Shamus Cooke discusses Obama’s far right foreign policy.

Cory Massimino discusses the relationship between liberalism and libertarianism.

Patrick Cockburn discusses how war has changed.

Brian J. Trautman discusses endless war.

Casey Given discusses how the anti-gay bills are not libertarian.

Dave Lindorff discusses the U.S. lecturing of Russia about international law.

John Bew discusses the origins of realpolitik.

Tom Engelhardt discusses the new world order.

Sheldon Richman discuses the Ukrainian issue.

Justin Raimondo discusses the rise of Ukrainian fascism.

Peter Linebaugh discusses drones and slavery.

Curtis F J Doebbler discusses U.S. hypocrisy on international law.

Laurence M. Vance discusses constitutionalist support for the drug war.

Sheldon Richman discusses work.

Conor Friedersdorf discusses Obama’s complicity in covering up torture.

Neve Gordon discusses a novel about Iraq.

Uri Avnery discusses Netanyahu.

George H. Smith discusses Robert Nisbet and Thomas Sowell.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses immigration politics.

Richard Falk reviews Omar.

Ludwig Watzal reviews Understanding Shadows: The Corrupt Use of Intelligence.

Lina Khan discusses Dragnet Nation.

Josh Ruebner discusses Gareth Porter’s new book on Iran.

Norman Solomon discusses Hilary’s use of the Hitler meme.

Andrew J. Bacevich discusses American exceptionalism.

Peter Van Buren discusses a court case pertaining to whistleblowers.

Kelly Vlahos discusses a skeptic about the surge.

Arthur Silber discusses Edward Snowden.

Kevin Carson discusses upward wealth redistribution.

Alekhine beats Capablanca in their first world championship match game.

This game is called the immortal game.

C4SS Media presents Natasha Petrova‘s “Hayek vs Rothbard On Coercion,” read by James Tuttle and edited by Nick Ford.

“An expansive definition of coercion allows libertarians to achieve a greater depth of understanding about the various ways in which people can be coerced. If we wish to comprehensively eradicate initiatory coercion; we will have to understand the many ways in which it can manifest itself. Apart from the obvious use of physical force; there is the use of economic reward and punishment and social ostracism. Both of which can be used to control people.”

Is there a connection between egoism and nihilism? Does Ayn Rand’s brand of ethical egoism amount to a form of nihilism? These are the questions addressed in this blog post.

Let us turn to dictionary.com for a definition of nihilism:

ni·hil·ism:
1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler’s last years.
4. Philosophy,
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.

The term nihilism will be used to refer to definitions “a” and “b” under philosophy. It will most definitely not be used to describe anarchism or anarchy.

Dictionary.com also provides us with a definition of egoism:

e·go·ism:
1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one’s personal interest; selfishness (opposed to altruism ).
2. egotism or conceit.
3. Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest.

Only if having objective values is equated with selflessness does it make sense to see nihilism and egoism as the same thing. An egoist can believe in rationally validated principles or values that are more than just subjective preferences. Self-interest is not equivalent to believing in nothing. Ayn Rand’s brand of egoism included the belief in an objective reality and morality.

I have known several egoists who evidenced no signs of nihilism. They could be as thoughtful and caring as anyone else. The notion that the two are the same thing is not borne out by empirical observation of actual egoists.

What implications does this have for left-libertarian thought? Should we left-libertarians embrace egoism? That isn’t a question I have an answer to. It certainly deserves further reflection and debate. I personally remain undecided on the question. It’s up to others to jumpstart a debate on it.

If the above question is answered in the affirmative; the next one is what brand of egoism to adopt. The egoism of Rand or Stirner? I leave that as an additional question for my readers to ponder.

Bitcoin has had a rough couple of weeks. With the closure and bankruptcy of MtGox and the closure-from-hacking of at least one smaller “bank,” the value of Bitcoin has fluctuated wildly. Predictably, this instability have caused some media outlets to make the exaggerated and premature announcement of the cryptocurrency’s death. But while most in the media are content to talk about Bitcoin the way they’d never talk about the dollar, Newsweek decided they would up the ante and “find” the mysterious creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.

Certain publications, such as Salon, have taken to this story like a pig to mud, claiming a victory for the forces of the State over those scary, evil, unregulated market transactions and their crypto-communo-fascist-libertarian-anarchist-conservative followers. The thinking behind this is shallow, as is generally the case; if you can find and reveal Nakamoto, you now have someone to pin all of Bitcoin’s mistakes to. See also: attaching a leader to Occupy, or pinning the Koch Brothers simultaneously to everything labeled “libertarian” and confusing that with everything labeled “awful, statist and conservative.”

Now that Satoshi Nakamoto has been found, the punditry has someone to blame the Silk Road, MtGox’s failure and Dogecoin on. Except it’s becoming more and more unlikely that Newsweek actually found him.

Here’s the timeline:

On March 6, Leah McGrath Goodman published her cover story for Newsweek – the first print Newsweek cover story since they went online-only in 2012. It details a months-long hunt to find and talk to the man Goodman believes started Bitcoin. At one point, early in the article, she writes,

“It seemed ludicrous that the man credited with inventing Bitcoin – the world’s most wildly successful digital currency, with transactions of nearly $500 million a day at its peak – would retreat to Los Angeles’s San Gabriel foothills, hole up in the family home and leave his estimated $400 million of Bitcoin riches untouched. It seemed similarly implausible that Nakamoto’s first response to my knocking at his door would be to call the cops.”

Goodman found Dorian Nakamoto through an email list she obtained from a company that makes model train parts. They began a correspondence which ceased abruptly the moment she brought up Bitcoin. She then proceeded to contact Nakamoto’s family members, as well as Gavin Andresen, whose own contact with the founder of Bitcoin was limited to code and media angle and ceased when Andresen brought up that he was going to be speaking about Bitcoin to CIA officials.

From Dorian Nakamoto’s family, Goodman discovered a Cal-Poly-trained physicist who loved model trains and who excelled in anything having to do with engineering, computers and math, but who craved privacy and kept secrets; from Andresen, she learned exactly what everyone else has known since Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared in 2011: that he was secretive, that he never talked about his personal life, and that the Bitcoin project was possibly a political statement.

On March 7, Dorian Nakamoto agreed to do an interview – no cops this time – with Ryan Nakashima from the Associated Press. Nakamoto denied any knowledge of Bitcoin until his son contacted him three weeks earlier, saying repeatedly, “I got nothing to do with it.” He was bombarded by press wanting to get in contact with him and eventually announced that he would only talk to one reporter over lunch. During that interview, Nakamoto said he had been misunderstood:

“I’m saying I’m no longer in engineering. That’s it. And even if I was, when we get hired, you have to sign this document, contract saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that’s what I implied.”

Also on March 7, Newsweek and Leah McGrath Goodman released a statement standing fully behind their cover story:

Ms. Goodman’s research was conducted under the same high editorial and ethical standards that have guided Newsweek for more than 80 years. Newsweek stands strongly behind Ms. Goodman and her article. Ms. Goodman’s reporting was motivated by a search for the truth surrounding a major business story, absent any other agenda. The facts as reported point toward Mr. Nakamoto’s role in the founding of Bitcoin.

Finally on March 7, the P2P Foundation account of Satoshi Nakamoto went live for the first time in years – to debunk the Newsweek article: “I am not Dorian Nakamoto.”

While none of this points to Dorian Nakamoto’s disqualification from the character, nothing so far points conclusively to him being the founder of Bitcoin either.

Since then, a host of ancillary blogs and punditry pieces have been published debating the facts and myths of the Newsweek article. But the crown jewel of them all has to be Salon’s aforementioned sneering, oddly sure of itself anti-libertarian “checkmate” piece, written on March 7, that boldly declares,

“If you invent a multibillion-dollar digital currency explicitly designed to remake the global financial system that gains serious traction, people will want to know who you are. If you mastermind an anarcho-libertarian project to break the hold of governments over money, history will demand answers — and good reporters will find them.”

That Goodman is a good reporter is not up to question here; what is questionable is how good the reporting in this particular instance is. It isn’t just Bitcoin fanatics that have criticized the article – other journalists have questioned it as well. As media critic Jay Rosen said in a column at PressThink:

“Show your work. Don’t tell us how much work went into it. You publish your story, you know it’s going to come under attack, you prepare for battle and when the time is right you release the evidence you have. Instead: ‘Goodman feels that she should be given the respect due a serious and reputable investigative journalist, working for a serious and reputable publication.’ That’s not ‘show your work.’ That’s, ‘You didn’t hear us. We are Newsweek magazine.’ They heard you. They don’t care. And they know that Newsweek sold for $1 a few years ago.”

It bears mentioning that Goodman did not shine a light on the evil anarcho-libertarian funny money conspiracy that Salon would so love to destroy. Read charitably, her article does one thing only: reveals the founder of Bitcoin. So the question of whether there is a plot “to break the hold of governments over money” goes fundamentally unanswered in this case – which, speaking frankly, makes the whole point of that Salon article seem silly.

And that’s really the lesson for today: if you’ve got an ideological agenda, maybe don’t make giant proclamations that your enemies have lost before the battle has begun.

Very soon, S4SS will begin issuing its monthly newsletter, The New Leveller. It will be a running discussion devoted to radical libertarian and individualist anarchist thought, and, drawing off of nineteenth-century periodicals like Benjamin Tucker’s Liberty and Moses Harmon’s Lucifer, the Lightbearer, it will feature plenty of fire. The primary purpose of the New Leveller is to provide another voice for the most radical and unfiltered impulses in market anarchism.

Anyone interested in either feeding the flames by contributing, or in subscribing to the newsletter so that they can watch them go higher and higher, is more than welcome to contact as at the.new.leveller@gmail.com. Submissions should range (roughly) 500-1000 words, focused on content that would either help introduce people to the ideas of individualist anarchism, develop and explore the ideas of individualist anarchism for those already familiar with it, or analyze an issue from within a framework of individualist anarchism will be welcome. Basically, anything that you think might have fit with the aforementioned periodicals, or in the earlier issues of Murray Rothbard’s Libertarian Forum. Since this is a publication of the Students for a Stateless Society, we especially welcome content from students.

Those interested in getting an idea of what to expect can read the full text of the first editorial here.

“… So why call this publication ‘The New Leveller?’ Why use a name from the 17^th-century that wasn’t even liked by the group that got stuck with it?

We proudly take on the name ‘New Leveller,’ because as individualist anarchists, we are their philosophical descendants. Furthermore, even if they didn’t see it this way, there is something they were working to level, and it still needs leveling. …”

C4SS Media presents Thomas L. Knapp‘s “Depends On What “Corruption” Is,” read by James Tuttle and edited by Nick Ford.

“We don’t need the politicians or their cronies. We don’t have to put up with them. And we should stop doing so.”

State violence thrives in the dark. This is why the state secrets privilege is so abused, it’s why the Obama administration has viciously persecuted whistleblowers, and it’s why states benefit from a  media climate where their legitimacy is assumed and radical ideas aren’t heard. So today I want to highlight some people both inside and outside prisons who are shining light on the prison state.

In Alabama, prisoners are filming each other on smuggled cell phones to tell their stories and express grievances about human rights abuses in Alabama prisons. These videos are then posted on a YouTube channel affiliated with the Free Alabama Movement. As Bay Area Intifada explains, “the prisoners speak of deplorable conditions, slave labor, prisons being a continuation of slavery and many candid stories from their lives inside and outside the cement walls of Alabama’s prisons.” The very nature of the prisoners’ non-violent disobedience tells us something about Alabama prisons. The communication mechanism they use to engage in political speech, the cell phone, is prohibited by prison officials. Only by disobeying the prison’s institutional rules can the truth about prisons be revealed. Prisons are designed to suppress communication, dissent, and the accountability that might result from openness. The Free Alabama Movement deserves the support of all who care about freedom and justice, and I’ll continue posting on their story in the coming weeks.

Outside of prison walls, I’ve been seeing prison abolitionist ideas in various media sources. Anarchist journalist Charles Davis published an excellent article at Vice that discusses prison abolition and interviews Isaac Ontiveros of Critical Resistance. The interview covers a lot of important questions about prison abolition, including what to do about violent criminals, what tactics to use right now, and the risks of reform. Critical Resistance is one of the most significant prison abolitionist groups in the world today, and it’s always excellent to see their work highlighted at a popular website like Vice.

My friend Cory Massimo also recently published a guest post at The Stag Blog offering a libertarian case for prison abolition. He argues for a system based purely on restitution rather than punishment, and contends that prisons are the wrong response even to those who have violated the rights of others. I’m glad to see prison abolitionist ideas gaining traction in libertarian circles, and I hope they will continue to gain traction.

Shining light on the prison state doesn’t just mean talking about prisons themselves. Prisons are closely related to a variety of other political issues. For example, the prison industrial complex includes immigration detention centers th tat lock up migrants for deportation. Issues like border militarization should thus be core issues for those of us concerned about the prison industrial complex. Lucy Steigerwald has a great new column at AntiWar.com called “The War at Home,” which examines how issues like immigration restrictions, policing, prisons, and surveillance interact with militarism and the warfare state. Her first column, released this week, deals with border militarization. Border militarization tramples civil liberties while lining the pockets of both war profiteers and prison profiteers. I’m glad to see the issue being addressed at AntiWar.com.

The way borders operate as part of militarism, empire, capitalism, and the prison-industrial complex is also explored in Harsha Walia’s book Undoing Border Imperialism, which I recently started reading. The book develops a theoretical framework for seeing immigration restrictions not just as a domestic policy decision, but as a structural feature of empire. Moreover, the book discusses the tactics used by a network of anti-colonial and anti-state migrant justice organizations called No One Is Illegal, which operates throughout Canada. I haven’t finished reading the book yet, but so far it’s excellent and I highly recommend it.

Today’s a good day to mention border imperialism and the framework of criminalization that sustains it, because a major act of civil disobedience against the state’s borders happened today. Over 100 families attempted border crossings today at the Otay Mesa point of entry, demanding asylum so they could reunite with their families. These sorts of actions highlight the way the state’s borders, imposed through conquest and enforced through militarized violence, break apart the families, communities, and other peaceful forms of voluntary association that build a truly robust society.

These are just a few examples of the ongoing action, thought, and media happening lately to challenge the prison-industrial complex, the empire, and other mutually reinforcing systems of state violence. Let’s keep up these fights for freedom, until the state’s violence ends.

Dahr Jamail discusses the civilian deaths caused by the Iraqi government siege of Fallujah.

John B. Judis reviews Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama.

Brittney Wheeler discusses why liberty doesn’t need politics.

The LA Times editorial board discusses why the embargo on Cuba should be ended.

Karen J. Greenberg discusses 5 issues on which Obama is like George W. Bush.

George H. Smith discusses the study of liberty.

Dave Lindorff discusses how Americans could demand the ouster of the current government.

Alex Kane discusses U.S. meddling in the Syrian civil war.

Conor Friedersdorf discusses extrajudicial killings and the constitution.

Ivan Eland discusses North Korean human rights abuses.

Ajamu Baraka discusses the latest calls for war with Syria.

Sheldon Richman discusses how we can oppose bigotry while still rejecting politicians.

Ahmed Benchemsi discusses the tyranny of the Moroccan state.

Andrew Levine discusses what the U.S. will do without Al-Qaeda to justify war.

Wendy McElroy discusses how to live the good life.

Wendy McElroy discusses whether to steal or not.

Wendy McElroy discusses the virtue of self-interest.

Justin Doolittle discusses the selective concern of the U.S. government for human rights.

Uri Avnery discusses a film about Nazi Germany.

Peter Z. Scheer discusses corporate welfare.

Thaddueus Russell discusses labor corporatism.

Glen Ford discusses Obama’s war on civilization.

Z. Fareen Parvez discusses the Panjawi massacre.

Ehab Zahriyeh discusses a film set in Palestine called Omar.

John Stanton discusses the potential for a world war.

Graham Peebles discusses Ethiopian persecution of people.

Chris Ernesto discusses the U.S. siding with fascists and terrorists in 3 countries.

Jeffrey Sommers discusses discusses the Ukraine issue.

Estas son las reproducciones de nuestros artículos de opinión que logré detectar durante el mes de febrero:

El Librepensador de España publicó mi “Noam Chomsky, Deslumbrado por el Espectáculo Bolivariano“, así como ““, de Kevin Carson, y “El Estado Respeta la Libertad de Prensa Siempre y Cuando No la Perciba como una Amenaza“, de Tom Knapp.

Esos tres artículos, más “Ser Estatista, Ser Revolucionario” de Erick Vasconcelos, fueron reproducidos por Before It’s News.

Mi artículo sobre Chomsky y la revolución bolivariana también fue reproducido por El Ojo Digital, un sitio web de análisis geopolítico y económico basado en Buenos Aires, Argentina, y por el blog del periódico anarquista venezolano El Libertario.

Aunque las reproducciones de artículos no crecieron en comparación con diciembre del 2013 o enero de este año, es alentador ver que la gente que reproduce nuestro trabajo lo hace consistentemente mes a mes, y por supuesto, siempre es bueno ver un nuevo medio interesado en nuestro trabajo, como es el caso de El Ojo Digital.

Todavía estoy trabajando en hacer crecer mi lista de contactos en periódicos a nivel regional, pero tengo la seguridad de que llegaremos durante marzo.

¡Apoya a C4SS!

¡Salud!

Spanish Media Coordinator Update

Here are the pickups we’ve had during February 2014 in the Spanish-lang media space:

El Librepensador from Spain picked up the Spanish version of my own “Noam Chosky: Mesmerized by the Bolivarian Spectacle,” as well as the translations for Kevin Carson’s “If You’re Reading This, You’re Probably a Terrorist,” and Tom Knapp’s “Press Freedom’s Just Another Word For The State Doesn’t Perceive A Threat.”

Those three translations, plus the one for Erick Vasconcelos’ “Being Statist, Being Revolutionary,” were picked up by Before It’s News.

My article on Chomsky and the Bolivarian revolution was also picked up by El Ojo Digital, an independent geopolitical and economic analysis website based in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as well as by the blog of Venezuelan anarchist newspaper El Libertario.

Pickups during February didn’t grow compared to December and January, but it is good to see that the people re-printing our work keep doing it consistently every month, and of course, it is always good to see a new addition like El Ojo Digital this month.

I am still working on getting my media contact list to 100 high-quaility mainstream newspapers distributed throughout the Spanish-speaking world, but I am confident we will reach that number during March.

Support a C4SS!

¡Salud!

Left-libertarians need a psychological theory and practice to augment their philosophical framework. Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT) represents a good choice for left-libertarians, because it emphasizes individuality and social interest. It was formulated and begun by the psychologist, Albert Ellis. The central idea of it is that our beliefs about things that happen to us are a major cause of our emotions and behaviors. The solution to emotional disturbance partly revolves around challenging irrational beliefs.

He presents an ABC format for conceptualizing human disturbances. A stands for activating event, B stands for belief(s), and C stands for emotional or behavioral consequences. This is usually expanded into an ABCDEF format with D standing for disputing, E standing for effective new thinking, and F standing for new feeling or behavior. The client works within this framework to reduce irrational beliefs. I have found it very helpful.

What is the connection to left-libertarianism? It lies in the individualistic emphasis on you as the creator of your own emotional destiny. You can choose to feel what you want to feel through the beliefs you adopt. It also includes healthy relationships as a goal. This ties into the mutual aid aspects of left-libertarianism.

Responsibility is not foisted upon others in this system of psychotherapy. The work required to get better has to be done by you. It encourages self-discovery and direction. The kind of discovery and direction promoted within libertarian thought. It’s an optimal system for libertarian minded folk.

A left-libertarian psychotherapy is an integral part of a comprehensive perspective on the world. One that covers the many facets of the human experience. If we have nothing to offer in this area; the prevailing psychology of most people in society will continue to be deferential towards authority. REBT encourages people to stand on their own two feet.

I am not a trained psychologist, so I don’t want to offer any mental health advice. I can only point the reader in the direction of competent REBT therapists like Dr. Michael Edelstein of threeminutetherapy.com. His book, Three Minute Therapy: Change Your Thinking Change Your Life, is recommended for the interested reader. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy is also recommended as an Albert Ellis text on the subject.

Once again; the libertarian implications of REBT are vast. If we can control our feelings through reality based thinking; we can successfully individuate ourselves in fantastically creative ways. Let’s all work towards better mental health with this revolutionary approach!

Journalist infighting is the most “Inside Baseball” thing I can conceive of talking about on this blog, but Mark Ames is the subject, and that’s always the signal for a good time.

His latest target is the new foreign policy analyst for The Intercept, Marcy Wheeler. In an article from Feb. 28, Ames writes that “Wheeler […] speculated that the Ukraine revolution was likely a ‘coup’ engineered by ‘deep’ forces on behalf of ‘Pax Americana’,” followed by a quote from Wheeler’s Twitter feed. This quote spurred Ames to investigate who exactly might be involved in the coup. Surprisingly – or, well, maybe not – one of the primary investors turned out to be none other than the owner and bankroller in The Intercept and First Look Media, Pierre Omidyar.

The Omidyar Network Group gave nearly $200,000 to fascist opposition groups in Ukraine in 2012, a not-unsubstantial sum of money. What confused onlookers was Ames’ insistence that Wheeler – hired less than three weeks previous – comment on the revelations.

Ames writes:

In the larger sense, this is a problem of 21st century American inequality, of life in a billionaire-dominated era. It is a problem we all have to contend with—PandoDaily’s 18-plus investors include a gaggle of Silicon Valley billionaires like Marc Andreessen (who serves on the board of eBay, chaired by Pierre Omidyar) and Peter Thiel (whose politics I’ve investigated, and described as repugnant.)

But what is more immediately alarming is what makes Omidyar different. Unlike other billionaires, Omidyar has garnered nothing but uncritical, fawning press coverage, particularly from those he has hired. By acquiring a “dream team” of what remains of independent media — Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Wheeler, my former partner Matt Taibbi — not to mention press “critics” like Jay Rosen — he buys both silence and fawning press.

Both are incredibly useful: Silence, an absence of journalistic curiosity about Omidyar’s activities overseas and at home, has been purchased for the price of whatever his current all-star indie cast currently costs him. As an added bonus, that same investment buys silence from exponentially larger numbers of desperately underpaid independent journalists hoping to someday be on his payroll, and the underfunded media watchdogs that survive on Omidyar Network grants.

It isn’t clear, however, that Ames is correct regarding the state of the independent media. He mentions Glenn Greenwald, who worked for two years at the Guardian before his current tenure at First Look; Jeremy Scahill, whose latest film was nominated for an Oscar; Matt Taibbi, whose work in Rolling Stone has elevated his status and visibility past “independent media” circles; and others as being examples of indy journalists.

He probably knows that not everyone who wishes to pursue a career as an “independent journalist” is looking at The Intercept with wide eyes and drooling, gaping mouths. What he seems to want to consistently ignore is that sometimes, career choices are not made with ideology in mind. I did not get a job at Walmart (briefly) because of my identification as an Anarcho-Syndicalist, for example; it stands to reason that Marcy Wheeler did not agree to her contract with First Look Media based on a fundamental agreement with the project bankroller’s ideology.

Greenwald responded to Ames in his column at The Intercept:

I think it’s perfectly valid for journalists to investigate the financial dealings of corporations and billionaires who fund media outlets, whether it be those who fund or own Pando, First Look, MSNBC, Fox News, The Washington Post or any other. And it’s certainly reasonable to have concerns and objections about the funding of organizations that are devoted to regime change in other countries: I certainly have those myself. But the Omidyar Network doesn’t exactly seem ashamed of these donations, and they definitely don’t seem to be hiding them, given that they trumpeted them in their own press releases and web pages.

[…]

Can someone please succinctly explain why this is a scandal that needs to be addressed, particularly by First Look journalists? That’s a genuine request. Wasn’t it just 72 hours ago that the widespread, mainstream view in the west (not one that I shared) was that there was a profound moral obligation to stand up and support the brave and noble Ukrainian opposition forces as they fight to be liberated from the brutal and repressive regime imposed on them by Vladimir Putin’s puppet? When did it suddenly become shameful in those same circles to support those very same opposition forces?

[…]

(3) Despite its being publicly disclosed, I was not previously aware that the Omidyar Network donated to this Ukrainian group. That’s because, prior to creating The Intercept with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, I did not research Omidyar’s political views or donations. That’s because his political views and donations are of no special interest to me – any more than I cared about the political views of the family that owns and funds Salon (about which I know literally nothing, despite having worked there for almost 6 years), or any more than I cared about the political views of those who control the Guardian Trust.

There’s a very simple reason for that: they have no effect whatsoever on my journalism or the journalism of The Intercept. That’s because we are guaranteed full editorial freedom and journalistic independence. The Omidyar Network’s political views or activities – or those of anyone else – have no effect whatsoever on what we report, how we report it, or what we say.

[…]

But for me, the issue is not – and for a long time has not been – the political views of those who fund journalism. Journalists should be judged by the journalism they produce, not by those who fund the outlets where they do it. The real issue is whether they demand and obtain editorial freedom. We have. But ultimately, the only thing that matters is the journalism we or any other media outlets produce.

Regardless of how you feel about Greenwald – and I’ve cooled down my own opinions on him as of late – the point he makes at the end of the passage above is crucial: we can quibble over who funds what, and what that means, until we’re blue in the face, but the only thing that matters is the content we produce. C4SS accepted a large Bitcoin apology/donation from a member of a no-longer-affiliated Students for a Stateless Society chapter after he engineered the temporary shutdown of our website. The money was a windfall, but we didn’t then owe it to the donator to change our editorial viewpoints to match his. And no matter how hard you try, you can’t link someone’s reporting, ideology or other personal and professional beliefs to who’s funding them just because you want to believe.

That just isn’t how anything works.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra is a dear friend and fine scholar. His book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, is part of a broader Dialectics and Liberty trilogy. The other two books in the series are Marx, Hayek and Utopia and Total Freedom: Towards a Dialectical Libertarianism. All three are worth checking out, but this post focuses on The Russian Radical.

The second edition is even better than the first one. It contains a new preface and three appendixes. There are also some word additions and an expanded section on foreign policy.

The new material adds to an already fantastic book. My reading of it was immensely enjoyable and intellectually enriching. Chris does a good job of showing the depth of Rand’s thought without being a slavish follower who can find no flaws. One minor quibble with the book I have is his use of the term homeland to describe the American nation-state. It evokes fascist connotations, but I know that Chris was not using it to do that. There are really no other criticisms I have to make of the book. It’s just that well put together.

The new preface gives a good explanation of Chris’s broader project of situating libertarian thought within the dialectical tradition. He mentions detractors of both left and right who disagree with his assessment of Rand as a dialectical thinker. He affirms and defends his descriptive terms in able fashion. The appendices include two essays previously published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies with an additional new essay directed at the Ayn Rand Institute official biographer. Chris does a good job of bringing together evidence to defend his views.

The new material on foreign policy is clearly drawn from Chris’s article titled “Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand’s Radical Legacy”. It makes a fine addition to an already excellent book. The material brings the book up to date and offers commentary on what Rand may have supported in post 9-11 foreign policy. It also offers us greater detail and insight into Rand’s foreign policy prescriptions. A new quotation about Soviet Russia and World War 2 is provided.

The book is substantially the same, but this is not a problem. The original greatness of the text is preserved with useful additions. It’s still split into three parts with a fascinating biographical description of Rand’s education in Soviet Russia. This is followed by a philosophical examination that concludes with a more political part. The reader is definitely encouraged to pick up a copy of this new edition.

C4SS Media presents Thomas L. Knapp‘s “When Killer Cops Get a Pass, There are Consequences,” read by James Tuttle and edited by Nick Ford.

“The jury’s acquittal of Ramos and Cicinelli was a vote for the latter outcome. It was also a vote for continuing and escalating police lawlessness. The less the specifically guilty individuals pay for their crimes now, the more such crimes we will have, the more the generally guilty class will pay later … and the sooner that later will come.”

At C4SS, we recently received an action alert regarding an ongoing death penalty case in Florida. Here’s the action alert:

Robert Henry needs your help. Less than 25 days remain until Florida executes Robert using makeshift science and a cruel, untested lethal cocktail. Governor Scott has signed a death warrant and scheduled Robert’s execution for March 20th, 2014. Robert was sentenced to death in Broward County for the 1988 deaths of Janet Cox Thermidor and Phyllis Harris. Now, Robert’s family and friends, along with religious advocates, abolitionists, and activists across Florida and the U.S. are calling on Gov. Scott to STAY the execution.

Florida has recently implemented a dangerous, untested and non-FDA approved method of sedating death row inmates: Midzolam. Renowned anesthesiologists in the field have denounced the use of this new, experimental method as inhumane because it can cause the inmate to feel as if he is being buried alive.

Ohio, the only other state to use this experimental, non-anesthetic drug for its lethal injection, witnessed the horrific failure of this method in an execution just last month. The inmate, Denis Mcguire, choked to death for at least 10 minutes in an experiment that went horribly wrong.

Journalist Justin Peters has noted rolling the dice with this novel execution method is at odds with our democratic values:

Respect for the prisoner and for the process is what separates a state-sanctioned execution from a lynch mob. Justice requires patience. Vengeance values speed. By rushing to use an untested execution drug despite valid concerns about its safety and efficacy, Florida is willfully flouting this process.

Please help us save Robert from state-sanctioned torture. Take a moment to pass the message along to your friends, families, and other like-minded advocates.

—
__
Tell Gov. Scott to STOP Robert’s execution! Call 850-488-7146 or email: Rick.Scott@eog.myflorida.com.

Sign the petition: http://chn.ge/1fLpxSg.
Blog: www.nocruelcocktail.wordpress.com/
Twitter: @SaveRobertHenry
Facebook: www.facebook.com/SaveRobertHenryFL

All too often, torture is part of how the American state administers its death penalty. Incidents like the horrific death of Dennis McGuire in Ohio illustrate the cruelty of such methods of execution.

Moreover, cruelty and torture don’t simply occur in how the execution itself is administered. Death row itself often features cruel and torturous conditions. The Center for Constitutional Rights has lots of enlightening material on how the state tortures its victims before it kills them. The report highlights, among other abuses, pervasive use of solitary confinement. As I have repeatedly pointed out, solitary confinement is recognized as torture by voices across the political spectrum.

Beyond the torture angle, the death penalty itself is an extreme and downright creepy form of state coercion. Rather than simply killing in self defense, state agents kill someone who is subdued and confined. They meticulously plan and premeditate this killing when they have their victim in custody, and thus have already engaged in sufficient force to protect anyone the offender might harm. Thus, this extra violence cannot be defended with the same types of argument Roderick Long uses to defend some forms of incarceration.

I truly realized the morbid nature of the state and its execution tactics in 2010, when I participated in a vigil on the night that the State of Utah executed Ronnie Lee Gardner. The state of Utah used a firing squad rather than a new torture technique to kill Ronnie Lee Gardner, but it was still profoundly creepy and disturbing to watch a government leader walk out to triumphantly, coldly, and clinically tell reporters and family members that the state just killed a man. I sat with people who would never see a member of their family again, because state agents deliberately killed him for purposes of punishment.

The arguments made for the death penalty are all insufficient to justify the torture and premeditated killing it entails. The evidence for deterrence is very weak, with most criminologists saying the death penalty does not provide extra deterrence. And even if the kind of torture and premeditated killing the death penalty involves could somehow be ethically justified for dealing with murderers (and I don’t think it can be), there is substantial evidence that innocent people have been executed by the state.

Let’s end state sanctioned torture and premeditated murder. Let’s save Robert Henry, and all others the state plans to abuse in such brutal ways.

Justin Raimondo discusses the censoring of Twitter by the Venezuelean government.

Greg Grandian discusses slavery.

Kelly B. Vlahos discusses the Afghan election.

Lenni Brenner discusses Zionist outreach to Nazi Germany.

Jacob Sullum discusses myths surrounding meth.

Jim Naureckas discusses media coverage of Venezuela.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the long war in Syria.

Mariame Kaba and Erica R. Meiners discusses school to prison pipeline.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the mind of the NSA director.

Vedran Vuk discusses libertarian careers.

Hossein Askari discusses neo-colonial relationships with the Gulf states.

Chris Hedges discusses the moral courage of Edward Snowden.

Adam Dick discusses the invoking of George Washington by Eric Cantor.

Bionic Mosquito discusses the U.S. greenlighting of militarized Japan.

Cory Massimino discusses prison abolition.

Alexander McCobin discusses second wave libertarianism

Stanton Peele discusses the drinking habits of George Washington.

Max Blumenthal discusses U.S. backing for neo-nazi protesters in the Ukraine.

Jesse Walker discusses media.

Nael Shama discusses Egypt.

Nicola Nasser discusses foreign aid to Egypt.

Conor Friedersdorf discusses Eric Cantor’s policy of perpetual war.

John Mcphaul discusses the training of Costa Rican police.

Radley Balko discusses the drug war profit motive.

Jesse Kline discusses the drug war quagmire.

Clark Stooksbury discusses deserting soldiers.

Murtaza Hussain discusses the arrest of someone who spoke out against drones.

Sheldon Richman discusses U.S. intervention in Ukraine.

Hafia Zangana discusses the new trade envoy to Iraq.

Garry Kasparov plays a fantastic game.

Bobby Fischer plays a fantastic game with 4 queens.

C4SS Media presents Kevin Carson‘s “On The Worship Of Authority,” read by James Tuttle and edited by Nick Ford.

“Until most people abandon their state-inculcated respect for uniformed authority, and their willingness to treat officially defined outsiders as the “other,” the Rodney King and Kelly Thomas verdicts — and uncounted such verdicts yet unnamed — will continue.”

Comecei de fato com meu trabalho como Coordenador de Mídia do C4SS apenas na segunda metade do mês de fevereiro. Mas, mesmo assim, creio já termos alguns resultados animadores.

Estamos publicando um texto por dia no site e, consequentemente, na página do Facebook do Centro. Em duas semanas já conseguimos mais de 100 curtidas e melhora substancial no alcance dos artigos. O Partido Libertários, que recentemente mudou seu foco e funciona como instituto, contando um website muito bem visitado e fanpage com quase 50.000 curtidas, também deve republicar nosso conteúdo com consistência, além de divulgá-lo.

O primeiro artigo veiculado desde que eu assumi o compromisso de publicar diariamente foi o que teve maior repercussão, falando sobre a Venezuela e as políticas do chavismo. O artigo foi o primeiro a ser republicado também, pelo site Epoch Times.

Assuntos de interesse local naturalmente estimulam mais as discussões. Um artigo próprio meu que falava da esquerda latino-americana e de suas reações à violência do estado venezuelano repercutiu bastante e deve ser republicado no coletivo de escritores libertários com viés de esquerda, o Mercado Popular. O Mercado Popular, inclusive, conta com mais de 3.000 curtidas no Facebook e permite que eu reposte quaisquer conteúdos do C4SS, o que eu tenho feito. Além disso, meu artigo original deverá ser publicado até o final desta semana.

Comecei recentemente a compilar uma lista de jornais e outros veículos de mídia para os quais enviarei nossos artigos e, já em março, devo ter uma lista consolidada.

Os avanços são bastante interessantes e, também no mês que vem, já devo ter completado a tradução de The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand, de Kevin Carson, o que deve catapultar ainda mais nossa audiência.

Faça uma doação para o C4SS. Obrigado pelo apoio!

Portuguese Media Coordinator Update: February 2014