Debating skills can save lives

http://uaf.org.uk/2012/11/zero-tolerance-for-fascists-on-our-campuses-why-the-student-movement-must-unite-against-fascism/

We should always remember that the millions of people who died at the hands of the Nazis’ slaughter – in the gas chambers and the concentration camps – did not die because their debating skills or arguments were not powerful enough.

They died because once fascism had abused the democratic system to get its grip on power it soon closed down any freedoms to prevent any resistance. That is why we must never give a platform to fascists anywhere in the student movement.

Comment: Yes, they did. How can you abuse the democratic system if your debating skills or arguments are not powerful enough? True, Hitler did use one-man, one-vote, one-time, but not only Hitler. We  can point to the usual suspects, but Libertarians as well do not intend to uphold democracy if/when in power, and are rather honest about it. Libertarians keep the economic system in place that enables the funders of UAF to make large profits, so I don’t think UAF will do anything about them.

Why you can’t have capitalism without racism

Capitalism indoctrinates people to think that all poor people are lazy, stupid, and even immoral. Capitalism teaches that people are unequal. So as soon as people see that certain groups are poor, they will draw the conclusion that these groups are lazy, stupid and even immoral. Capitalism wants to be able to employ or to sack people without having to worry about disparate impact. Colorblindness would prevent people from seeing people as belonging to certain groups, but wouldn’t change the status of the members of these groups. Capitalism is, however, necessary for the ruling class to make profits. Liberalism is a dead end, but Radicalism is internally consistent.

Libertarians: Evil and Stupid

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-ii-%E2%80%93-the-strategy.html

Journey into a Libertarian Future: Part II – The Strategy

By Andrew Dittmer, who recently finished his PhD in mathematics at Harvard and is currently continuing work on his thesis topic. He also taught mathematics at a local elementary school. Andrew enjoys explaining the recent history of the financial sector to a popular audience.

Simulposted at The Distributist Review

This is the second installment of a six-part interview. For the previous part, see here. Red indicates exact quotes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s 2001 book “Democracy: The God That Failed.”

ANDREW: Do other libertarians agree with your idea of a libertarian society?

CODE NAME CAIN: Well, we do have our differences. For example, the Cato Institute is severely compromised by numerous left-leaning libertarians such as David Boaz. The Cato tag-alongs and certain other prominent libertarians imagine that an extremely small government would be better than no government at all. They are, of course, wrong. They have not yet recognized that every government is destructive of what they want to preserve [235-236].

ANDREW: It sounds like you and Dr. Hoppe and Murray Rothbard are strongly critical of those other libertarians. But when I looked through the Cato web site, I found that while they sometimes express disagreements, they are surprisingly respectful of Rothbard and Hoppe. Why do you think this is?

CNC: Three reasons. First, pro-government libertarians have probably realized how difficult it is to refute Rothbard and Hoppe, and so prefer instead to learn from their ideas. Second, many agree with Tibor Machan, who says that libertarians should not let their small differences over this issue “distrac[t] from the far more significant task of making the case for libertarianism in the face of innumerable bona fide statist challenges.” But third, you have to reckon with the Human Shield Effect.

ANDREW: The what?

CNC: Libertarian Bryan Caplan says that “hard-core libertarians’ comparative advantage is to play watchdog for moderate libertarians – and make them seem reasonable by comparison.” You see, on many areas other libertarians secretly agree with us, but they are afraid to acknowledge it openly. Instead, they prefer to let us take the heat for our principled positions, and to wait for us to turn previously “radical” ideas into common sense.

ANDREW: So you can count on at least some support from other libertarians. But in order to make your revolution happen, you will have to convince other people as well. Are you going to try to get a majority of U.S. voters to support the future libertarian society?

CNC: It won’t work – persuade a majority of the public to vote for the abolition of democracy and an end to all taxes and legislation? […] is this not sheer fantasy, given that the masses are always dull and indolent, and even more so given that democracy… promotes moral and intellectual degeneration? How in the world can anyone expect that a majority of an increasingly degenerate people accustomed to the “right” to vote should ever voluntarily renounce [it]? [288].

ANDREW: If it’s not a good idea to try to persuade a majority of Americans to surrender the right to vote, what is the right approach?

CNC: It has to start with a small elite. As Étienne La Boétie said, these are “the men who, possessed of clear minds and farsighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them….” These people will start to secede from the United States.

ANDREW: Meaning?

CNC: It means one regard[s] the central government as illegitimate, and… treat[s] it and its agents as an outlaw agency and “foreign” occupying forces [91].

ANDREW: You don’t pay your taxes?

CNC: One tries to keep as much of one’s property and surrender as little tax money as possible. One considers all federal law, legislation and regulation null and void and ignores it whenever possible [91]. One needs to be ready in case the government makes a move, and invest in such forms and at such locations which withdraw, remove, hide, or conceal one’s wealth as far as possible from the eyes and arms of government [92].

ANDREW: Is this why you have a code name?

CNC: It took you a while, but you figured it out in the end.

ANDREW: How will a few people seceding lead to an anti-state revolution?

CNC: It won’t. … it is essential to complement one’s defensive measures with an offensive strategy: to invest in an ideological campaign of delegitimizing the idea and institution of democratic government among the public [92].

ANDREW: Did you say earlier that trying to convince the public would be difficult?

CNC: With the secession strategy, you don’t need a majority. That’s good, because [t]he mass of people … always and everywhere consists of “brutes,” “dullards,” and “fools,” easily deluded and sunk into habitual submission [92]. Still, there can be no revolution without some form of mass participation. … the elite cannot reach its own goal of restoring private property rights and law and order unless it succeeds in communicating its ideas to the public, openly if possible and secretly if necessary… [93].

ANDREW: Even if you do it secretly, convincing the masses that they are inferior sounds tricky.

CNC: That’s true, but you don’t have to convince Joe the Plumber that he is a brute. You can convince him instead that he is a hardworking, productive individual, and that other people are brutes who are making it so Joe has no control over his life.

ANDREW: I see.

CNC: Still, you’re right. Convincing the masses of the superiority of the natural elite is not the most important part of our communications strategy. The central task of those wanting to turn the tide… is the “delegitimation” of the idea of democracy… [103] It is not enough to focus on specific policies or personalities… Every critic and criticism deserving of support must proceed to explain each and every particular government failing as an underlying flaw in the very idea of government itself (and of democratic government in particular). [94]

ANDREW: Now that I think of it, I have heard people saying things like that.

CNC: There is still a long way to go. There remain far too many people who make unnecessary compromises with the idea of democracy. In fact, there must never be even the slightest wavering in one’s commitment to uncompromising ideological radicalism… Not only would anything less be counterproductive, but more importantly, only radical – indeed, radically simple – ideas can possibly stir the emotions of the dull and indolent masses. And nothing is more effective in persuading the masses to cease cooperating with government than the constant and relentless exposure, desanctification, and ridicule of government and its representatives [94].

ANDREW: A lot of Americans think that democracy has helped the country to be prosperous.

CNC: What better evidence of the limited mental horizons of the so-called “ordinary person”? Hans-Hermann Hoppe has debunked this idea entirely, but too many people still think that the collapse of the Soviet Union had something to do with the absence of democracy! [A]s for the economic quality of democracy, it must be stressed relentlessly that it is not democracy but private property, production, and voluntary exchange that are the ultimate sources of human civilization and prosperity. [105]

ANDREW: So let’s see if I understand. At this point, there will be a small elite dedicated to revolution. Meanwhile, many ordinary people will no longer believe that democracy is a good system. Will you try to do this everywhere, or just in a few key places?

CNC: It doesn’t matter if people in any one city think that what we’re doing is wrong and dangerous. As long as the people who oppose us continue to wring their hands together and to talk only to people who already agree with them, they will not obstruct our efforts to find or create secessonist majorities… at hundreds of locations all over the country [290].

ANDREW: Aren’t you a little worried about how the government might respond to all of these people choosing not to obey the law?

CNC: You mean, considering how the U.S. government has become entangled in hundreds of foreign conflicts and risen to the rank of the world’s dominant imperialist power[?] [How] nearly every president [since 1900] has also been responsible for the murder, killing, or starvation of countless innocent foreigners all over the world [244]? Of course I’m worried. The U.S. president in particular is the world’s single most threatening and armed danger, capable of ruining everyone who opposes him and destroying the entire globe. [244]

ANDREW: But then, what will you do?

CNC: We will work to create a U.S. punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities – a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos, and Liechtensteins strewn over the entire continent [291]. This approach offers two advantages. First, a “piecemeal strategy” will make secession seem less threatening. Second, the more the secession process continues, the more the government’s strength will be eroded.

ANDREW: But there could still be conflicts between the new libertarian mini-states and the existing democracies.

CNC: If there is a conflict, it will be because a democracy has not respected the rights of the free mini-states. But you are forgetting that the mini-states will not be defenseless in such a conflict.

ANDREW: What will they do?

CNC: Since they will be no-tax free-trade haven[s], large numbers of investors and huge amounts of capital would begin to flow immediately. [132] It will therefore be possible to pay large multinational insurance companies to develop military forces capable of defending the free mini-states against government aggression. Keep in mind that, unlike the military forces of the democracy, these military units will be provided by private firms, and so will be much more efficient. If there were to be a conflict, these insurers would be prepared to target the aggressor (the state) for retaliation. That is, insurers would be ready to counterattack and kill, whether with long-range precision weapons or assassination commandos, state agents from the top of the government hierarchy [from the] president…. on downward… They would thereby encourage internal resistance against the aggressor government, promote its delegitimization, and possibly incite the liberation and transformation of the state territory into a free country. [264-265]

ANDREW: Will it stop there? Or will you eventually get rid of the small city-states as well?

CNC: At the correct moment, all remaining governments will be dissolved. Protection against violence will be provided exclusively by insurance firms. As I see it, public property should be distributed among taxpayers, with shares based on how much each individual or firm, up to now, has been forced to pay in taxes. Since public employees and welfare recipients are obviously recipients and not victim of taxes (theft), they will receive nothing.

ANDREW: Would you like to say anything else before I end this part of the interview?

CNC: Let me quote the conclusion of “Democracy – The God That Failed.” If and only if we succeed in this endeavor, if we then proceed to return all public property into appropriate private hands and adopt a new “constitution” which declares all taxation and legislation henceforth unlawful, and if we finally allow insurance agencies to do what they are destined to do, can we be truly proud again and will America be justified in claiming to provide an example to the rest of the world. [292]

In part 3 of this interview, Code Name Cain will show that he is unafraid to explain how a libertarian society will work in detail.

The Étienne La Boétie quote is from “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary
Servitude,” New York, Free Life Editions, 1975, p. 65 (cited at Hoppe, p. 93).

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-ii-%e2%80%93-the-strategy.html#mg8pTZgIb2sTmThW.99

Comment: Libertarians consider non-Libertarians to be initiating violence by definition. Against such non-Libertarian aggression, defense is justified. This means that Libertarians will use violence against non-Libertarians just for existing as non-Libertarians. And deceit would of course be justified too. However unlike Muslims, and unlike Jews, Libertarians do not have access to a (semi-)secret language.  Even White Nationalists see the usefulness of a secret language. So, not only evil, but stupid as well.

Peaceful protests are counterproductive

http://thecloud.crimethinc.com/images/rt9/rt9_free_speech_faq.pdf

We’re told that if all ideas are debated openly, the best one will win out, but this fails to account for the reality of unequal power. Fascists can be very useful to those with power and privilege, who often supply them with copious resources; if they can secure more airtime and visibility for their ideas than we can, we would be fools to limit ourselves to that playing field.

….

The government and the police have never protected everyone’s free speech equally, and never will. It is in their self-interest to repress views and actions that challenge existing power inequalities. They will spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on riot police, helicopters, and sharpshooters to defend a KKK rally, but if there’s an anarchist rally the same police will be there to stop it, not to protect it. Anarchists don’t like being silenced by the state—but we don’t want the state to define and manage our freedom, either.

Comment: It is very true that bourgeois democracy has a vested interest in upholding the appeareance of the Rule of Law. As long as “fascists” do not yet use violence, and “anarchists” already do use violence, liberal democracy will defend “fascists” (Curiously, this feature as such, the Rule of Law, is never attacked as “fascist”).  If the police didn’t protect “peaceful” demonstrations against “anti-fascists”, but started to club the protestors, even the thickest, and not in the sense of being well-formed, would understand how the game is played. In any other respects, the “fascists” do not necessarily enjoy privilege. The clearest is this when it comes to doxxing. Daryl Lamont Jenkins can do what Matt Hale cannot do. And all those Antifa-activists are well aware that their violence and vandalism is not nearly as prosecuted as that of their opponents, and would carry far less penalty. And then there is job discrimination, the result of doxxing and the like. Here again, people are unequally yoked. So we would be fools to limit ourselves to that playing field, if you catch my drift.

Splitting the working class in Sweden

http://www.revleft.com/vb/extreme-home-makeover-t180850/index2.html

aty  Revolutionary Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 387 Rep Power: 12 Reputation: 506

Quote: Originally Posted by psycho  a sustained campaign is something else than throwing a brick to a window or posting a threating letter, these kind of actions need to happen as a tactic in a wider campaign amids a pluformity of tactics. which is also my main criticisms of RF, they focus to much on these kind of actions and not enough on the other necessary stuff. these kind of actions, targeting the leadership, the enablers, the financiers should happen in tandem with mass blockades of demonstrations, investigative journalism, outreach towards both immigrant communities and the young angry white youth, propaganda, education on schools etc etc. But, RF combines all of these things actually…maybe not under RFs own name but… In the text in the video it says the fascists will stop being attacked when they stop trying to split the working class.

Comment: Islam splits the working class in Muslimeen and Kuffar. Judaism splits the working class in Yehudim and Goyim. Anti-Racism splits the working class in Oppressed and Oppressors. Only Colorblindness doesn’t split.

Either the migrants are proletariat and the non-migrants are labor aristocrats, or the migrants are lumpenproletariat and the non-migrants are proletariat. So one or the other are inherently reactionary and useless to the class struggle. Sakai takes the first position.

There is a curious similarity to National-Socialists and many, if not most, White Nationalists, who hold the position that class struggle divides the Aryan/White race. If the assesment of the economic situation by Communists/Anarchists is right, it is the white bourgeosie that wages class struggle against the white proletariat, dividing the white race. If the assessment of the racial/religious situation by National-Socialists/White Nationalists is right, it is the non-white working class that wages race war against the white working class, dividing the proletariat.

Of course, the Communists/Anarchists are intellectually one step ahead of their enemies, and, if they do not outright dismiss the charges as “racism”, they explain the behavior of the non-white working class as being caused by “racism”, i.e. systematic discrimination by employers on the job market. But then the non-white working class and their Communist/Anarchist allies should put pressure directly on the white employers, not on the white working class. And the white working class is under no obligation to end job discrimination. The onus for this rests on the non-white working class and their Communist/Anarchist allies. After all, they put the blame for the social problems like rioting in Sweden on “racism”.

But the other side of the political spectrum doesn’t get a free lunch either. They should understand that white employers are all too happy to deny jobs to “neo-nazi skinheads”, and are even more ardent in this than in the discrimination of non-whites. Fouad can’t get a job, but SSHooligan1488 really can’t get a job. So don’t consider the capitalist class to be your natural allies, you boneheads!!!

Power and privilege are a two-way street

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism necessarily have similarities. If any similarity with Hitler is wrong, the Anti-Zionist Left has to be broken.

Nobody likes sex offenders

http://coolopolis.blogspot.ca/2013/04/anti-racists-racists-finally-agree-on.html

Anti-racists & racists finally agree on something

  For perhaps the first time ever, Montreal’s anti-racist and racist subcultures are finally on the same page. They’re both bashing Michael Rosenberg, who ran with the anti-racists and now has apparently been charged with sexual assault on at least one young woman.
The racist and anti-racist subculture in Montreal have long performance a street-level soap opera with heavy boots, never short of violence and dramatic accusations.
The most recent bit of excitement revolves around an antifa, or anti-fascist named Michael Rosenberg, (or possibly Michael Rosza) who came to Montreal via Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Toronto and London, Ontario.
  He was accused of sexual assault, it’s unclear what the details or circumstances are of the misdeed.
Nonetheless he was quickly being tried by the court of public anti-racist and racist skinhead public opinion, bashed by both sides before even going to trial.
In fact it’s not entirely clear whether his name is even Rosenberg, as a Mike Rosza, 24, was charged with similar crimes recently in Ontario and it could be one and the same person.
Rosenberg tried to express repentance on his Facebook page but that backfired and only made him look guiltier.
The racists portray him as a leader of the anti-racist movements while the ARA says he had nopart in leading anything.
One anonymous commenter wrote: “Mike Rza has never been a fucking leader of anything except for a Facebook page. And he got a taste of some street justice quite a few times, in Montreal at least.”
About a decade ago I’d regularly check in with the Anti-Racist Action representative in Montreal and some of their actions were quite laudable. For example they lobbied aggressively to get a man named Sacha Montreuil, who was allegedly involved in the death of a black man named Christian Thomas in Rosemount on June 24, 1999, reclassified as a hate crime.
But while their anti-racist position is something to be admired, they could often err on the side of extreme sanctimony. For example on May 19, 1999 about 40 ARA-associates went to the home of a young man and broke into his home, uttered death threats and other similar stunts. A woman involved in the protest was arrested and charged but after 18 months the prosecutor cited a lack of evidence and she was set free.
I once interviewed a young woman at the Cock and Bull who was also an unrepentant member of a racist group but ended up sympathizing with her somewhat after she showed me photos of how the anti-racist groups had smashed the windows at her home and put up posters of her on the street.

Comment: Thanks for hotlinking me.

Anonymous raep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/25/woman-raped-occupy-london-court-hears

Woman raped twice at Occupy London protest camp, court hears

Self-declared leader of hacking collective Anonymous UK allegedly raped woman in a tent outside St Paul’s cathedral

• Peter Walker and agencies
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 April 2013 17.32 BST

Occupy London demonstrators outside St Pauls Cathedral in London. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

A self-declared leader of the hacking collective Anonymous UK twice raped a woman at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral in central in London, a court has heard.

Malcolm Blackman, 45, allegedly raped the woman once when she was asleep in a tent at the camp, and again a week later. On a separate occasion he forcibly put cable ties round her wrists to restrain her, the Old Bailey was told.

Giving evidence behind a screen, the woman said she lived in south London but spent weekends at the Occupy camp, which was set up in mid-October 2011 and then removed by police and bailiffs the following February.

She described being befriended by Blackman at Occupy: “He was part of a group calling themselves Anonymous UK. He was a welcoming sort of character, people turned to him and said, ‘What do we do about this?’ He seemed to be a leader sort of person.”

The pair began a relationship, kept secret from others, in the run-up to the New Year. The woman said she was kissing Blackman in her tent on 14 January when he put cable ties over her hands and forced her onto the floor. Breaking down in tears she said: “He pulled my hands behind me, grabbed hold of my arms and put something around my wrists and tied them very tightly.”

The woman said she was crying at the time but felt too shocked and afraid to protest too vigorously: “I told him he’s hurt me, but he didn’t seem bothered, he just said next time we’ll have to use a code word. I just got dressed and lay there crying.”

The following week, the woman said, she fell asleep talking to Blackman in the tent and woke up to find him raping her. She said: “I was scared of how he would react if I told anyone. I had seen him get angry with other people in the camp, and I thought if I started talking about it he wouldn’t agree.”

She said she was raped again by him a week later. Her testimony was to continue on Friday.

Blackman, from Weston-super-Mare, Avon, denies two counts of rape. The trial continues.

Comment: Pictures of Malcolm Blackman

He is not particularly ugly, so why the raep? Power tripping and a rotten culture of secrecy can be the only explanations. Another important reason is the unwillingness of Leftist males to impregnate the woman and commit to her.  Enemies can use this.

ANTIFA does rather violent protest in Sweden against freedom of speech

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=62858

Mob Rule in Lund

On Monday April 22 two journalists from Dispatch International went to “Students’ Evening” in the Swedish city of Lund to cover an event that included the leader of Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats). A crowd of “anti-fascist” demonstrators confronted and physically attacked the chief editor of Dispatch, Ingrid Carlqvist, and Roger Sahlström, a photographer.

While the Swedish police merely looked on, the lefties set off firecrackers and smoke bombs, screaming out their hateful slogans.

They also pushed and threatened Ingrid and Roger — according to the mob, the two were not allowed to be there. The police did nothing and made no arrests.

 Click to continue:

Comment: Is it possible for a moderate ANTIFA to exist? An ANTIFA that doesn’t froth at the mouth when confronted with “Islamophobia”? Should we start a moderate ANTIFA, like the Anti-Deutsche in Germany?

Diversity of Tactics

http://www.wethepeoplenation.com/showthread.php?10801-SOROS-FUNDED-MARXISTS-TO-OCCUPY-THE-RNC-PART-1-of-2

Occupy the RNC, which is billed as the “above-ground coordinating committee” for protest marches against the Tampa RNC, affirms the “diversity of tactics” pledge as part of the “Tampa Principles” detailed on their website:

• Our solidarity will be based on respect for a political diversity within the struggle for social, economic and environmental justice. As individuals and groups, we may choose to engage in different tactics and plans of action but are committed to treating each other with respect.
• We reject all attempts to create divisions among our movements. We agree to not publicly criticize other parts of our movement or cooperate with state or media efforts to portray good protester/bad protester.
• The actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics. We will commit to respecting each others organizing space and the tone and tactics they wish to utilize in that space.

This pledge is actually an endorsement of violence, not non-violence. Yet, Occupy the RNC angrily asserts elsewhere on their website that they are not endorsing violence. This is an obfuscation of both the meaning and application of the “diversity of tactics” pledge. It is also hardly believable, coming from an entity that goes to great lengths to conceal its identity while angrily lashing out at police and other targets.

Yet the main protest planners, including Food Not Bombs, Occupy the RNC, and other Occupy groups, all subscribe to “diversity of tactics.” Activist-journalist Natasha Lennard confirms that the adoption of the Tampa Principles allows for the possibility of violent protest in Tampa:

Groups in both Tampa and Charlotte have publicly stated that their plans for protest are peaceful, although a mixture of permitted and unpermitted actions are planned. The Coalitions to March in both convention cities have adopted their own versions of what were originally the “Saint Paul Principles,” used by RNC 2008 protesters. The principles include a respect for “diversity of tactics,” such that if a group chooses to adopt more radical or less law-abiding tactics than another protest contingent, they will not be obstructed. Above all, the principles stress that activists will not assist law enforcement action against other activists, regardless of a disagreement in tactics. Whether groups will break windows, burn dumpsters, damage property or even adopt Black Bloc anonymity tactics to move through the streets cannot be predicted and would never be publicly announced in advance.

Since the Black Bloc anarchists wreaked havoc in Seattle in 1999, anarchists, Occupiers, and other anti-corporate radicals have cost cities millions. Their real goal in Tampa is to drown out debate by making the election season as visceral as possible. Meanwhile, the professional activists behind the anonymous websites want only one thing: to capture the image of a Tampa policeman in riot gear lobbing tear gas at some youth in a t-shirt and broadcast it around the world.

Adbusters, the magazine credited with inspiring the Occupy movement, photo-shopped such an image even before the first Occupy tent unfolded. The Occupy the RNC website is lurid in its taunting predictions of martyrdom and bloodshed.

Diversity of Tactics. God exists. Hell is eternal.