn’t vote.

David Max Korzen discusses being thanked for his service.

George H. Smith discusses how to argue on behalf of libertarianism.

David S. D’Amato discusses property rights as the basis of freedom.

David Swanson discusses a new request for war funds.

Uri Avnery discusses Trump.

Richman Interview on Anarchism

Sheldon Richman recently visited Amherst College to speak at the Amherst Political Union. Tommy Raskin caught up with Richman for a brief discussion about anarchism. Here’s the video.

Anarchy and Democracy