30 September 2016

US regime guilty of racist mass murder in the streets: sources

The Blog


Media sources and activists report the US regime is maintaining a racist system of police-order, as black people resist ongoing murder and brutality.


The US regime, which incarcerates a larger percentage of its people than any other state and authorizes security forces to shoot suspects on sight, continues to imprison disproportionate numbers of black people.

Although the regime of President Barack Obama claims to be against the system of racism in the US, as do candidates in the ongoing presidential election campaigns, US rulers still see black people as a threat to police-order and refuse to dismantle the racist police-state machine guilty of mass murder.

Reports shared to the "Informant Grid" automated newsletter compiled on 24 September displayed not just the prevalence of white-on-black racism in the United States but the regime's direct complicity in racist policies of mass murder directed against black minority communities.


A United Nations working group, meanwhile, called on the US regime to pay reparations to black people for its constant "racial terrorism" as admitted at The Washington Post on 27 September.

In one report, US congressman Robert Pittenger inverts reality by accusing Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters of hating white people. In other reports, the impunity enjoyed by armed whites and members of the regime's police forces when murdering black people is also shown. In addition, regime spokespeople have consistently lied that their victims were carrying firearms, despite all evidence pointing to the murder of unarmed black suspects.

Mainstream media continue to downplay the racist aggression of the US state against its own communities and promote reconciliation rather than redress of the murders committed by police. In many cases, the cynical use of black police officers and fake activists against their own community is portrayed by government and corporate media as proof the regime is not racist.


The clubof.info Blog

28 September 2016

Corbyn still leads 'largest political party in western Europe'

The Blog


In a call to members of the Labour Party following his landslide victory over leadership challenger Owen Smith, Jeremy Corbyn called for unity in Britain's ever-larger Opposition party.


Corbyn's victory entrenches thousands of supporters as full members of the Labour Party and marks the failure of a coup. Campaigns by anti-Corbyn MPs and Tony Blair to twist the party back towards right-wing politics and US-sponsored puppet foreign policies have been grounded.

Despite his triumph, Corbyn maintained his politeness and conciliatory tone. When addressing members in an email circulated throughout the party, Corbyn wrote "Always remember that in our party, we have much more in common than that which divides us."

The UK's Labour has grown into "the largest political party in western Europe", Corbyn pointed out, stating a firm belief this enormous new movement can win the next general election. Most of his victory message focused on preventing possible divisions and splits within the party.

Some media reports alleged a mass resignation of Blairite members opposed to Jeremy Corbyn. Supporters of Corbyn, meanwhile, can be expected to sign up to the party in even greater numbers and play an even more active part in the politics ahead.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

27 September 2016

This tweet sums up the Mont Order

The Blog


Did you know you can follow everything being said at the Mont Order society, by subscribing now to one email alert?


Originally created for members only, the alert also helps keep track of everything being said about the Mont Order on the internet - everything ranging from new Google content to tweets about the Order.

Here's a fantastic link:

t.co/nm3OeAHMDN


In the above tweet, you see the way the Mont Order works in the current day. The Mont Order, while having an interesting origin story based on rumors of extreme age and wisdom, is primarily an internet-based group of bloggers, volunteers and part-time political campaigners.

The Order still hasn't lost track of its mission. "The Mont Order is a society of small publishers, activists and authors dedicated to sharing information and other products to help accelerate human destiny and happiness", it writes.


The clubof.info Blog

24 September 2016

Time to Deprogram From the Cult of National Unity (commentary)

Kevin Carson at C4SS


People don’t like seeing their gods blasphemed, and the backlash against Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem has revealed the completely religious nature of American patriotism.


Tomi Lahren, whose views on racial matters are about what you’d expect from a “conservative commentator” on Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze, has been on a nonstop outrage jag ever since Kaepernick’s stance made the news. As the protest movement of variously sitting, kneeling and raising fists during the national anthem has spread, Kate Upton has joined Lahren’s social media campaign to make football games a safe space for hyper-sensitive patriots. The complaints, predictably, reached fever pitch on 9/11. Upton responded to the decision of several Dolphins to kneel during the anthem by chiding: “You should be proud to be an American. Especially on 9/11 when we should support each other.” The most egregious comments though, which get right to the heart of the national unity cult, came from Lahren: “We aren’t white & black, we are red, white & blue.” “[W[e are Americans and we stand together.”

Howard Zinn ably deconstructed this idea that our common identity as Americans is somehow more important than race or class differences:

“[Our present leaders] bombard us with phrases like ‘national interest,’ ‘national security,’ and ‘national defense’ as if all of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.

Link: Time to Deprogram From the Cult of National Unity

“Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that — not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor — is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.”

The cult of national unity is an old one, and it exists for a reason. It dovetails with, and reinforces, a number of other patriotic American myths. Among them is the myth of “American Exceptionalism” — i.e., that America is the uniquely “indispensible nation” in promoting “peace and freedom” around the world, and is entitled to maintain military forces larger than the rest of the world combined, and unilaterally define as a “threat” or “aggressor” any country that defies American dictates, because of this beneficent role.

Another myth associated with the cult of national unity is the American Dream. We see this in the belief by the majority of Americans that they are “middle class.” The myth encourages Americans to believe that wealth is just a matter of hard work and ingenuity, and to identify with the “53%” of “taxpayers” and “makers vs. takers” against class warriors like Occupy, in the belief that someday they too may hit it big.

Link: Support this author on Patreon

It also commonly appears in conjunction with the cult of The Troops as guarantors of “our freedoms,” as illustrated by Upton’s Instagram comments on 9/11. The anthem, she said, “represents honoring the many brave men and women who sacrifice and have sacrificed their lives each and every single day to protect our freedom.”

All this despite the hard realities that America’s wars have been overwhelmingly fought to secure capitalist access to the land, natural resources and markets of the world, and the rich get the great majority of their wealth by extracting rents from the rest of us with the help of the state.

America is “exceptional” among the developed Western nations in that it is the world’s biggest settler state, created by European colonists supplanting and exterminating the indigenous population on a continental scale, and in the role that slavery played in building our economy. It is exceptional, probably not unrelated to the previous fact, in the size of its prison system and the way its culture glorifies police and soldiers. It is “exceptional” only to the extent to which its people have been successfully inculcated with myths of a “Shining City on a Hill” and a “Classless Society.” These myths obscure the criminal reality of America’s role in the world; America’s reality is hidden behind the official idealistic facade.

Thanks to this whole complex of quasi-official ideologies, America has attained the unique status of global enforcer of class rule. It is equally unique in concealing the very existence of class conflict from a significant part of its domestic population.

Fortunately, as evidenced by the rise of Occupy and Black Lives Matter, and the protest movement inspired by Kaepernick himself, the spell of this patriotic cult is wearing off. Power, ultimately, depends on consent. And consent depends on deception and ignorance. Once people begin to see through its legitimizing ideologies, the system of power is doomed.


Kevin Carson

23 September 2016

Criminal US govt should "pardon" themselves, not Snowden

The Blog


Whistleblower Edward Snowden deserves a medal, not a pardon, Garrison Director Thomas Knapp wrote on 16 September.


Meanwhile, Presidents Bush and Obama should face trial, alongside the top "operational ringleaders" in one of the greatest crimes against the American people - the warrantless surveillance program used by the National Security Agency (NSA) to protect the regime.

Edward Snowden "performed a public service of inestimable value by exposing the crimes, the criminals, and the techniques of the largest espionage ring in human history", Knapp wrote. Of the American regime's leaders, he wrote:
If these characters weren’t (with good reason) convinced of their own immunity to justice, they’d be shutting down their unprecedented warrantless search operations and finding ways to preemptively pardon each other ahead of something like a new Nuremburg Tribunal,  instead of continuing to denigrate and persecute the man who exposed their vile deeds.
Knapp recommended Snowden should be selected for a Medal of Honor, Presidential Medal of Freedom, or a Congressional Gold Medal.

Link: @Snowden: Give That Man a Medal, Not a “Pardon”

The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

21 September 2016

Owen Smith inflames Labour Party divisions: socialist paper

The Blog


A socialist paper has warned against the disaster that would follow if alternative leader Owen Smith were to defy all odds and defeat Jeremy Corbyn's popular leadership of the UK's Labour Party.


Socialist tabloid The Morning Star tackled Smith's threatening statements that much of the Labour Party membership should be expelled for their participation in grassroots activist organizations like Momentum.

Smith controversially described Momentum members as parasites using Labour as a "host", a remark slammed by The Morning Star in its Monday 19 editorial. Tony Blair admirer Owen Smith "could refrain from threatening the mass expulsion of members of Momentum or insulting the thousands of loyal Labour Party members who comprise its membership as “parasites.”" the daily stated.

The paper predicted Smith "might create a superficially less divided party" if he were to win, but fail to address "the millions who have made it abundantly clear that they are sick of the status quo." Smith threatens to reduce Corbyn's Labour to an "out-of-touch Establishment party with no answers" that will fail to attract any new voters.

Link: Smith Is No Unity-Builder


The clubof.info Blog

20 September 2016

"Liberals" side with neocons against Russia?

The Blog


Writing at the C4SS website, Kevin Carson recently criticized pro-US imperialist sentiments of journalists alleging ties between presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin


After explaining that he is not backing Donald Trump (he actually encourages voters to pick Clinton) or Putin in any way, Carson makes an argument as follows.

Self-proclaimed liberals in the US suffer from unfounded "assumptions" shared with vicious conservative ideologues when it comes to the US's place in the world. Their belief seems to be that whenever the US uses violence, it is instantly justified, and whenever someone uses violence against US interests, they are committing some form of aggression.

Whatever Russian President Vladimir Putin may have done, Carson believes, the US regime was already committing unique acts of aggression against the world and deserves a greater portion of our criticism.

In fact, Putin's foreign policy actions (not to comment on his domestic politics, which are indeed right-wing and authoritarian as Carson describes) are simply adequate measures against US aggression:
As for Putin’s aggression, it takes a unique set of blinders to call his 2008 altercation with Georgia, or his recent intervention in eastern Ukraine and occupation of the Crimea as aggression, while portraying as purely “defensive” the eastward expansion of NATO and the installation of a right-populist (and arguably neo-Nazi) regime in the Ukraine that is every bit as authoritarian as Putin’s.
The aggressive behavior of Western journalists towards Russia and other apparent enemies of the West is especially criticized by Carson, who alludes to Noam Chomsky's analysis of media control.

Carson wrote, "cable news, the wire services and major newspapers of record are every bit as slavishly subservient to the foreign policies of the American state as are the official media organs of any totalitarian regime".

When reporting on international relations, most journalists work backwards from the assumption that their country's foreign policy is correct, no matter how conflicted or catastrophic it has been. This is especially evident in current Western coverage of the Syrian Civil War. Despite the West's lack of access to any effective contacts in Syria, it insists the government of Bashar al-Assad is responsible for all the violence and denies its own role in killing thousands of people.

Link: Putin-Trump Outrage Reveals Shared Imperialist Mindset

The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

16 September 2016

Google is tricking Americans to love Hillary Clinton

The Blog


Google, whose executives pushed rabid neocon warmongering in their 2013 book The New Digital Age, are trying to manipulate voters to support Hillary Clinton.


This should come as no surprise, as Google always shared Clinton's penchant for chauvinist wars, assassinations and US military dominance. By fixing popular search results to an extremely narrow set portraying Hillary Clinton in a positive light, Google tries to obscure how most internet users actually see the presidential candidate.

A detailed analysis by pyschologist Robert Epstein reveals how Google manipulates users into believing Clinton's opponents (such as Bernie Sanders) have a negative public image by displaying negative search results, whereas only positive search results are shown for Clinton. Meanwhile, companies Bing and Yahoo lacked the political initiative to hide Clinton's sordid reputation, so they instead showed what people really think - with exhaustive lists of negative search suggestions for Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton is a liar", Bing and Yahoo (and no doubt Google too) users apparently search. Google instead writes up "Hillary Clinton is awesome" as an alternative search suggestion for users to consider, while hiding anything else.

Link: Epstein's analysis


The clubof.info Blog

15 September 2016

Popular: development suffers under US hegemony

Harry Bentham



Aggressive mass surveillance and the continued sanctions on Iran originate with the same ideological goal: relentless control over all things technological.


Many progressives find fault with the modernity of technology. In their view, all technological progress only favors the state and the corporate elite, and constantly disempowers ordinary people [1]. Such a perspective is based on prejudices, heralding pessimism that could only disempower and censor us even more. This essay offers a very different interpretation of the relationship between hegemonic and statist interests and the spread of new information technologies.

The global spies and punishers are the ones who have betrayed everything modernity stands for. They have turned their backs on the technological progress that marks us apart from the other apes. They are the Luddites. In their desire to monitor, restrict and control everything for themselves, they are retarding the potential of our technology to truly improve life and freedom for all. And, like the Luddites, they are doing this to keep their jobs.

The United States is indeed a focal point for most of the technological breakthroughs in the world, but the fruits of all these breakthroughs remain inadequately shared with the rest of humanity. By failing thus, we in the West fail to inspire or educate, and so fail to fulfill any supposed role as the leaders of modernity.

What exists in the United States and other Western countries is not an environment for true technological progress. It is environment for profits and hoarding. As the celebrated physicist Michio Kaku has pointed out, there is a “brain drain” by which the US is supported by foreign scientists and takes credit for their accomplishments [2]. At the same time, the US allies threaten countries with sanctions and airstrikes if they appear to be progressing beyond the rigid bounds of technology delineated by the US and its cruel apologists, as it is with Iran.

What has been stated above may seem like a hard case to present, as it is not comparable with many other statements being made in the present politics. However, it finds good theoretical support between the lines of a similar economic theory. The particular theory explaining the imperative behind such a drive for monopoly and restrictions on the circulation of decisive technologies is the theory of the “capitalist world-economy”, as articulated by US social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein in his lectures and essays [3]. This theory portrayed the world as divided between the struggling countries of the global periphery and the self-appointed club of the rich core (who also happen to be the Bilderberg powers and OECD signatories) [4].

The core countries, which are primarily led from Washington, maintain their dominance by having a higher level of monopoly within the global production process [5]. They control decisive new areas like the genetic engineering and microcomputer industries, as well as emerging technologies [6]. It is from their centers, such as Silicon Valley, that the most valued industrial technologies begin to contribute to the global production processes.

The division of the world into low-tech and high-tech producers is the axial division of labor, long necessitated by the nature of a profit-driven world divided in terms of national borders and by the restriction of countries to having a specific economic base determined by their history (agrarian or industrial?) By reducing other countries to a state of dependency, the industrialized core is able to wield a more powerful military and obtain more political rights on the global stage [7]. This injustice, in turn, allows them to legitimize further oppression on the grounds that they are the most advanced and that the others need them more than they need the others. It is inevitably this injustice that gives the rich countries the ability to impose sanctions on others whom they disagree with.

As the core countries possess the more powerful position in the production process, it follows that they may at times deliberately thwart development, degrading technology and with it health and life in the rest of the world. There have been events that confirm the validity of this thesis. From US hostility to Japan’s rapid technological advancement to present US hostility to Iranian scientific progress, the rich and powerful remain as equipped and poised as ever to “set them back a decade or two or three”, as US Republican congressman Duncan Hunter ranted [8]. A comparable sentiment was found in the infamous words of Curtis LeMay concerning North Vietnam, and the threats of mass murder issued by Zionist Israel against the hapless Gaza Strip.

The core countries’ unilateral spying on the world only reinforces this thesis. What they are doing, in that case, is amassing capabilities and hiding them. They are subverting technology, arresting its natural destiny to empower the common man. They sought to hide these capabilities, to preserve them without challenge and so maintain the status quo. This, they knew, would maximize their power and profits.

Rather than allowing civilization to adjust and progress by knowing about and overcoming the brute technological arsenal of the state, the monopolistic powers are in love with secrecy for exactly the same reasons that the corporations are in love with intellectual property. The more barriers they set up to prevent others knowing what they have, the less the likelihood that anyone will be able to see the pathways to overthrow their unjust preponderance of power and wealth.

Julian Assange’s consideration of the perpetual use of security fears to attack internet freedom is particularly informative in this regard. Speeches on terrorism, narcissistic caressing of the US regime as the world’s only responsible custodian, and assumptions that some among humanity are just too irresponsible to hold certain capabilities, are always used [9].There is no fault in the analysis that the same arguments used to attack internet freedom are being recycled to attack Iranian scientific progress. These phobic arguments, which reject any notion of the human family, are deeply paranoid at best and racially aggravated and at worst.

Statist and hegemonic restrictions on technology’s potential in the name of security are nothing but Luddite policies swimming against the technium’s tide of freedom described in the works of Kevin Kelly [10]. Such restrictions presuppose that allowing the inevitable freedom of access to knowledge and the human right to develop independently will culminate in a security threat. What the defenders of the paranoia and monopoly fail to mention is that their actions interfere in creativity. Attempting to hoard all capabilities and strike others who attempt to develop is a blatant attack on technology itself – an affront to the natural force of the technium.

We can learn two very important conclusions from what has been exposed by the state’s massive betrayal of modernity and attempt to circumvent it. First, the view that the NSA’s sinister mass surveillance is a manifestation of out-of-control technological progress is opposite to the truth. It is the NSA and the statists themselves who fear today’s technological explosion and its liberating potential. The NSA’s violation is an attempt to retard the liberating effects of technology in the world today. They have tried to stab modernity in the back. As such, the opponents of the spies need not use Luddite arguments. They should instead be exposing the paranoid state and its supporters as Luddites – sluggish and archaic authorities opposing the freedoms that modernity stands for.

Second, we must more eagerly prepare for the near future when monopoly, state power and the appropriation of knowledge by companies are made impossible by the very acceleration and democratization of technology itself. A top theory of this awakening wasauthored by Yannick Rumpala, who speaks of a radical change in the capitalist mode of production as a consequence of new manufacturing technologies [11]. Although Rumpala’s paper itself is mainly discussing the implications of additive manufacturing (3D printing), the inclusion of K. Eric Drexler’s atomically precise manufacturing (APM) revolution [12] and J. Craig Venter’s synthetic biology revolution [13] makes the experiment of a networked economy with no factories, no corporations and no state increasingly possible.

Our other possible world may only be decades away, making our prescience of the political ramifications now truly important. It may have the potential to radicalize and transform everything about our economic and political existence, violating the former paradigm entirely and replacing it with something no-one can accurately predict.

Let us not fall for the view that mass surveillance is a case of our technology breaking bad. It is a clear manifestation of the doomed state’s paranoia in the face of the common man’s technology. What we have seen from the surveillance state, massive monopolistic corporations and the neoconservative ideologues defending the two is a pure Luddite manifestation of the phobia of technology. As George W. Bush once admitted, the “gravest danger” to US hegemony is “at the crossroads of radicalism and technology”[14]. In addition to this, neoconservative thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama have stood strongly against the movement encouraging the most radical vision of humanity’s liberation through technology: transhumanism [15].

Information wants to be free. The unrestrained democratization of knowledge and technology is the world’s inheritance, the freedom of humanity to achieve its noblest aspirations.

[1] J. Hughes, Citizen Cyborg: How Democratic Societies must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future (Westview Press, 2004) p. 130-131
[2] M. Kaku, “The Secret Weapon of American Science”, Big Think,http://bigthink.com/videos/the-secret-weapon-of-american-science, retrieved 15 March 2014
[3] I. M. Wallerstein, “Modernization: Requiescat in Pace”, p. 106-111 in The Essential Wallerstein (The New York Press, New York, 2000), p. 111.
[4] Id. “Class Formation in the Capitalist World-Economy”, p. 315-323 in The Essential Wallerstein (The New York Press, New York, 2000), p. 316.
[5] I. M. Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An introduction (Duke University Press, Durham, 2004) p. 17-18.
[6] Ibid. p. 28-31
[7] Ibid. p. 11-17
[8] B. Armbruster, “Congressman Says U.S. Should Use Nuclear Weapons If It Attacks Iran”, Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/04/3018431/duncan-hunter-iran-nukes/#, retrieved 15 March 2014
[9] J. Assange et al. Cypherpunks (OR Books, 2012) p. 72
[10] K. Kelly, What Technology Wants (Viking Penguin, 2010) p. 269-270
[11] Y. Rumpala, “Additive manufacturing as global redesigning of politics”, h+ Magazine,http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/10/07/additive-manufacturing-as-global-redesigning-of-politics/, retrieved 15 March 2014
[12] K. E. Drexler, Radical Abundance (PublicAffairs, 2013) p. 286-287
[13] J. C. Venter, Life at the Speed of Light (Viking Adult, 2013) p. 178
[14] The New York Times, “Text of Bush’s Speech at West Point”,http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/01/international/02PTEX-WEB.html?pagewanted=2, retrieved 28 June 2013
[15] F. Fukuyama “Transhumanism”, Foreign Policy,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/09/01/transhumanism, retrieved 30 June 2013

Read more Harry Bentham political philosophy with Catalyst: A Techno-Liberation Thesis (2013)

Harry Bentham


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

14 September 2016

Meg Arnold on free speech and safe spaces

Meg Arnold

“Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions and will receive praise or blame for them.” 
F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Responsibility and Freedom

What does it mean for speech to be free? I’m less interested in the legal specifications surrounding this question and more eager to discuss what this means for us in our daily interactions. As an anarchist, I don’t see a legitimate role for governments to play in limiting or privileging certain types of speech. However, that does not mean that individuals cannot or should not be held responsible for the things they say by others in their chosen communities. Since we’ve removed as an option the use of force to suppress speech, what avenues might remain available for praxis?

If speech is to exist in a kind of “marketplace of ideas,” then “praise” or “blame” can act as a profit and loss system for “good” and “bad” speech. It remains the domain of individuals to decide for themselves what constitutes good and bad, as well as how to react to different ideas. Some people are comfortable combating ideas with their own speech with the hope of, at least, persuading or emboldening others to do the same. For others (usually those who have experienced trauma related to particular ideas such as misogyny, rape culture, homo- and transphobia, etc.) the response is often to retreat from spaces where these ideas are shared uncritically and build alternative spaces with others who feel similarly. Some would call these “safe spaces,” but bell hooks has another idea; removed from fear of re-traumatization and retaliation, people create spaces in which they are “safe to struggle.” It is a gross mischaracterization of safe spaces to say that there aren’t any levels of disagreement among those involved. Rather, open and respectful disagreement is possible because there is a foundation of mutual trust established through the intentions set for the space.

Neither of these approaches to speech with which we disagree is objectively better or worse than the other, and it would be difficult to determine their relative effectiveness without considering the validity of individual preferences. The problem of safe spaces is not about censorship or exclusion but about property rights and free association. If people want to limit access to a space based on any criteria, this should not be a problem so long as they are doing so on their own property. This includes the ability for people with racist, misogynist, and other bigoted views to freely associate. By all means, be open about your prejudices so that I and others know who to avoid and condemn.

College campuses make the issue of safe spaces and other forms of free association difficult because of their often mixed status as public or public-private entities. Therefore, to focus on the encroachment of safe spaces on protected speech is a form of “hacking at the branches” rather than “striking the root” of the problem which is a lack of defined property rights on college campuses. Even the University of Chicago, which sent incoming students a letter regarding safe spaces and trigger warnings, recognizes the value to students of being able to access these spaces on campus. UChicago decided only that classes themselves are not acceptable locales to set safe space intentions because classrooms have different and conflicting sets of intentions associated with them. They have also left the decision to use trigger warnings or not up to individual professors and students, which respects the local knowledge professors have of their subject matter and students have of their traumas and life experiences.

Libertarians and other free speech advocates have primarily focused on the freedom of speech from government, college administrators, and a vocal minority of anti-speech activists. However, a thick, cultural approach is needed to also hold individuals responsible for the content of what they freely espouse. According to Hayek, a free society demands both freedom and responsibility. If we don’t hold people accountable for the things they say, then we are, at best, coddling them and, at worst, allowing the perpetuation of those ideas that we find personally abhorrent. Instead of mocking those who advocate for the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces and giving platforms to those who espouse bigotry in the name of free speech, why not take a look at the content of what each is saying or is too afraid to say?

Citations to this article:
Arnold, Meg, “Responsibility and freedom: A defense of safe spaces”, Augusta Free Press, Sept. 7, 2016


Meg Arnold - Center for a Stateless Society


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

13 September 2016

Will "Irreversible" US foreign policy start nuclear war?

The Blog


Writing at The Lazy Dystopian, writer Aral Bereux believes Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks to warn the West - in particular their common people - that US policy is not making the world safer. Instead, everyone is living at greater risk.


Putin asserted that the US disrupted the balance of power by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty 1972. Originally, such agreements had prohibited nuclear states from deploying weapon systems to curtail each other's offensive abilities. Desperate for dominance, the US discarded the agreement, seeking to neutralize Russian and Chinese weaponry.

In particular, Bereux focused on the way Putin described US actions to gain total dominance over their adversaries and nullify other states' defenses as "irreversible", part of a massive miscalculation that will push states to the brink of nuclear war to protect themselves. According to the analysis, "Putin is warning amply, that we are moving towards war, yet it is not in the Mainstream news. Russia is warning the West: Stop the offensive attacks, stop the build-up in Romania and Poland…we have no choice but to protect our people."

Western press sources are trying to dupe people into believing Russia is the country disrupting and endangering people's lives, rather than the US, Bereux writes.
While the media are busily condemning Russia for the DNC hacks (by no means proven with no evidence presented) that may cost Clinton an election, they lead the masses towards another act of “Russian aggression,” side-stepping the real issues.
Writing "the world is terribly unstable at this moment", Bereux asks us to heed the Russian leadership's concerns. As Putin has stressed, only a handful of Russian bases exist on foreign soil, compared to the hundreds of US military bases occupying the world and waging constant warfare in the name of American "national security".


The American regime wants to scare people with stories of Russian and Chinese "aggression" against fishes in the South China Sea and the Black Sea, but US troops are killing people every day in illegal wars and assassinations.

Even domestically, the American regime is a greater human rights abuser, detaining and killing more of its own people than Russia and China.

Analysis: Putin’s Chilling Warnings to the United States that Mainstream Prefer You Not to Know


The clubof.info Blog

9 September 2016

Brain-damaged Hillary Clinton "forgets" the law

The Blog


Either for reasons of brain damage or because she is a liar, Hillary Clinton's memory is too poor for her to remember any rules on guarding sensitive government information.


Garrison Center director Thomas L. Knapp wrote about Clinton's "comedienne" excuse about why she couldn't protect secret data entrusted to her as Secretary of State.

During her time in the job, Clinton "ignored the briefings she received on handling and safeguarding of classified information, choosing to illegally use a private server for transmission and storage of that information instead of following the rules".

Knapp called Clinton's "I forgot" reaction the "Steve Martin defense", in reference to a 1979 standup album. Concluding on Clinton's excuses, Knapp asked readers if they are "a strong advertisement for Hillary Clinton’s credibility and qualifications as a candidate for president of the United States".

Clinton's poor health and possible brain disorder were earlier cited by Knapp as reasons she may have drop out of the presidential race or resign from office if elected.

Garrison Center site: Hillary Clinton, Servergate, and the Steve Martin Defense


The clubof.info Blog

8 September 2016

Libertarian right almost criticizes crony capitalism

The Blog


To demonstrate the libertarian right's failure to ever acknowledge wrongdoing by big pharma and their cronies in the US state, Kevin Carson criticized a recent Reason article.


The libertarian right-wing Reason article, while focusing blame on government regulations rather than the greedy corporations lobbying for regulations, discussed the scandal of Mylan N. V.'s high pricing of EpiPens - a type of medical auto-injector.

The high pricing happened because, as Carson explains, "FDA regulations are specifically tailored to Mylan’s product specifications so as to give it a de facto monopoly on the EpiPen". No one can compete, allowing Mylan to change any price it wants.

Authored by Nick Gillespie, the Reason article had stated, "Mylan isn’t taking advantage of customers. It is simply working a political system to its own advantages."

Kevin Carson countered, ") Mylan is taking advantage of customers by charging an enormous monopoly markup on EpiPens; 2) Mylan lobbies the government to create a rigged monopoly market so it can take advantage of its customers in this way."

Carson sees a persistent denial on the part of libertarian right ideologues to acknowledge how most successes of corporate capitalism depend on the "rigged monopoly" described above. He also draws attention to the way many right libertarians often criticize the market as not being "free" enough, yet cite the same US corporations who stifle competition as examples of success in the free market.

Full analysis: Say the Words, Nick. SAY THE WORDS!!


The clubof.info Blog

6 September 2016

US must 'surrender its sovereignty to the world'

The Blog


The US talks of its responsibility to "lead the world" but has failed to let the world vote in its elections.


Writing for Dissident Voice and the Mont Order society website, L'Ordre criticized the US for its keenness to rule over foreigners without asking their permission by conducting a vote.

The US calls its global dominance "democracy" but denies foreigners the right to take part in its political process. Americans will have to first "surrender" their sovereignty to the rest of the world if they want to justify ruling the world, the post argues.

Slamming US hypocrisy and "cavalier" behavior regarding democracy, sovereignty and national security, the L'Ordre article demanded:
On the basis of the arguments given here, a call goes out for the United States to allow foreigners, especially those impoverished people living in US-occupied countries like Afghanistan, to register to vote as US citizens in the US election. The next President should not just be chosen by Americans, but by the billions of people whose lives it tries to govern without a democratic mandate.
The article reflects the intended position of the Mont Order to criticize the US and other western democracies for their role in starting wars and suppressing the political rights and destinies of others. It also singles out the US for being more dangerous than the small dictators and warlords it endlessly accuses of abusing human rights.

Full analysis: Let Foreigners Vote in the US Election


The clubof.info Blog

5 September 2016

US ignores human rights abuses in occupied Kashmir

The Blog


The United States sacrifices its alleged concern for human rights so it can be allied with India, writes the head of a pro-Kashmiri pressure group.


Although propagating its hollow talk of democracy, freedom and human rights, the Obama administration has constantly refused to acknowledge any type of struggle for these values in Kashmir.

Secretary General of World Kashmir Awareness Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai wrote, as printed in Voice of East magazine on 2 September 2016, of the cynical and limited approach taken by Western media towards Kashmir:
The  massive pain and indignities that Kashmiris suffer are only significant when they reach a pitch that the mainstream press starts noticing, as the New York Times did recently,  and realize[d] it can capitalize on viewing audience because of the violence and mayhem.
Ignorance towards the violence, injustice, and suppression of popular sovereignty in Kashmir is an indictment of both the United States and the United Nations, who refuse to condemn India, Fai believes.

Full analysis: Why President Obama Ignores Human Rights in Kashmir


The clubof.info Blog

3 September 2016

Saudis accompany their ISIS allies in Yemen

The Blog


The Wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia is overtly aiding its ISIS allies in Yemen, an analyst has argued.


However, due to the tribalism and brutality of the primitive Takfiris (extremists who excommunicate other Muslims) supported by the al-Saud monarchy, they cannot prevent their own proxies attacking each other.


A recent terrorist attack in the port city of Aden was the manifestation of "gang" tensions between the forces employed by Riyadh to fight off the Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement in Yemen that currently controls the capital city of Sana'a and enjoys majority support from the people. This was the assessment of analyst Marwa Osman, when asked about why the Saudi-backed groups appear to fall prey to ISIS while Saudi Arabia itself stands accused of backing ISIS.



The al-Saud regime's support of ISIS is "not only possible but the only fact on the ground", the analyst stated in a televised interview. Not only has Saudi Arabia refused to target ISIS and other groups in Yemen, but the only explanation for the funding and weapons they receive can be direct aid from Riyadh, she argued.

Fort Russ: KSA's ISIS kill 60 in Yemen [+Video]

Saudi Arabia's terrorist acts are additionally monitored by US and British consultants who do nothing to raise any alarms, Osman states in her interview. Due to controversy, the video of the interview is locked down as "unlisted" by the RT network but the link was obtained by Fort Russ and The clubof.info Blog.

Saudi Arabia claims its actions are justified by Iran allegedly being involved in supporting Yemeni rebels to undermine Saudi national security, although there is no evidence of this.


The Blog

2 September 2016

US humiliated as Russia takes over its base

The Blog


Authorities in the United States are in fits of anger over Russia's use of a former US-controlled airfield to bomb US interests in Syria.


Such was the analysis given at The Iran Project on 30 August, addressing the Russian Aerospace Forces' use of the Hamadan airbase in Iran.

Hamadan, the website states, was originally used by the United States to position aircraft to attack the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Iran's consistent opposition to the US has therefore "again humiliated America 37 years after the Islamic Revolution" the analysis went on.

Original analysis: The party of Russian fighters just started in Iran

In addition, Turkey's relations with the United States have been imperiled by a recent failed coup attempt (backed by US generals, according to anti-NATO critics and Turkish media) and increased US support for Kurdish rebels opposed to Ankara. This led to Ankara inviting Russia to use the NATO airbase at Incirlik.


If Russia accepts Turkey's invitation to base aircraft at Incirlik, Turkey will shift further into alliance with Russia, China and Iran's SCO and isolate the US-led NATO countries, pressuring them to withdraw forces (including nuclear missiles) from Turkey.


The clubof.info Blog

Delivered by Email

Featured

Clubofinfo World Commentaries

Follow by Email

Mont Experts

Follow by Email

Blog Archive

Follow Me on Twitter