Immigration is a controversial subject in libertarian and anarcho-capitalist circles. Usually when there is a question of what people should be allowed to do or what policies we should support we can turn to property rights. We can ask “who owns this?” Unfortunately, the borders of a nation are not that clear cut. Governments specifically prevent individuals from exercising full ownership of the property along the border, and even seize additional property through eminent domain or similar programs.

Both open and closed government borders are not free market answers. Restricting movement of people over property that you do not own infringes on their rights. Alternatively, the government disallowing private acquisition and thus private decision-making of the land surrounding a nation distorts the amount of immigration that would otherwise occur.

Borders, in part, define the nation-state. It is within those borders that the coercive territorial monopolist of ultimate arbitration exists. So while the strict libertarian/anarcho-capitalist position on borders is to privatize them, to do so means to end the state. Until that happens we are forced to choose a 2nd best option as an immigration policy.

The federal government setting the rules for the entire border is the worst possible route for people who care about respecting the wishes of individuals. It amounts to a few politicians and bureaucrats setting the immigration policy for millions of square miles and hundreds of millions of people.

Outside of full privatization, there is another option which can unite libertarians of many stripes: decentralization.

We don’t all need to have the same immigration rules. By allowing individual states, and preferably localities to set their own immigration program, we can get closer to what individuals would decide under privatization.

This is also the Constitutional position. The extent of the federal government’s Constitutional powers concerns naturalization. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 declares “Congress shall have power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States” Naturalization is not immigration. It is synonymous with citizenship. That means, constitutionally speaking, the power to allow or disallow the movement of non-citizens rests with the states and the people, as pointed out in the Tenth Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson reinforced this position in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: “Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States …An Act concerning aliens, which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.”

There is potential for a broad coalition on this subject ranging from constitutional conservatives to minarchist and anarchist libertarians. Many more people can have the immigration policy they desire if these decisions are made at a more local level.

For more content like this, please check out the Principled Libertarian on Facebook. Give them a like and tell them Actual Anarchy sent ya!

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Another Take on Immigration appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

If your first thought is “well libertarians surely care about green!”, I’ll concede and state that this is the point of this article.

Humans, each with their own individual goals and interests, seek a better life for themselves and other people they care about. We are born into an impossible situation though, having signed a supposed “social contract” at birth which guilts us into thinking we owe something to future generations because of the sacrifices made in the past.

And thus lies the root of the problem: the confusion between positive and negative rights. Negative rights, justifiably, state that you as an individual have the right not to have force initiated against you and not  to have your property confiscated from you, while positive rights, which state that things are owed to you or other people, is a fallacy of the highest degree and should be abhorred by anyone familiar with logic.

The logic for positive rights proceeds as follows:

Person A of the past, did something to help or to hurt person B in the past, and therefore person C in the present who either gained or lost because of person A and B’s interactions in the past, owes something to or gets to take away something from person D in the present or the future.

It should be obvious why this doesn’t make sense, because if it’s true that I’m a user today of say the internet and its true I’m a benefactor of this past invention, then it would seem to imply that I “owe” something to the internet. But I pay for my internet services because I value its use, so in what sense am I a free rider?

And furthermore, any argument could be thought up to imply I owe something to somebody or I get to take away something from somebody, because of someone’s actions in the past. Its so nonsensical that’s its difficult to sum up into words, because it can imply almost anything.

Libertarianism however gives the individual a voice though because they are not responsible for things of the past, only their actions in the present. It allows for people to be judged by their character, and not by a collective (namely the state). The core aspect of communism is egalitarian in nature, seeking total equality in horrors that’s have been lived through by millions in which attempts to banish individualism not only goes against human nature (people having dreams and goals) but specifically uses violence to achieve its means, an impossible means to achieve at that.

There have been several articles circulating stating that white nationalism (which I won’t be facetious and leave out that some were written by an Asian guy) isn’t incompatible with libertarianism, which on the surface of it appears to be true in that libertarianism does not tell you that you can’t exclude people from your own private property, whether it be a business or your private home. The reasons for exclusion can be grim or nonsensical even, but the logic still follows that private property allows for inclusion and exclusion.

But then comes the question of, is racially motivated nationalism, hence a nation that wishes to have a private society based on some arbitrary traits unrelated to how a person conducts themselves (such as how tall you are, what color your eyes are, what your skin color is, etc.), able to be accomplished in a manner that is not contradicting to the main principle which is to not harm anyone else? How do you go about removing all the people who don’t look like you, and where do you draw the line? This argument only has plausibility in theory, in which we have a small private society that started from homesteading land and allowed people in one by one.

Society, in its present state, would have to use violence to create a nation of a single race, and even worse, it would have to utilize state functions itself.

On a simpler and more hysterical level, we can imagine the complications that would occur with mixed people, that is people that have different shades of skin tone in their own race; would a half black person be allowed in a white only society if they at least appeared white? It would be an odd and humorous question on the contract being signed entering into the private society that requires you to be 100% white, and many would lie their way in if they thought they could have a better life there.

From the perspective of private businesses, the question that needs to be asked from time to time is, what is more greedy: being racist and catering to the most amount of people you can, or being racist and limiting the amount of profits you earn to constrict your business?

If being greedy in business means that all you care about is profit, surely the former scenario is more greedy, as they are overlooking their racial bias to achieve more profit. The private business owner who chooses to exclude certain groups from their stores are limiting their profits, and hence being less greedy.

Finally, there is a reason why the Mises Institute and their senior fellows don’t use all their energy putting out information in opposition to white nationalism: because when something is so clearly the opposite of what you believe in, why even acknowledge the absurdities? As if people who spend their time thinking about how government harms the individual, also wishes to group the individual into collectivist classes. It just doesn’t make any sense to promote this line of thinking.

Putting people into classes is what collectivists do, while libertarians recognize the importance of a person’s actions versus their appearance.

Racism is collectivism at its core, and though it’s such an obvious facet of the libertarian mind that it hardly needs to be restated, collectivism is antithetical to individualism. It’s not that a private society couldn’t be formed in which only one race exists, but it seems to be problematic that it’s impossible to do that without violence.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post True Libertarianism Is Colorblind appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

By Anarcho-Viking

The meme warriors from 4chan have revolutionized the art of meme warfare, and in the process of doing so; prominent libertarian scholars have appeared frequently together with fascist leaning military dictators, in what I would call the “alt-right meme circus”.

Memeing Gone Rampant

The helicopter is warmed up, photoshoped into the image are the faces of Augusto Pinochet (the former Chilean dictator) and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Austrian economist and libertarian theorist) replacing the original caricature faces. Loaded onto the helicopter are a few communists or antifa social justice activists. Pepe the frog furthermore drags the commies onto the helicopter, and the helicopter carries the flag of Kekistan (an invented kingdom).

The text on the meme reads, “Hoppe’s physical removal service”, or “The Hoppean helicopter ride”, or “Free Kekistan!” Does this scenario sound familiar to you?

If you identify yourself as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian then you have certainly been exposed to the literature of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and you might laugh in amusement at this type of weaponized autism put forward by the alt-right internet trolls.

While the perversion of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics is entertaining in a warped sort of way, it is understandable that some people could be deceived by this distortion of Hoppe’s arguments, and as a consequence obtain a twisted interpretation of one of the greatest heroes for the cause of liberty.

Physical Removal

In order to clear up the confusion regarding the controversy around Hoppe, we need to look closer at his argumentation ethics, and frame the issue given the presumed conditions from which Hoppe derives his reasoning. In his masterpiece, Democracy – The God That Failed, Hoppe famously claims that:

“in a covenant…among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists”

because some people might promote ideas that would disturb the naturally established covenant and destabilize the covenant’s asserted protection of private property, concepts such as “democracy and communism”.

Hoppe furthermore goes on to argue that “there can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order” and the conclusion is that the alleged enemies of private property preservation “will have to be physically separated and removed from society”, so to speak.

The idea of “physical removal” is coming from the aforementioned statements. These statements, when taken out of context can be widely misunderstood.

The “Hoppean” proviso

It therefore becomes crucial to understand from what framework Hoppe delivers his bold rhetoric. People who have never even read a line in Democracy – The God That Failed, will think that Hoppe believes it is acceptable from an anarcho-capitalist stand-point to physically remove socialists by the use of government force, i.e., initiate aggression.

This is obviously not the case, and anyone who has had the opportunity to read Hoppe’s work, knows that the proviso for removing people is the understanding and contractual agreements of property rights in a free society.

The “Hoppean” proviso rests on the presumption that the notion of private property in a covenant society is the rule of law. It is therefore not controversial at all to say that a property owner has every right to exclude anyone from his/her property, for any reason, at any time. The natural right to discriminate is fundamental to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society, and it is nothing more controversial than your own right to decide whom you invite to come to your house for dinner.

In other words, when framing the issues by looking at them through the lens of self-determination, property rights, and voluntary association, it becomes crystal clear that the right to exclusion is a high necessity and a defense against moral decay and high time-preference. On the other hand, if one looks at the issues through the statist lens of government coercion, collectivism, and nationalism, like factions of the alt-right, then they are easy to become grotesquely contorted.

Migration and Borders

The anti-state mentality of the “Hoppean” proviso can be applied to the question of immigration and borders as well. In a free society no such thing as state borders would exist restricting the movement of individuals. However, there would be private borders instead driven by market forces, and private borders of property owners spanning geographical territories can exclude and discriminate freely.

We can therefore conclude that no such thing as “freedom of immigration exists” between private borders of different property titles. How could there be free immigration if highly selective homeowner associations and property owners determine admission to a specific territory?

The property titles may vary in their restrictive nature. We could have areas where there would be “no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers”, and at the same time there would be areas where the selectivity and discrimination would be less restricted due to more relaxed covenants on immigration.

Even in the case of immigration the “physical removal” part is not justified with state action, but it is justified by the notion that property owners ought to have the right to do as they please with their respective property titles. When immigration occurs without the consent or invitation of property owners in a specific area, by the force of the government iron fist, we have a case of forced integration. In a free society, a case of forced integration would be called trespassing, and thus “physical removal” is without any doubt warranted.

When the “Hoppean” proviso is not satisfied and the state carries out deportations despite there being an agreement between property owner and migrant, we have a case of forced segregation.

The “physical removal” by forced segregation, and hence not in line with the “Hoppean” proviso, is not warranted and it violates the ethics of private property.

Freedom From The State

This piece should have cleared up some of the confusions involving the phenomenon of “physical removal” contained in Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. All the arguments derived from Hoppe are rooted in the basic notion of negative rights as opposed to positive rights.

Namely freedom in the sense that you are free from the compulsion of the state, but not freedom to impose yourself and violate property rights of individuals who simply and peacefully refuse to associate with you in any way.

Discrimination is not an act of violence, and as individuals we choose to discriminate every day, from the food we eat, to where we buy our clothes, to who we rent from, and so forth.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post Physical Removal – Separating the Facts from the Perversions appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Otherwise, you would have a difficult time in organising the slaves and call yourself “the government”.

To destroy your nation’s economy, you need to abhor freedom of others. If you lack this quality, you are not “mentally fit” to envy and expropriate others. All your actions can be justified by a piece of paper called “constitution”. There’s nothing to worry about, except anarchists.

Second thing, you should never learn economics. What matters is sociology because it helps us to “screech autistically” and attain the status of victimhood, followed by a biased understanding of the history subject.

By the way, if you come across any “critical thinker” or “learned person” then it is your moral duty to shun his/her opinion without using facts, but sentiments.

Anyway, the above premises are the fundamental and foundational qualities to embrace the civility of a good politician. Only Ron Paul can be a bad politician because he does not support this guide/blog. I condemn him for that.

To begin with:

Power does not corrupt. Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. It’s the limited power which corrupts the economy wholly. In fact, unlimited power is the science of getting things done without being accountable at all. Without power, you cannot choke down your imbecilic imaginations on anyone’s soul.

Money is the Kim Kardashian of the economy. If you don’t know how to spank (spend) the paper then you are unfit to be a politician. All you have to do is print the paper out of thin air. It is uneconomical to back the paper with gold or any other commodity because it would end up empowering your slaves and they would devalue you later.

Muscles: Kindly sign up with your nearby local mafia gang without letting them know that you’re the best mafia in town. Delude them but pay them handsomely. You need muscle power, along with money power, to get the people obey you decently. Call them “cops” instead?

Monopoly: Imagine people listening to you or obeying you without questioning you or regulating you? It is possible if you prioritise the power of monopoly without sharing it with others. As long as you have the monopoly with yourself, people won’t take you jokingly. Your uncontrollable attitude towards monopoly will determine the course of people’s aptitude and political altitude.

Sadism: All your political speeches should look diplomatic and manipulative. If any trait is missing then you won’t achieve the aim. I know that you are always orgasmic to screw people’s wealth but please ensure that you’re not letting them know, otherwise who would suck their liberties? Try to camouflage your opinions as if you’re the only romantic person in the economy, without letting your people know that you’re going to economically BDSM them, without their consent.

Propaganda: Buy as much as media you can, but on the mainstream level. Anyway, social media memes have limited reach. If some of the media houses don’t gibe with your ‘policy’ then over-regulate their “freedom of expression”. Automatically, the media would love to appreciate your narcism (if you can make them sleep with you over a bottle of whisky). Propaganda is an art of showing yourself clean when you’re not. Imitate the propaganda models of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or Trumperica, to begin with.

Regulation: Your chances of getting re-elected is lower if you minimise the regulations. Already people are addicted to submission, fear and violence so it makes sense for you to supply them with more laws, rules and regulations. Make the “book” more technical, biblical and draconian so that you can create more jobs and consultancy firms and the regulatory captures. If you minimise the regulations, you lose your presence  in the history of global economy.

Ideology: Don’t use “isms” at all but do translate the theory into action. For example: You can say that “we believe in democracy” (which is, of course, a mild version of communism) without letting the “social scientists” know that you’re actually doing fascism or communism. I know that you cannot “convince” the mass society all-the-time but you can surely “confuse” them with the ideologies. Develop a “public sphere” and [discursive] “marketplace of ideas” so that people fall for it, and you end up diverting them from the unimportant issues like economics freedom, property rights, judicial independence, etc.

People’s wealth is your wealth. Your wealth is your wealth only. Just don’t forget to use the term “people” in your speeches or else people won’t fall for your Ponzi schemes. The best way to get more wealth from people is to tax their every function, including non-economic ones. They would believe that you’re creating the wealth in the economy, and that’s what matters for the economy of “social security”. When it comes to taxation, always ignore knowing that it is the “compulsory fee” which we pay for the uncivilization.

War: Anything you can do constitutionally is fun. For example: You will be charged for murder if you’re not from the government. You can have more wars so that you can create more jobs through inflation, wealth through defence industries, and popularity through media. War is the health of your political stability. It should make you look powerful, no matter how you’re.

Fair Trade: There is nothing called “free trade”. I mean it is so insane to learn that people can voluntarily trade with another without coercion. The idea of “fair trade” makes sense because it can help you to play with the currencies and trade conflicts at your political whims. The more you bring fairness in trade, the more people would legitimise your defence policy.

Conclusion: If you’re not convinced to be a politician then you need to reread this piece.
_______________________________________________________

About the author
Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_______________________________________________________

The post A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

It is just not a belief but also a modern ideology. They worship this political ideology, like the way jihadists worship Islam, but without directly initiating violence. The tribe also believes that it is morally correct to have freedom in all economic activities because they trust the principles of government-constituted free market.

When it comes to defense, police and courts or law, the tribe would not mind distrusting the principles of laissez-faire. To add, the tribe does not realise that it suffers from a psychotic disorder called ‘stockholm syndrome’ (which means, sympathising with the crime doer).

For example: they chant, blog & podcast “government is evil” (without realising that they’re the ones who are always eager to necessitate the evil at the expense of everyone else). They tend to forget that ‘limiting’ the evil does not equate to abolishment of evil.

Evil is evil, no matter what’s the size of it.

I do not intend to bash these intellectuals in this article. I am simply analysing their unnoticed hypocrisy.

What makes their myth so different from other political ideologies like democracy, communism, etc., when their own ideology is a diet coke of all the fascist tendencies?

On one hand, they condemn monopoly of the state. I think it makes sense because monopoly over the means of production is the root cause of all problems in our world.

On the other hand, the tribe believes that a magical constitution would suddenly beget “good governance” administered by a “good government”, out of nowhere, in the complex world.

In this regard, how would they behave with their own dissents if the constitution is deemed as a social contract?   A constitution is just not a rule book but also a “social contract”, which makes citizens (slaves) to pay obligation to their master (government) without signing the agreement et al.

This is where the tribe consciously fail to realise with their own eyes that government is a lie.

Governments are “malum in se” (evil in itself) in their nature and violate the non-aggression principle (an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate).

In this case, let’s assume that taxation is not a legal robbery. Then, why would a ‘limited’ government continue to conscript people’s wealth for the sake of building the roads? What is the fair percentage to consider that taxation is a not a legal theft, when any “illegal” mafia gang can also empower itself to expropriate the people?

While these philosophers continue to claim that the emergence of a government is inevitable and that therefore efforts must be concentrated towards establishing a “minimal government” to protect freedom, but then it cannot prevent its collapse or political suicide without compromising all of its laws and principles.

For example: How would it decide the rate of defence expenditure without inflating the public funds for defence services, which is likely to maximize the monopoly, tax structure and power of the minimal government?

I suggest you to apply the same reasoning/question/logic to “priority sectors” like fiscal policy with reference to populism, monetary policy with reference to printing machine, and property rights with reference to eminent domain.

As the American Experiment has proven, a mechanism like constitutional check-and-balance has not been successful in stemming the tide of governmental expansion. Checks and balances are not enough to successfully distract the members of the ruling class from their convergent interests, since, checks or not, they are still all part of the same parasitical entity.

An exterior standard alone is also not sufficient to stop the governmental expansion. A piece of paper or constitution is only somewhat obeyed as long as its legitimacy remains: the more misinterpreted and controversial it becomes, the least protection it affords against the government’s expansion.

To conclude, coercion cannot produce cooperation.

My facebook note highlights a case of the minimal government sustaining corporatism. Governments are not, and cannot, be based on consent. It is mathematically impossible to maintain a government over a territory of any considerable size without imposing some non-consensual rules.

Furthermore, no government has ever been founded on consent. All governments are based on the necessity for victorious warring factions to organize the taking of tribute from conquered factions, to make organized theft less risky and more profitable. All other governments derived from those have come to existence through ruling class conflicts or colonial politics.

In short, consent of the vast majority of people is nowhere involved in the process of government-creation.

About the author

Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic

The post Diet Coke of Fascism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

From feminism to BLM, mass immigration to LGBT, and environmania to egalitarianism, there’s one intrinsically sick and demented characteristic that all modern leftist movements share: a gigantic ego-maniacal chip on their shoulders. It weighs down the ideologues with hubris, draining out any common sense they may be able to muster under normal circumstances.

It strangles them with an sense of entitlement, inflating their pride to an unbearable level for both them and the people to which they subject their self-centeredness. It inhibits their rational thinking, propelling them into a perpetual stupor of anger and admiration for whatever is the trendy cause du jour. It suspends their critical thinking, making them susceptible to the snake-oil chicanery of the social-justice cultists.

Basically, this obsessive self-absorption renders them stupid, angry as hell, and willing accomplices in the perpetuation of all sorts of hateful, illogical, sexist, and racist movements that spawn from the poisonous roots of progressivism. And this leads to a few irrational conclusions drawn by the participants in the A Day Without Women march happening this Wednesday.

It allows them a clear conscience taking part in an event organized by diabolical dames, like Maoist Tithi Battacharya, Stalinist and accessory-to-murder Angela Davis, and convicted terrorist and murderer Rasmea Yousef Odeh. These are some scary, totalitarian bitches, y’all. (And don’t let the fake-news promoters at Snopes tell you otherwise.)

It gives them carte blanche to spew lies, twist facts, ignore authentic injustices, and insult rational opposition to their tyrannical messages. It grows in them a feeling of moral superiority, as was seen in the recent stunt by female House Democrats, wearing white to Trump’s address to Congress as an “emblem of purity, symboliz[ing] the quality of our purpose.”

As their supposed tribute to the suffragists, these fems say the move was representative of their beloved “right to vote.” Yet, it was that very political franchise that determined Trump as winner.

Translation: 

“We believe in the electoral process, except when we lose.”

“And we fight for all women, except those who voted against Hillary … and gender apostates and married chicks and Christians and moms and global-warming skeptics and ‘Islamophobes’ and middle-class suburbanites and sometimes even white girls just ’cause they’re white.” Yay, sisterhood!

A recent psychological study finds that “outrage driven by moral-identity concerns serves to compensate for the threat of personal or collective immorality” and shows a “link between guilt and self-serving expressions of outrage that reflect a kind of ‘moral hypocrisy,’ or at least, a non-moral form of anger with a moral facade.”

The research exposes that “individuals respond to reminders of their group’s moral culpability with feelings of outrage at third-party harm-doing” (for the marchers, read: Trump, men, the patriarchy, etc). So, the marchers’ umbrage isn’t actually about “maintaining justice,” but rather, making themselves feel better by penalizing others. It’s psychological projection on a mass scale.

This contrivance gives progressive grrrrls a purpose in their lives, replacing self-loathing with self-righteousness, and empowerment with exhibitionism. This fanatical grievance ideology is why they overstate and/or outright fabricate abuses of sexism and other alleged injustices, pushing the pity-party narrative, while subsequently diminishing real atrocities done against females.

So, instead of doing something to help “families who are struggling with childcare, putting food on the table, and accessing healthcare after Obama’s eight years in office,” critiqued one mom after January’s march, American feminists virtue signal about their phony victimhood. Hell, they gotta go to the trouble of concocting “hate crimes” in an attempt to authenticate their zealous beliefs.

Moreover, they chant “women’s rights are human rights,” yet ignore the genuine abuses of many girls and women around the globe. Interesting that this line is probably used as an homage to a 1995 speech at the UN’s 4th Conference on Women in which Hillary Clinton accurately depicts the oppression of many non-Western women.

Yet, it’s the “feminist activists that seem to have little or no awareness of the struggles of women in other parts of the world,” explains philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers. So, forget the nonfictional systemic and cultural misogyny abroad, the plight of both women and men domestically, the marginalization of “white feminist” marchers, and definitely those wretched female Trump supporters.

Kinda makes their unity principle of “solidarity” ring hollow, don’t it?! These modern “fainting-couch feminists,” as Sommers calls them, may like to think of themselves as tough revolutionaries. But what they really are is grown damn women acting like spoiled little schoolgirls, tantrums and all. They happily preen in their bedroom mirrors, satisfied with the moral masquerade they’re dramatizing, yet there’s no palpable self-reflection.

This reminds me of a scene from The Sopranos when a moneyless Finn tells girlfriend Meadow he didn’t apply for a position at the local burger-flipping joint because he “wouldn’t want to take away a job that a minority could get.” His sham indignation about the “less fortunate” was simply a cover for his own failings – an excuse for his own lame rationalization and personal decisions.

Similarly, feminists are participants in a losing paradigm of their own creation. They dwell in a distorted reality by telling themselves they can have it all. They embrace the slut lifestyle and demean their essence. They damage the lives and bodies of themselves and others by declaring infanticide as liberation.

They ignore science and human nature by saying they want to live free from “structural impediments” and “gender norms, expectations, and stereotypes.” They seek a world not based in fact and truth, and then get hysterical in their pink pussy hats when common-sense folks refuse to coddle them or enable their delusions.

They fabricate crises, like the mythical “rape culture” and “gender-wage gap,” when in truth, they reside in a progressive-run culture in which they’re actually bestowed a privileged position. They disdain logic and worship emotion. They say they can do anything a man can do or pompously assert that men are just plain worthless. Nasty stuff for sure.

They tout the old feminist mantra “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” and then blame Trump or the patriarchy or whatever scapegoat they can come up with in the ivory towers of gender-studies programs or “diversity and inclusion” departments when their fantasies don’t pan out.

Feminism is a crutch. It’s not about strength and sisterhood, it’s about self-anointed victimhood, convincing yourself that your poor life choices and their consequences are someone else’s fault, and then seeking revenge on that make-believe oppressor.

So, instead of flaunting that mammoth chip on their shoulder, what American women should really do is knock off that impediment and reclaim their autonomy. Ladies, I say embrace independence, individualism, and the God-given beauty and power of femininity, and leave the unseemly and fanatical collectivism to the pussies.

On Wednesday, I’ll have more analysis on the zaniness that is “A Day Without Women.” Stay tuned.

Source: Dissident Mama.net

The post Knock that Chip off Your Shoulders, Pussies! appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Remember when Donald Trump, during his campaign style rally in Florida, made an obscure reference to Sweden, as if a recent incident had taken place the night before?

Many people, including myself, shook their heads, and tried to figure out what the President actually meant? Trump’s comment went viral to the point where the Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom went out and demanded an explanation. Before the twitter attack storm on the President had calmed down, I received a message from my brother informing me that riots were taking place in Rinkeby, a suburb south of Stockholm with over a 90% immigrant population, as we were chatting.

Suddenly, Trump’s eerie remarks from the day before, returned to haunt my mind., and I was wondering whether or not “The God Emperor” was capable of travelling through time. An arrest warrant carried out by The Stockholm Police Department, in Rinkeby, had caused severe civil unrest and violence on the streets. This bizarre coincidence flipped the attention from Donald Trump to the Swedish authorities, who now had to explain themselves. We all know that governments are experts at covering up stories, but how could one possibly explain away a dozen cars set on fire, stores looted, rocks thrown at police, and private property destroyed? By the way, this wasn’t the first time. Riots had been plaguing the Stockholm suburbs before as well.

Anne-Sophie Naslund, a correspondent from one of Sweden’s biggest newspapers, Expressen, appeared on Fox News in an interview with Tucker Carlson regarding the riots in Stockholm.

There are a couple of interesting things to notice in this interview. Tucker Carlson was pressing Ms. Naslund on some crime statistics, pointing out that rape crimes went up 13%, and overall crimes went up 6.5% in 2016. These statistics are both correct. Ms. Naslund attempted to explain these metrics by saying that gun violence related crimes had gone up as a consequence of people coming in from the European Union, according to “what studies have shown so far”. There is just one minor issue with Ms. Naslund’s suggestion: there are no such studies. They simply do not exist, and she fabricated that statement from thin air. When Ms. Naslund said that crimes are falling, it would only be true if one were looking at the comparison between 2014 and 2015, when the crime rate did indeed fall. However, if we look at overall deadly crimes, between 1990 and 2015, we see that it had decreased all over the western countries, but much less so in Sweden (from 1.3 to 1.1 per 100K residents), compared to the US (9.4 to 4.9 per 100K residents). Furthermore within the last four years deadly violence has begun to increase once again in Sweden, while we are seeing a downward trend in almost every other western nation-state.

Now that we’ve straightened out some facts about crimes, let’s take a look at the areas where the crime rates are the highest, in Sweden. It is widely known, and far from a controversial statistic, that the vast majority of violent crimes take place in areas with a high proportion of immigrant population. Rinkeby is no exception to this, and therefore it should not come as a surprise to anyone who had looked at the statistics beforehand. But yet, it is taboo to even mention that violent crimes occur far more often in immigrant neighborhoods, and should you be so foolish as to mention this fact, then you’re risking, not only being written out of polite society, and having your career ruined by PC thought controllers, but you’re also risking criminal charges against you. Peter Springare is a retired police officer from the city of Orebro in Sweden, who got into a legal battle with the state by simply stating what most people should already know, namely that first generation immigrants, and children born to first generation immigrants, are vastly over represented among people who commit violent crimes. Mr. Springare was accused of hate speech, but charges against him were later on dropped. How much of that was due to public pressure through various social media campaigns, urging state authorities to leave Mr. Springare alone, is unclear. Regardless of the charges being dropped, the point here is to show how deeply threatened free speech is in Sweden these days.

If Sweden wants to find a solution to an evident crisis the country is going through with the massive flow of immigrants from the middle-east (160K in 2016 alone), then they ought to look for answers beyond government intervention. As an outspoken anarcho-capitalist, the ideal solution would be to privatize every square inch of land, including state borders. In this way, we are dealing with trespassing without voluntary consent from both parties (property owner and individual seeking to enter into property). Since privatizing everything seems very distant at this point, so the easier solution, without abolishing government completely, is to privatize all immigration. The government should not be making decisions about forcing citizens to subsidize immigration not demanded by the market. Rather, private philanthropy and the free market should dictate the proper flow of immigrants, in and out of a nation-state. Only then can we expect a peaceful integration to take place, without the compulsion of the state.

The post Donald Trump’s Sixth Sense and the Case of Sweden appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

EDIT

Yes, with one minor correction. I don’t live in Sweden anymore. I was born and raised there, and I have family living there. I do follow Sweden closely because it’s my home country, but thank goodness I do not live there anymore.

In Stockholm specifically, which is my hometown

I have an open offer for them to write an article for us here, but they want to make sure they have the facts straight first.

I can, but probably have to wait till tomorrow, because it’s not all clear how this played out, and what the triggers were? I’m sure it will be even worse than from what I know now, once I get all the facts straight.

Here is their article:

https://www.actualanarchy.com/2017/02/21/donald-trumps-sixth-sense-and-the-case-of-sweden/

---

Riots in Stockholm tonight. 10-12 cars burning, rocks being thrown at police, firefighters, and paramedics. Donald Trump was able to predict the future with his obscure comment the other day. The world has gone mad, and Sweden has a greater number of “no go” zones than, for example Chicago. Forced integration and multiculturalism has been such a huge failure.

Rinkeby, a southern suburb of Stockholm, with almost 100% immigrant population, is in flames after an arrest warrant was carried out by the Stockholm police department. It’s a total mess.

Sweden took in more than 160K immigrants in 2016 alone. Sexual assaults and rape crimes have gone up factorial (steeper than exponential). South-East Bronx is considered safer than these neighborhoods in Sweden.

In response to a question about Trump’s recent remarks regarding crime in Sweden related to immigration:

Yep, it’s like really embarrassing for Sweden too. The Swedish state authorities had demanded an explanation of what he meant with his comment, and now this happened…..

The post DEVELOPING – Reports of Riots in Sweden appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Migration is a hot topic these days, especially since President Trump’s travel ban on nations of interest. Many Republicans tend to embrace strict limitations on immigration while Democrats seem to have no limitations; but what about Libertarians?

The official Libertarian Party’s platform on migration states that people should be able to “travel freely as long as they are peaceful.” They also claim that ‘most immigrants are peaceful and productive’ and that ‘undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be classified as criminals.’ The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) takes it a step further and claims that “there is only one Libertarian position on immigration” and that is “open borders.” There are a slew of other Libertarian websites (like this one) making similar claims, but do all Libertarians feel this way?

It’s hard to quantify considering most polls don’t include Libertarian based questions on topic issues. But if you take to the comment sections on many platforms and a vast array of websites and blogs, a lot of people calling themselves Libertarian don’t seem to share the institutional views that the Libertarian Party, the FFF and many other gatekeeper outlets espouse. Some more mainstream Libertarians like David Boaz and John Stossel believe that migration needs checks and balances. Some equate open borders as being a principle of communism. Ron Paul has advocated for creating better working visa programs while still enforcing migration laws but above all, ending the welfare state.

But the last point is key.

How can Libertarians be in favor of open borders while a welfare state is in place?

And there lies the conundrum. I think this article from LewRockwell.com is a must read for Libertarians who are confused on their position of open borders. Hans-Hermann Hoppe encourages real Libertarians to not be the useful idiots of cultural Marxism via the victimology that has permeated the main stream Libertarian institutions.

The post Are Open Borders Really the Position of Libertarians? appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Immigration is a natural right, and no man may be coerced into not going to a location in which the owners of that place would freely accept his presence there or would freely sell him that property.

That being said, a person cannot come into a community in which the residents of that community do not welcome him no more than a person can come into your bedroom at night where he is no less welcome by that family.

Murderers should not be let into any community if they are not welcome, nor rapists, but what of LGBTQ-ers more generally, or the “corrupters of our youth,” or any other arbitrary distinction people view as a threat to their way of life?

Where we do not put restrictions on what type of people a family may not welcome in their home, we should not put restrictions on what type of people a community can welcome amongst their midst, if that is a community’s free expressed will.
So, where the issue is is in our current governmental system. It is possible to view immigration in light of principles on one hand and our personal opinions of this or that group or person on another, but consistency between the two is made impossible.

My skepticism towards accepting large swathes of Muslims from countries which we are at war with should be considered a healthy skepticism among my coreligionists and countrymen, but of course the decision of whether such individuals may be allowed to live amongst us is not left up to my coreligionists and countrymen because we must all accept the imperial decrees of Washington.

If the LGBTQ-ers of San Francisco want to let this that or the other group into their city that is a preferable thing for Washington to allow than for San Franciscans to tell me me I must as well, or for me to tell them they may not. In reality Washington calls all the shots and communities may not choose whom they wish to freely welcome into their communities. San Francisco is far from what I would in any meaningful way call my country, it’s a city almost as foreign to me as Quebec which is incidentally closer to me geographically. (#Calexit)
Now, this ideal community/individual level immigration control is inhibited by our constitutional framework. Where Utah may extend citizenship to this or that person or group of people we in PA are obliged to accept them into our communities as per the constitution. We are not however obliged to accept foreigners who are welcomed guests into this or that state. So here, despite the presumption of power Washington claims to exercise, is where the primary wave of defense against demographic suicide should reside for the time being, not principally in Washington.
Further, with regards to the recent policy changes made by Trump, it is not an issue my personal opinions incline me to care much about. I think it’s tragic that there is so much fear mongering and aggressive policy towards Iran, while our citizenry views the breakdown of diplomatic relations with them with contempt or indifference. Iran should not be on the ban list, Saudi Arabia though, for reasons that I think should be fairly obvious given their anti-American policies, should be placed on the ban list. All other countries placed currently on the list are countries which the Obama administration has waged drone warfare on and so a temporary ban on immigration from these states seems only prudent.

Where in history have we accepted immigration from countries we actively fought wars against, undeclared as they may be?

The solution for this migrant crisis, which may be shaping up to be the major global issue for the 21st century and is similar to the demographic upheaval brought upon the collapsing Roman Empire, is yet to be seen. It is hopeful that, should all other political mechanisms fail, our federal system and state structure can provide a smooth transition in tumultuous times to a stable more decentralized governmental regime.

The only potential turning back of this doomsday clock is proposed perfectly by Dr. Ron Paul.

First, end the welfare state magnet that attracts so many migrants, from particularly latin America. Second, stop fighting aggressive foreign wars which displace thousands. This kills not only innocents but also jeopardizes our allies’ and our own domestic security. Finally, end the drug war which encourages the smuggling of peoples as well as weapons and narcotics across US borders.

The post My Complete Take on Immigration Issues Recently appeared first on Actual Anarchy.