leftlibertarian.org

Despite Mein Kamp, around a third of German voters supported Adolf Hitler the Nazis in several Parliamentary elections in the early 1930's.

Despite his Ku Klux Klan history, David Duke received 32% Lousiana's open primary for Governor in 1991, and 38%, including 55% of the white vote, in the general election, benefitting as a "protest vote."

In 2000, George W. Bush claimed he would have a "humble foreign policy." But in 2004, after having staffed his Administration with members of the Project for a New American Century and implementing their policies, a majority of Americans still voted for President George W. Bush.

Apparently, we often can't help ourselves from voting for who seems to be the "lesser of two evils" at the time. Many of us downplay the shameful pasts of one candidate because of our hate for another.

But after having re-elected Bush even after the most naked act of unprovoked aggression since Hitler invaded Poland, Americans don't have the right to judge how and why other people vote for candidates. After all, most Germans never voted for Hitler, and once he was in power they never got the chance. In 2004, Americans did have the chance to repudiate Bush yet a majority of voters supported his re-election. They can't pretend they couldn't have expected how horrible Bush would turn out to be. That was more than obvious by 2003.

If you are inclined to vote, vote for what you want. Never vote for the "lesser of two evils" because you'll never can tell who is really the lesser evil.

Islamic extremists are the main threat to peace and freedom around the world. They have been for more than 40 years. Look at the history and cringe in fear!

In 1964 Islamic extremists helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Brazil and installed a military dictatorship which tortured and killed thousands.

Soon after these same Islamic militants attacked Vietnam and over the course of the long war which ensued, killed two and a half million people.

In 1965 Islamic extremists helped the Indonesian military overthrow their government, killing up to one million people and installing the kleptocratic Suharto regime.

Islamic militants aided and abetted a series of terrorist attacks upon Cuba throughout the 1960's, killing more than 3000 people.

In 1973 Islamic extremists encouraged and aided the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile and installed a vicious military dictatorship which tortured or killed thousands of people.

In 1976 Islamic extremists encouraged and aided the overthrow of the democratically elected Argentine government, installing a terrorist and anti-Semitic regime which killed a minimum of 30,000 people.

Throughout the 1980's Islamic extremists funded and armed guerillas in Afghanistan which gave rise to both the Taliban regime and Al Queda.

Throughout the 1980's Islamic extremists trained, funded and armed terrorists to attack the democratic Sandinista government of Nicaragua. 25,000 died.

Throughout the 1980's Islamic extremists trained, aided and funded death squads in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala as well as backing far-right military regimes in those countries. Number of victims may total more than 300,000.

In 1989 Islamic extremists conquered the Republic of Panama after a falling out with one of their henchmen, Manuel Noriega. 3000 people died.

In the 1990's Islamic extremists actively encouraged Russia's government under Boris Yeltsin to hand the economy over to gangsters, create mass unemployment and destroy social services. Millions of lives were ruined and thousands died prematurely as a result.

In 2003 Islamic extremists attacked the secular dictatorship of Iraq after a falling out with their one-time friend, Saddam Hussein. Result, 650,000 casualties and a ruined country.

Islamic extremists have thousands of missiles each with nuclear wearheads. They have bases in 140 countries of the world. Their navy and air force is the most powerful in the world. Western Civilization is guarded by only a few thousand amateur soldiers armed with small arms, Bibles and plastic explosives. Should we not be very afraid of Islamic extremism?

I'm not going to get into the whole "war crimes" debate over this video, as the only people with the real evidence are unlikely to ever reveal it. What I want to focus on is the attitude and reaction of the soldiers. Listen to the audio carefully:

http://www.ichblog.eu/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&id=543

Even worse, the videographer posts some comments on the whole incident, including this gem:

Killing "bad guys" is fucking awsome, what a reward to look through your ACOG and see your rounds impact flesh. Fuck yeah!

from http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1173818870

This "person" will be coming back to the United States some day. His greatest thrill is to see his "rounds impact flesh". Now, giving him and his cohorts the greatest benefit of the doubt possible, let's say that that just applies to people he determines are "bad guys" (BTW, why did HE put that term in quotes?)

(I shouldn't have to say this, but of course there are kneejerk reactionaries out there that will attempt to paint it this way, so - NO, I DON'T BELIEVE ALL SOLDIERS ARE LIKE THIS SOCIOPATH. The point is that imperial projects abroad attract such personalities and encourage and train them. Instead of discouraging such sociopathic personality traits, the empire encourages them and allows them free reign to act out their impulses. Then, when the imperial project is done, or at least done with that particular personality, it will be returned home and put in the care of our wonderful socialist health system for veterans, for which Walter Reed Hospital is merely the tip of the iceberg).

Where do you think such people will seek employment when they get back stateside? What jobs will be attractive to them? What jobs will they be qualified for? Well, by and large, the answer will be - your local police department. Since government employment is the only sector that is growing, and is likely to become the only sector that won't be hemorraging jobs in the near future as the massive dollar ponzi scheme collapses, it's even more likely.

Here's what you can expect more of as these upstanding human beings return home:

Pro Libertate: Death Squad in Delaware: The Case of the Murdered Marine

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027623.php#027623

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027614.php#027614

and many more.

Even if they don't become cops, such attitudes will find another outlet - organized (gang) crime. Which of course, will just become another justification for Gestapo tactics at home.

The War in Iraq, if it hasn't already, will come home someday. And with the ramped up war on drugs and illegal immigrants, it will be something we will be paying for for years.

British backtrack on Iraq death toll
By Jill Lawless
Published: 27 March 2007British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.

The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.

The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.

The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.

The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as “robust” and “close to best practice”. Another official said it was “a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones”.

Unbelievably horrific. Is forgiveness for Bush or Blair possible?

You may have heard of Somali Muslim cab drivers in the Twin Cities refusing service to passengers who carry alcohol. Apparently this practice isn't common in other cities or from other Muslims.

The conflict is between the right to preserve one's religious convictions on the job and the right for customers to not be discriminated against. Should the anti-discrimination laws protect the Somali drivers, or should they protect the customer?

This "problem" was created of course, by the law, not the market. Anti-discrimination laws do not exist in free societies, because freedom of association is one of the cornerstone freedoms. If we converted to a free society tomorrow, cab companies could fire these cab drivers who refuse passengers carrying alcohol, or for any reason or non-reason whatsoever. Yet independent cab drivers could refuse service to any passenger for any reason. Passengers could wave down a taxi but then change their mind if they perceive the cab driver to be of a certain religion or nationality the passsenger despises.

But religious and political convictions are expensive. When it comes to the market, even the most devout usually recognize that strict adherence to a principle is irrational and unprofitable. Discrimination and intolerance hurt the business more than the customer. The customer has lost a little bit of time (such as in waving down a taxi who then refuses him), but has lost no money, whereas the business has lost both time and money (the lost fare).

If some - like the Somali cab drivers - want to stick to their silly rule even what it is against their self-interest, they should be legally free to do so. But the law certainly shouldn't protect them.

Moreover, there are some forms of discrimination that are not invidious or malicious. If a black businessman wants to hire more black workers, even when there are equally worthy non-black candidates, why shouldn't he? His purpose is not to hurt non-blacks, but just to help fellow blacks. It is natural to favor those who are more like you over those less like you. Why should the law get in the way?

If individuals were left to do as they will in a free society, we will see financial incentives to be open and tolerant to people of all faiths and nationalities. The market will also reward those who serve the interest of their own clientele. If that means some "divesity" policies or affirmative action programs, we will see that. If in other cases it means strict meritocratic qualifications, we will see that, too.

If we let freedom work, we will see lower social tensions and a more cohesive society than we do now with all of our anti-discrimination laws. Social harmony can not be created with laws and guns.

My ebook Agorist Class Theory: A Left Libertarian Approach to Class Conflict Analysis is now available in convenient paperback for just $5.25 (plus shipping) from Lulu.com. This short book draws on unfinished work by the late Samuel Edward Konkin III, and it includes a foreword by Brad Spangler, who was kind enough to shepherd it into honest-to-Konkin print. Agorist Class Theory will fit nicely into most book-totes and backpacks. It’ll make a nice gift for birthdays, graduations, housewarmings, and just about any other occasion.

Agorist Class Theory is now available in paperback for $5.25 plus shipping.

Wally Conger edits, quotes, summarizes and explains Samuel Edward Konkin III on his radical, libertarian / market anarchist class theory — a primary tenet of Konkin’s revolutionary agorism. Foreword by yours truly.

I just ordered the first three copies.

On my personal blog I wrote a reaction to a recent analysis of the March 17 protest at the Pentagon. You can find my post here. My purpose was to provide insight into some of the reasons I'm trying to organize this group.

Let me know if you have blogs and / or articles that pertain directly to local activism.

On my personal blog I wrote a reaction to a recent analysis of the March 17 protest at the Pentagon. You can find my post here. My purpose was to provide insight into some of the reasons I'm trying to organize this group.

Let me know if you have blogs and / or articles that pertain directly to local activism.

Over at Richmond IndyMedia Center, Phil Wilayto of the Virginia AntiWar Network presents a thorough and alarming analysis of the recent protest at the Pentagon:

It was quickly apparent that the weather had not prevented counter-demonstrators, many in black leather motorcycle jackets, from showing up in force and surrounding all sides of the [Vietnam Memorial] Wall. At one point before the march started, counter-demonstrators formed a gantlet along an asphalt walkway on Constitution Avenue and heaped verbal abuse at protesters who walked through on their way to the assembly area. One Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair yelled obscenities at demonstrators, including some with children.

The target of that gantlet, of course, was our 250-strong VAWN/Virginia Contingent, which seems to have received the brunt of the day’s abuse. The more than 1,000 counter-protesters may have tried to pass themselves off as defenders of veterans, but that didn’t stop them from screaming insults at the three members of our contingent who were disabled veterans in wheelchairs, forced to roll through that double line of frothing fanatics.

…

Speaking of cops: In the past, D.C. police have usually tried to separate opposing groups of protesters. This time, they stood by while the right-wingers positioned themselves on either side of the sidewalk, forcing us to walk single-file between them. Several of us feel there was some plan to provoke a reaction from our side so the “vets” could attack, with the cops acquiescing. A plan like that couldn’t be in place without approval from much higher up than the city level.

…

In my opinion, what we saw in D.C. was an attempt to put together a genuinely fascist movement, one that could be used not only on March 17 but in the future to prevent anti-war and other progressive mobilizations. Some of the comments posted on the GOE Web site are conservative but not crazy, while others are open calls for shedding blood – ours.

So, on the one hand we shouldn’t think we are up against a broad wave of resentment by masses of vets. But, on the other hand, we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking this couldn’t develop into something more serious than what we saw on March 17. In D.C., we had numbers, if not much security. At a much smaller protest back home, 20 or 30 of these yahoos could be problem.

Wilayto is describing a new dimension in the activist problem: the quasi-militarist counterprotestor whose target is not the system but the individual resister. The intimidation and thuggishness in which they deal - augmented by the passive collusion with law enforcement to promote violence and entrapment - cannot be ignored. In my opinion, this goes well beyond activist politics: what’s at stake here is the physical security of a dissenting minority from a threatening majority, the very stuff of free speech.

When the police stand aside and tactitly endorse this kind of mob brutality, activists need to have a backup plan and a strategy. The most pressing need, however, is bodies - we need to address the problems of mobilization that weaken our statement and allow us to be taken with so little seriousness. We need fresh ideas and approaches. The antiwar movement needs to be able to turn its popularity into a physical manifestation of nonviolent resistance. This becomes much easier when the movement is out in front of the world and united.

Among other reasons, this pressing need for solidarity in the face of a consolidating status quo impresses upon me the urgency of a local activist group of libertarians in Richmond who can help promote common causes with the larger Left as well as promote honest dialogue and coordination. To the extent that we share goals with other movements, we should be adding our bodies to theirs in order to guarantee not just the volume of our statement but our right to make a statement. When the police and our fellow citizens shed their responsibilities to protect the debate, it’s time to choose sides.

Tags: protest