What is the Spirit of Christmas?

 Consider this article my Merry Christmas to you!

http://proudboymagazine.com/what-is-the-spirit-of-christmas/

Decentralisation, Libertarianism, the Alt-Right, National Action Ban - R...

Decentralisation, Libertarianism, the Alt-Right, National Action Ban - R...

https://youtu.be/EfnkqZP4_xY

Folk-Right Versus Multiculturalism

Folk-Right Versus Multiculturalism

My article on Libertarian Nationalism

Alternative Right: CAN'T HAVE LIBERTARIANISM WITHOUT NATIONALISM: Confused multiculturalism seeking the wisdom of nationalism. by Rik Storey
On the anniversary of 9/11, President Obama called fo...

Right-Libertarian: Sorry, National Socialism

Recently, Seventh Son at therightstuff.biz has been trashing national socialism's only friend in the alt-right – right-libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. They have declared libertarianism to be a fundamentally Jewish ideology and, thus, all libertarians are Jews and, thus, great deceivers. They have reiterated the trustworthy sentiment of the neocons - that libertarianism is egalitarian and anti-hierarchy, like Marxism. As such, they have labelled us 'cucks'. Furthermore, they have reminded us that the socio-biological obstacles to achieving a libertarian society are such that it is entirely unrealistic to expect one, except through national socialism as a stepping stone. I would therefore like to tell the national socialists that I am sorry:

I am sorry you have decided to turn your sights at your only true ally in the fight against cultural Marxism at such a crucial time, when the very future of Western civilization hangs in the balance and her enemies overwhelm us. I am sorry you have betrayed not just those of another ideology but your very kin in doing so.

I am sorry that you were unaware that libertarianism is in fact a theory of law, is not synonymous with Austrian Economics, and in no way precludes nationalism. I am sorry that you had no idea that right or paleo-libertarians believe in a natural order and, thus, in hierarchies which organically arise. I am sorry that you do not know that libertarian aristocracies were the way of the Indo-Europeans from whom we are descended and whom you are supposed to venerate; those who gave birth to the individualism and libertarian streak which has uniquely run through Western civilization's history.

I am sorry that you do not see that your own ideology of socialism does in actual fact originate with Jewish thinkers, making you hypocrites, or that it is a fundamentally leftist ideology, putting you in no position to throw around accusations of cuckery. I am sorry that you more highly prize the Prussian Socialism of Spengler (which merely adapted leftism to focus on race rather than class) than the ways of your ancestors and the natural order of European peoples. I am sorry that you like Hitler a great deal but fail to recognise that his politics were no more a part of Western tradition than his vegetarianism.

I am sorry that you think the establishment of a Nazi regime in the US is more realistic than achieving a natural order through reforming the monarchies of Europe, following the wave of nationalism currently sweeping the continent. I am sorry you fail to recognise that there are vast swathes of degenerates who happen to be white in the US and could never maintain the sort of socialism that the Germans were able to in the 1930's and the Nordics (decreasingly so) since the 1970's. And I am sorry that you fail to recognise that your only hope to ever see your ideal system would be within the sort of covenant communities proposed by the only people who tolerate you – your now spurned friends, the right-libertarians.

If you would like to make amends (and I sincerely hope you do), I would recommend you first read Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed, Duchesne's The Uniqueness of Western Civilization and my own articles re the historicity of libertarianism in Western civilization, especially Northern European civilizations.

Oh, finally, I am not at all sorry for being facetious.

Paleo-Libertarianism and the Heresies to the Natural Order

No Social Contract in Anglo-Saxon Common Law

Recently, a chum asked me, 'So is the Common Law the fabled "social contract"?'

My response:

'Not quite. Anglo-Saxon Common Law predates the Norman Conquest and was written down in Anglo-Saxon and not Latin. It is one of those germanic bodies of law which was devised privately when rights were based on kinship, i.e. folk right. As such, its basis is in the libertarian aristocracy practised by the Anglo-Saxon nobility, descended from the same Indo-European practice. It was upon this that English Common Law developed. Sadly, but to a lesser extent than other germanic law systems, this was intermingled with Roman Law which was fundamentally statist despite also being developed by private bodies. This was merged with Anglo-Saxon law to become what we know as English Common Law which is, most significantly, the system the US legal system is based upon. Thus, Burke's 'ancient constitution' or 'ancient rights and liberties' of the Englishman and every Englishman's home being his castle.'

Iron Man vs. Trump, #BLM riots and Brexit legal quagmire

I'm back, like Optimus Prime, and I've been busy

I told you I'd be back!

Here's my weekly news breakdown and a discussion of what I've been doing.  Stay tuned for my behind the scenes look at the Property and Freedom Society 2016 held in Bodrum, Turkey; also my podcast is soon due to be broadcast over at ProudBoy Magazine.  I'm pleased to say my articles have been doing well there, especially this response to Prof. Obioma's article in Foreign Policy about why there are no successful black nations.

Apologies For Podcast Delays

I apologise to my viewers who have not seen my weekly podcast for the past fortnight.  I have been busy starting a new job, writing articles for ProudBoy Magazine and conducting some interviews with other sources.  Please check out the Propertarian Institute's podcast to hear a discussion with Curt Doolittle and stay tuned for a behind the scenes look at the Property and Freedom Society of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.  Like Optimus Prime, I will return; for now, sorry.

ProudBoy Magazine launches and yours truly is a columnist

Finally, ProudBoy Magazine has been unleashed and yours truly is a columnist.  The brainchild of comedian and commentator, Gavin McInnes, the theme is the promotion of libertarianism and 'Western Chauvinism'.

So far my articles have been defending the white middle class from attacks by the left.  Some articles will be more comedic and ranty, such as my article about why Star Trek Beyond thought it was necessary was to make Sulu gay and have an on-screen kiss, despite George Takei's protestations; some will be more serious, such as my interview with Prof. Richard Lynn on John McAfee's declaration that libertarians should be ashamed that over 90% of us are white.  Be sure to check the site every week for fresh articles; here is my author's page.

In other news, in the past fortnight I have started a weekly transatlantic news commentary from an anarcho-libertarian perspective.  Please check it out.

Keep supporting my work by liking, sharing, subscribing etc. etc. Every little helps.  Many thanks to my core readers and viewers for the encouragement.

The Libertarian View of Immigration and Borders

Please check out my article over at the Council of European Canadians' blog Ocean Drive on the debate among libertarians as to whether we should support open borders or greater regulation.  The answer is: the third option!

Here is an extract of my interview with Walter Block which inspired this article:

Goodbye, EU. Hello, the European.

First, I must apologise to you, my core audience, for the month-long break I have taken since my last post and video before my Brexit interviews; I have moved - moved country!  I have come to the beautiful peninsula of Bodrum, home to some of the greatest ancient Greek thinkers and the birthplace of many great ideas which galvanized the development of the West.  If I may digress a little further, this place is renowned for stealing the hearts of its visitors, as it did mine, not least because of its uniquely arresting bays and coves, and dry warmth softened by gentle breezes, but also because of the history of the place, e.g. the ruin of one of the seven ancient wonders of the world - the tomb of Mausolus, from which we derive our word mausoleum.  What is more, Bodrum is the meeting place of the Property and Freedom Society, baby of the greatest Libertarian philosopher of our time, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.  One can see why and I will make it my job to provide you with a first-hand look in good time...

But, to the point at hand: I was not the only one who left Europe, so to speak.  Though I left the territories called European, the United Kingdom left the centralized, protectionist European Union.  Not moments after the votes had been counted in favour of the 'leavers', the threats of economic apocalypse came.  Britain would sink beneath the waves; however, such talk was followed not only by the US, Canadian and especially the German governments saying they want to continue strong trading relationships, but European right-wing parties immediately voiced a desire for similar referendums (N.B. not referenda).  Scotland, which voted with a majority in favour of remaining will now most likely have another referendum as to seceding from the UK, London too would seem as though it would wish to secede as a city-state from the rest of England; on and on the secesssion must go, for this is the way of the West.

There can be no middle-ground between individualism and collectivism and the West, because of the foundations of our cultures and the interaction between this and our biology has led to the favouring of individualism, especially in the Anglo-Dutch world.  Nature presents us with a battlefield over resources and our genes determine overwhelmingly which side we are on - the strong middle and higher classes or, rather, the capitalist class; or those without, who are incentivised to push the irrational slave ethic of socialism, using coercive power to violate the private property rights of those with.  Secession is a victory for the capitalist class, those who choose to recognise private property rights and have no biological incentive to wish them away.  Its logical conclusion is the secession of all indviduals from any coercive power and, as such, would be the greatest thing ever to happen to those less fortunate.  I feel justified in my optimism, the market shall prevail over all unsustainable political projects, and what is the market but the realm of individual choice.  We have seen this week, a huge victory on the side of the market and those who excel in it for the benefit of all.  But, the war is not over.  Wherever we can, we must push for greater secession and dispel the illusion of the benevolence and legitimacy of an untouchable corporate body called 'the state' until all that is left is individual actors, using means to achieve ends, not one of them mysteriously immune from justice.

The battle will be fierce.  Even now exaggerations are made, such as that leave-campaigning politicians lied to coerce voters their way and that they are now backtracking - an easy thing to do when only one side of the story is sought.  The weak-minded are swayed by such propaganda and have suddenly 180'd to hypocritical desires to retrospectively tweak democracy (the god which has failed again but which cannot be directly spoken ill of).  Be sure that the political class will continue to catastrophise and declare Brexit the root of all evil.  We, who want freedom, must be equipped with the facts and be ready to defend this secession and indeed all secession.  We must be the optimists and we must shine a light of truth so that the path to freedom can be made visible to others.  The enemies of freedom will not be merciful when they cast up smoke and mirrors.  Fight on, a new enlightenment and a brighter future await.

Optimism about Aritificial Intelligence and the Future

Hunter Hastings discussed with me the brilliant innovations in the market to develop AI for the assistance of consumers.  Also, the abilities of what he describes as the cognitive assistant will  probably revolutionize the activities of entrepreneurs, not just by connecting individuals, but by providing people with information, skills and opportunities they would not have otherwise.

Hunter provides brilliant examples of how AI is changing our lives for the better right now, even saving lives!  Also discussed are irrational fears for the future and the hope of the reduction of state activities as individualism increases dramatically, people's unique abilities being enhanced and made more marketable.  For such reasons, Hunter describes AI as the 'augmented individual'.

All this and more:

David Gordon's conversation with Murray Rothbard about Argumentation Ethics

The following is an excerpt from an interview I conducted with David Gordon, editor of the Mises Review:

RS: Would you mind if I queried you a little bit about argumentation ethics?  I must confess I’m very enamoured with it; I think it’s fascinating, especially having a legal background.  I’m very interested in Stephan Kinsella, who has developed this in terms of its application to jurisprudence.  I’ve also written on the subject of holding state judicial powers accountable under a private law system and how the state can never lawfully be a judge and could be taken to court for aggressively establishing a judicial monopoly.  What are your thoughts on argumentation ethics?

DG: I’m afraid I’m going to be disappointing, I think there’s something to it but I have difficulty seeing exactly what.  One of the points is: suppose I were to say, I don’t own myself.  I would be involved in some sort of contradiction because in order to say, 'I don’t own myself,' I show that, in fact, I did own myself.  Suppose I say in English, 'I’ve never spoken an English sentence in my life'; my saying just that shows that my statement is false.  Therefore, the claim is that it’s a similar type of profound contradiction.  The problem is: I just do not see what the contradiction is supposed to be.  If I can tell you a funny story, I was talking to Rothbard and I said, 'What if someone just said “I just can’t see what the contradiction is?” and he said, ‘Ah, f**k ‘em!’  There may be something to it and maybe I’m just failing to see it. 

What are praxeology and a priori truth? - an interview with David Gordon

What is praxeology and a priori truth? by Rik Storey

Therapy leads to Libertarianism

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Michael Edelstein whose mentor was the great psychologist, Albert Ellis, creator of the original form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy - Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT).  He explained that this became the dominant school of therapy by dispelling the false beliefs people have about themselves, others and the world we find ourselves in.  Ellis was influenced by the ancient Greek Stoics to peel away all the musts, shoulds and oughts we invent in our minds and are taught by our families and cultures.  He explained how he, Eliis, Walter Block and Murray Rothbard would discuss libertarianism over dinner in Brooklyn; what I would give to have been a fly on the wall! 

The most significant thing I learned is that a libertarian outlook on society is directly related to therapy.  Instead of the socialistic idea that some people must do something for celooks at rtain others or the conservative idea that some people must not be allowed to engage activities which harm no one, the libertarian doesn't invent  an ought from an is, but simply looks empirically at his choices and acts on his preference.  If things don't work out as we anticipated, we're not immune from requiring therapy to reassess our expectations and unwanted emotions.  For a simple but powerful form of therapy anyone can do themselves at any time, please read Dr. Edelstein's Three Minute Therapy: Change your thinking, change your life (purchase here).

The Origins of the West in Psychopathy and Testosterone

In my interview with Professor James Fallon, we discuss the similarities of the psychopathic brain and that of libertarians.  He explains that 'psychopath' is a broad description of various combinations of characteristics which are, in turn, dependent on the interaction of 15 different genes.  As such, those we describe as psychopathic are not necessarily sociopathic and dangerous; for example, they could simply be charming, charismatic and witty, like Jim.  He describes the way he empathizes with others as being dependent solely on a part of the top of the brain which is involved in cold, rational thought, thus 'cognitive empathy'.  A 'normal person' would use a combination of this with a part of the underside of the brain which produces emotional empathy.  However, most would predominantly use this emotional side of the brain, genuinely feeling the pain of others.  For someone like Jim, however, he can only ever understand someone else's pain but never 'feels' it himself; his brain comprehends rather than exactly mirrors the emotions of another.  In this way, most people are socialistic to a degree; their emotional thought dominates their rational thought, if their rational brain is engaged significantly at all.  As Jim explains, the 10% of people who are intuitive and highly rational, predominantly use their cognitive brain and tend to be libertarian.

Moreover, the West owes its existence to the higher average levels of psychopathy and testosterone of European peoples.  Jim describes his research on the Indo-Europeans and how these higher levels produced a larger number of 'big men' - the more predatory and dominant wolves amongst the feeble sheep.  As well as a greater focus on individualism, such genes also produced the higher degree of rationalism which Weber described as the unique feature of the western civilization.  This produced the libertarian aristocracies of ancient Europe in which there was no one despot, as developed everwhere else in the world.  Where there was one main leader, he was always a first among equals.  He welcomed competition because he wanted the companionship of other strong men, the prestige and respect he desired more than the control of others.  (See my interview with Ricardo Duchesne on the Indo-European origins of the Faustian spirit of the West)
The oriental despot sought to eradicate all competition and sociopathically control others, producing collectivist tyranny.  However, classical liberal principles, such as the rule of law, have continued to be held up as ideals in the West despite the development of proper states in the form of mediaeval constitutional monarchs. 

Jim concludes, sadly, a libertarian society could not be readily achieved, even in the West, because of the socio-biological obstacle of the irrational thinking of the masses of...well...sheep.  Although, perhaps, as Walter Block suggested, a concentration of intuitive, rational thinkers in one area might allow for the secession of a free, or at least freer, society.  In any case, understanding the genetic factors involved is an important first step.  Simply ignoring the influence of genes and focussing solely on environmental factors, as the environmental determinists do, is dangerous and is only designed to further leftist ideology.  But I'll let Jim explain all that:

RIP Henry Harpending

The brilliant, influential anthropologist, Henry Harpending, sadly died yesterday after being unable to recover from a recent stroke.  He was co-author of the important book, The 10,000 Year Explosion. with the humorous and equally brilliant Gregory Cochran.  Together, they have stood against the goliath of leftist ideology which insists no evolution has occurred in human groups over the past 10,000 years.  Showing that the radical changes in lifestyle brought about by the Neolithic Revolution, particularly by agriculture and state monopolization of violence and domestication of the populace, they have enabled us to answer questions relating to differences in IQ, time preference and other socio-biological differences which create major differences in culture.  Yes, geography is a factor, but Henry described a beautiful dance in which genes, geography and all other significant factors influenced one another.  How sad that those who build on his work are shunned, such as Nicholas Wade's controversial A Troublesome Inheritance, which detonated the foundation of the mainstream and saw that he lost his job as science editor of the New York Times.

These men are no racists.  Henry Harpending was a scientist and cared too much about others and, especially about empirical facts, to let baseless accusations from the magisterium stop him.  He described himself as a bleeding heart libertarian to me and you can still hear him describe both his journey to libertarian thinking and the importance of genetic realism in his talk at the H.L. Mencken Club.  The facts are not to be feared, as they inform our decisions.  Truth and freedom are the friends of peace; its enemies are ignorance and coercion.

RIP Henry.  You were a gent and knightly scientist in an era of PC tenure-seeking.

The Western Tradition of Private Law

I had the great pleasure of discussing the history of Private Law with Bruce L. Benson, the now retired, distinguished economic and legal scholar.  The rule of law, not of any man or group, is a fundamentally western tradition.  Conventionally, this is supposed to have been developed by the Greeks but, in fact, this is foundational to all those Indo-European civilizations whose aristocracies would have considered it most unmasculine to subjugate any free man.  The 'kings' of ancient Europe were only ever considered to be the first among equals and prized the company of those who opinions they respected; they recognized that others must be free if such respect and honour were to mean anything.  Bruce Benson describes the development of law in such societies, showing that the Germanic legal systems were customary and decentralized, judges discovering laws rationally rather than any central system arbitrarily legislating rules.  However, these were early influenced by the Church to create corrupt monopolies of judicial decision making and, thus, proper states.  These constitutional kings discovered the revenue that was available from claiming greater rights over disputes between citizens and soon began legislating the law to further these efforts.  The systems of Ireland and to a much greater extent, Iceland, were more systematically privatized and most interactions were governed by contracts.  Sadly, these too succumbed to the same fate as the Church took advantage of whatever customary practices remained and sought privileges, such as paying no taxes on land and requesting their own tax (the tithe) instead.  This expanding power would later corrupt absolutely.

Please enjoy, share, subscribe, donate and comment.

What I Love/Hate About Democracy

Democracy is usually equated with freedom and is seen as the greatest western value.  But the institution of a publicly owned monopoly of justice is simply a mob rule and no more worth spreading around the world than the privately owned monopoly of justice exercized by absolute monarchs and other despots.  Here is what I love and hate about Democracy:

Patriarchy is Inevitable

I had the great pleasure to interview Steven Goldberg, former chairman of City College of New York's Sociology Department, on the subject of Why Men Rule.  This was a fascinating discussion of how testosterone distinguishes men, most significantly in terms on aggression, which drives them to compete more for those positions which are highly valued in a given society.  We also discussed gender fluidity and gender realism, as well as the ridiculousness of PC culture and those groups who wish the state would hinder or assist the development of patriarchy.

I highly recommend his books - The Inevitability of Patriarchy or the later, updated version, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance.

What I Love/Hate About James Bond

I remember my first Bond movie – Goldfinger.  I was enthralled by the boyish charm, whimsically taking off a wet suit to reveal an ivory dinner jacket with black tie and lighting up a cigarette just his bomb lights up the sky from the view of some exotic club window.  The tone is lighthearted, the music is upbeat and rich, the British humour is there wherever possible and Bond is a Nietzschean hero – spirited, noticeably feeling fear but sticking his tongue in cheek, right in the face of death.  The James Bond I remember had too much fun drinking, smoking and screwing his way into situations where he was obliged to save the world to ever rationally reflect on how he might be more careful in future.  In short, this little boy’s mind was witnessing the modern equivalent of an ancient epic, some hero gloriously defeating some blatantly unrealistic foe, the gods or lady luck just as blatantly on his side.  What’s more, he looked like a man who enjoyed a nice whiskey…with breakfast.

But, today is the release of Spectre on DVD.  I will not be purchasing.  I was neither shaken, stirred or anything other than resentful.  I cannot recall ever having felt such resentment, although I keep having these strange flashbacks – Harrison Ford, a dusty hat, a whip, George Lucas was laughing, I was crying…anyway.  In short, Bond does not look like a lesser-envied extra from Magic Mike, he is not some brooding, vulnerable, adolescent Feminist.  Can you imagine what would happen to Bond these days if he were to cheerily spank Moneypenny on the way out?  He'd be done for sexism, whichever –ism you would care to invoke, but don’t forget racism.  In fact, Bond’s character, the epitome of masculinity, has been so downtrodden by the empowered, #killallwhitemen minorities that just to cover up this fact, they need to introduce all the multiculti nonsense they think people should want instead.  We can’t have him being a loveable rogue so let’s just copy the dark, grittiness of the Bourne series and hope people are still entertained.  Let’s make him black and hope that it gets some attention, certainly it will stop any accusations of racism for the sheer crime of being white.  Let’s just make Bond a transgender, little Philippino in a wheel chair who will do all he can to ‘fight’ for the country which empowers him to maintain the status quo, especially when he has so much angst to deal with.  Let’s get him a safe space while we’re at it.

The truth is, however, this was all inevitable.  Statism in the 20^th century became Democratic, that is, judicial monopoly became publicly owned and it has turned government power into a free-for-all, much like the tragedy of the commons wherever private property is prohibited by the State.  Democracy has failed and been ripped to shreds, over-legislated; Bond is just the public manifestation of what it has done to those men who supported the State having such power.  No man, men, or otherwise, should have the power Bond had.  But, he does have a nasty habit of surviving.

Paths to a Free Society - an interview with Walter Block

#LibertarianismSoWhite

Why are the majority of Libertarians white men?  Is it a conspiracy?  Actually, there are socio-biological reasons and, if you will give me a moment, it is necessary to flesh them out.  

Co-author of The 10,000 Year Explosion, Gregory Cochran, has commented on the latest data suggesting that Europeans are the 'fusion' of three peoples—blue-eyed, dark-skinned Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Anatolian farmers, and Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (Southern Russia, basically).  He notes that, in Northern Europe, the Indo-Europeans eradicated the Anatolian farmers.  In the South, they simply imposed their language and swung their weight about but, nevertheless, their nomadic movement (having been the first to domesticate and purpose-breed horses) allowed for those increasingly intelligent peasant farmers, who were tied to the land, to create trade routes.  The mixture of these two peoples formed more K-selective, highly intellectual Greek communities with that new x-factor of individual audacity and the libertarian spirit of the Indo-Europeans (especially in the Ionians).  

It would of course be some time for the nomadic, utterly Indo-European northerners to settle into more bourgeois lifestyles which would eventually create the most peaceful, powerful and prosperous societies, particularly the Dutch/Anglospheric groups who have inevitably come to dominate innovation in the vast majority of human endeavours (see
The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce by Deirdre McCloskey).  They would possess all that was great about the ancient, mediterranean West but more so - the full-blooded Faustian spirit of the Indo-Europeans and ever-increasing IQ's necessitated by bourgeois K-strategizing, optimized by even harsher winters.  The absence of enough of these socio-biological traits is arguably the reason the Romans did not achieve the Industrial Revolution; possessing them in greater abundance, however, led to societies with high average IQ's, just under East Asians, but with a significantly higher level of testosterone, increasing creativity and tenacity, and creating cultures which socialize towards individualism and competition, particularly against the imposition of authority.  Having a higher percentage of people with these self-asserting and self-affirming traits is what caused the West to recurringly fight against authorities and their centralization.  Indeed, there are too many revolutions, competing bodies and movements to limit the inevitable expansions of the Leviathan State to mention.  The self-empowering ideals of Classical Liberalism only sprouted in the West and thus many white, male Libertarians take this unique socio-biological habitat in which it exists very seriously.
 
This is perhaps the ultimate reason that many Libertarians do not favour open borders; they think it would be better for the cause of liberty to oppose waves of mass immigration by peoples who have  different evolutionary and cultural backgrounds, that is, social environments not favouring the natural development of Classical Liberalism, let alone Libertarianism. Especially when Europe has received unprecedented numbers of peoples from Conservative Muslim areas.  That politico-religious ideology is necessarily opposed to Liberal Islam's favouring of western, liberal political values, regarding Islam as a moderating cultural technology (e.g. the Golden Rule promotes reciprocity).  

But discussion of the Libertarian debate on immigration shall be for another time.  For now, there is no debate as to why Libertarians are mostly white and almost entirely in European-origin countries, and there is absolutely no way that the Oscars are racist.  Neither am I, in case you were thinking of asking...

What I Love/Hate About the Left and the Right

The political spectrum is not like the autistic spectrum, we are not all on it.  As an Austro-Libertarian (or Anarcho-Capitalist), it is apparent that we are stood apart from the tumultuous scales, eyes ticking and tocking about like a tennis audience.  The scales represent little more than aggression; the red vs blue is merely the equilibrium reached between those interest groups able to wield money and influence.  Naturally, there are some Libertarians who think we need to jump on one side of the scales or other, hoping this might throw off a few poor, lost souls.  I cannot judge them (where their intentions are pure) but I prefer to shout for attention from the sidelines - 'Those with ears to hear...'

So, what exactly do I have to shout about?  Certainly, the Left and the Right each have some good values to fight about; yet, the Left is philosophically unsound at its foundation and the Right, methodologically.  Will either side give, even a little?  Not to each other, if human history has anything to say, but perhaps some might listen to reason.

Here are my thoughts:

What I love/hate about Marxism

What I love/hate about Conservatism