Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
eXiled Radio / February 2, 2010
By Team eXiled

Listen to this radio interview as Mark Ames talks to radio host Scott Horton about Russia, the fuckups in the White House, how Larry Summers screwed the entire world up, and what Libertarians and the Left have in common.

Mark Ames is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion from Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine.

Click the cover & buy the book!

Read more:, Team eXiled, eXiled Radio

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at


Add your own

  • 1. homero  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    It was long, but entertaining. If only Mark could come off like this in his writing …

  • 2. Jimjones  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    around 13 it really gets good. and thats where the parallels are. you think the neoliberal globalists can’t sink american “capitalism” too?

  • 3. Timmy  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    Ames is the bad-est ass mofo who
    ever shot a 22!

  • 4. Frank McG  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Allying with libertarians? ugh

    “Libertarian” is just another word for anarchists to come off as legit for their literal child’s understanding of government. Anyone older than collage age who still describes themself as a libertarian can simplify the whole process and simply say “I am an idiot.”

  • 5. Reamer  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Wait… where IS Gary Brecher?

  • 6. Mad Nomad  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Nice radio discussion.

    Changing the subject, would be interested in hearing about what your assessment is, not so much on Russia or Ukraine, but on Belarus. Is it gong to go bankrupt before the United States, or after?

    (The situation as I see it: Lukashenko props up his government’s popularity with social programs that the country can’t afford, pays for them with borrowed money, and there is no plan to pay the money back – ever. Will Russia annex the country in return for assuming its debts, will the country survive somehow by turning isolationist, or will it find some other trick to pull at the last minute that isn’t altogether obvious?)

    Just curious.

  • 7. John Seal  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    I consider myself a left-libertarian; left on economic issues, libertarian on social issues. You can also call me a socialist and I’ll wear the badge with pride. That said, it is so refreshing to hear dialogue between ‘right’ and ‘left’ that engages issues without descending into the tired cliches that serve as dog whistles for our two ‘major political parties’. We desperately need a realignment of American politics, and this broadcast is one small step in that direction. Job well done, gentlemen!

  • 8. Necronomic Justice  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Frank McG is an idiot. There, I said it.

  • 9. RanDomino  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    They’re not in it for power, they’re not in it for sexiness; they’re in it for money; and in order to fight back we have to fight the insane beliefs that let them exploit us: We have to fight the belief that people are generally mean and selfish- only a few people are, and they become businessmen and venture capitalists. We have to fight the belief that a worker has a moral obligation to work hard for their pay; instead, we should be against wage-labor in general; and against title-based property, being instead for ownership based on use and possession. We should build strong radical anti-capitalist labor unions with bottom-up democratic control.

    The whole world must be turned upside-down…

  • 10. empire in decline  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    It’s not just culture that has caused this country to be so militaristic.

    According to the Department of Veteran Affairs:

    “Of the 25 million veterans currently alive, nearly three of every four served during a war or an official period of hostility. About a quarter of the nation’s population — approximately 70 million people — are potentially eligible for V.A. benefits and services because they are veterans, family members, or survivors of veterans.”

    25% of this country is intimately connected with the military. Most soldiers have sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, fathers and mothers who take everything personally rather than looking at things within a political context.

  • 11. Chris  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    “Anyone older than collage (an ironic misspelling) age who still describes themself as a libertarian can simplify the whole process and simply say “I am an idiot.”

    If thats the case, then that leaves only 2 general categories of authoritarian politics vs one general type of leftist liberalism. This would leave us with a three party system which includes the political stylings of the Third Reich. Eliminating that type of government as being impractical for all except the insane or the insanely trusting, then we are left with the politics of the modern day democrats and republicans.

    These parties currently comprise a 2 party political system of the USA, which is the biggest joke in the 1st world, simply because it is so rigidly a two party system and is therefore easily massaged into being an undemocratic ruse on the people which it was originally designed to serve. In other words, and to state what you already know, it doesn’t matter who you vote for because the current day republican/democrat parties are too similar for it to make a real difference. They are such due to the lack of a third party.

    Right libertarianism is the necessary third party that would keep politics (more) honest. Right libertarianism (not the false populist/corporate backed manipulative tea party bullshit either – I speak of the Ron Paul variety) is the one political undercurrent that would work to keep whatever government is in charge working for the people. Without it, even the leftist liberal party is too easily co-opted and corrupted and often forced to cave into the demands of the authoritarian right and corporate money, to work for the few under the radar, while working for the many in token gestures and campaign speeches only.

    If right libertarianism were better represented in this country, then the authoritarian right wingers would be much less powerful and the rights of the people would be much better protected. Albeit impractical/the antithesis of a central government, its greater influence would be better for everyone. Sadly, only the people can bring this party into any significant power. The rich in this country will never do so because the system works perfectly for them now, and perfectly against you.

    Assuming that you aren’t a supporter of a socially authoritarian government, then saying that you are an idiot for believing in right libertarian ideals is like saying that you don’t care about your economic freedom at all.(If you are a perfect leftist, then you are essentially saying that you wouldnt think twice about dying for the group/country as it is today. Not likely.)Saying that one is an idiot for believing in right libertarianism as a practical political ideology just shows that you are unaware of the not so subtle effects a legitimate three party system would have on the effectiveness of democracy in this country.

  • 12. Pons Seclorum  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    “I consider myself a left-libertarian; left on economic issues, libertarian on social issues.”

    It should be the other way around since leftism in economics leads to the crony capitalism, which Ames and others here despise. Crony capitalism is not a outgrowth of the Right but of the neocons–ex-Trotskyist leftists–who supplanted the older conservatives. Here is Michael Tennant on neocon economics: “The only genuinely conservative idea Kristol attributes to the neocons is an affinity for ‘cutting tax rates’; even there, however, Kristol hedges…Kristol notes that the neocon ’emphasis on economic growth’ has led to ‘an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.”

    And that is how Larry Summers, his ilk, and their methodology were conceived.

  • 13. BlottoBonVismarck  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 1:15 am




    “We live in the age of pyschopathy, when psychopaths ride in the limousines of presidential motorcades and run giant corporations, instead of slinking through alleyways as in the past.” – James Hillman paraphrased.

    It was Michael Moore’s Capitalism that made the point crystal clear that people who reach the wrong conclusion repeatedly are worth their weight in gold for the predator class. Wrong decisions on oversight, on derivative markets, on (lack of) health and safety / drug safety / food safety / etc etc. People who make the wrong the decisions — decisions that miraculously ensure that the elite predator class make boatloads of money — while the other ninety-nine percent of the people go to the wall.

    People who fail — like Geithner and Bernanke, and Ames might add Summers. With Paulson as exhibit one in the predator class?

    It’s unfortunate that the US elite, the 1%,  are so _very_ comfortable with the methods of psychopathy – ‘Psycho’ trailer’ –

  • 14. Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs), VC, DSO and Bar, Buffet, Dancing 'til late  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 2:50 am

    The point is that libertarianism is an ideology of a frontier culture. Now it’s true that libertarianism never worked well with and in a frontier, but it sure as hell doesn’t work without one. And deep down, glibertarians know it.

    All this is bad enough, but libertarians want to eat their cake and have it too. They want corporate-friendly laws designed to precisely not give a sucker an even break. They’ll track you down and fuck you up; and you have nowhere to run.

    Back in frontier days you could move, change your identity, squat on land that wasn’t yours, hop on a ship — the remedies available to those who ran afoul of the law and of monied interests were myriad.

    But since most libertarians and nearly all wingnuts only care about property and most definitely not human freedom, the things that made glibertarianism work even to the degree it did in the frontier are repealed in favor of corporate power and propertarian laws.

  • 15. nosuchthingasshould  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Does Ames suffer with some gastric problem? This interview and the previous one, he seems to be continuously stifling burps.

  • 16. Mac  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Great stuff! As for my opinion read #7.

  • 17. Frank McG  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Hey, #14 just summed up why libertarians are, at best, extremely naive. They have a literal child’s understanding of the nuances of government, law, and regulation. Their response to something they do not understand is fear and a desire to tear it all down and replace it with something simple enough they can understand. “Property!” “Drugs!”

    Another angle to consider is the closet corpos who want to take it in the ass from corporate interests SO BAD but are too afraid to come out of the closet, so they label themselves libertarians and go on about right to property. There’s always angles!

  • 18. Allen  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 11:50 am

    What exactly is “the free market”? People have made things and exchanged them, and even used forms of currency, probably since civilization began. Complex systems of currency, employment, and property ownership, come into existence only when there is a government to arrange the basic conditions that make them possible. This is the “market” part; the “free” is another matter.

    Capital (and worse credit!) is more than something you neutrally accumulate in a happy disinterested market utopia. It is power itself; most importantly, it is the power to control the market and really anything that you can put a valuation on, which if you listen to the real market hawks is *everything* — even government.

    Crony capitalism, then, is almost inevitable; those interests with massive capital, and worse credit, want to maximize private gains (even if it means huge risks) and socialize all losses. They don’t want to play some sort of “good market citizen” game, and they have the power to, at least eventually, make sure they don’t have to. These people don’t even need to conspire with each other; this is a structurally determined outcome.

    But if we don’t want to be Marxists about it, what is the solution? Well for the libertarian dreamers in the U.S., I would say nothing short of declaring a new Republic with a new constitution that strongly separates the civic-governmental-political axis from those who would seek to buy it. I guess if you want to stop people from having guaranteed healthcare or anything else socialist, the reverse would have to be enforced too. Ironically, there would not be much room left for democracy when you think about it.

  • 19. Diet Coke  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    So when does the libertarian left setup its militia? That would be fucking cool and get us so many chicks.

  • 20. Frank McG  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    I mean let’s be honest here. “Libertarian” is a term appropriated by both the left and the right to try and come off as independent in support of a very naive or unrealistic viewpoint.

    When you boil it down, leftists call themselves libertarian because all they care about is unrestricted sex & drugs and nothing else. Right leaners only care about unrestricted magical Ayn Rand free market pixie dust and nothing else.

    Anyone who thinks it can work outside of a sparse frontier or tribal society is fooling themselves. At least communism got off the ground in a lot of countries. You will NEVER see a libertarian society unless you count anarchistic hell holes like Somalia.

  • 21. Pons Seclorum  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    “Right leaners only care about unrestricted magical Ayn Rand free market pixie dust and nothing else.”

    Yes, because, of course, Rand’s ideology is the sole word on the free market. Rand ought not be seen as an exponent of libertarianism because her appeals to the free market were only the exoteric part of her ideology while its core was the Rand cult:

  • 22. Diet Coke  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    McG what can I say, there are those who do and those who talk.

    Those who do might make a hellhole, but you’re gonna have to live in it anyway.

  • 23. unger  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    McG, you’d be worth arguing with if you were bright enough to see the contradiction between ‘libertarians are in favor of corporate-friendly laws’ and ‘libertarians want a free market’. Seeing as how you aren’t, I drop the observation and pass on.

  • 24. Luigi Fabbri  |  February 3rd, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    Frank McG “You will NEVER see a libertarian society unless you count anarchistic hell holes like Somalia.”

    Please tell us more about failed states, and theocratic feudalism, and how they all relate to anarchism.

    Frank McG “leftists call themselves libertarian because all they care about is unrestricted sex & drugs and nothing else.”

    Really? So Council Communists, Autonomist Marxist, Class Struggle Anarchists, etc are all about teh sex and drugs? Awesome.

    I understand what you are saying about North American capital “L”ibertarians. I just feel like you might be talking out of your ass, when throw around the anarchist word. And you might not have a grasp on the historical use of the word libertarianism before it was hijacked by pro captialist North Americans.

  • 25. Mike  |  February 4th, 2010 at 12:58 am

    #24 — Right on!

    #19 — I know a fair number of ex-military anarcho-syndicalists who would like to see themselves as a modern day Durruti or Machno. I think the problem with anarchist (aka left libertarian) militias would be that the state and capital would shut them down as soon as they attempted to take any kind of action. We’re too weak right now to take them on. Also, syndicalists tend to be more into above ground organizing. The hidden insurrectionary anarchist types tend to be a bit more post-leftist.

  • 26. Joe  |  February 4th, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Larry Summers’ infamous 1991 memo at the World Bank:

  • 27. Padre  |  February 4th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    How does left-libertarianism keep us from becoming an economic hit-man story ourselves? All the world powers conduct industrial policy and inject cash into their corporate giants. If you understand how neoliberalism has wrecked countries, governments let go of protectionism and regulation and any involvement in the economy, the much more competitive multinationals swoop in and destroy local business, local investment, and the labor market.

    China, South Korea, Singapore, all these success stories strayed from the neoliberalist model and had strong government intervention to limit foreign corporate takeovers, subsidized local industry, and invested in the next generation. For the free market model to even be viable, an expansive government would be needed to remove this country from globalization and protect it from world affairs.

    How do we know free markets are truly what will satisfy us? We’ve experienced the propriety model of capitalism before, they gave us all top 5 of our worst recessions, the current one doesn’t make the list. Booms and busts were frequent, a recessions edging 20% unemployment for 4 years was just life in that century.

    Are we ready to throw away intervention–invite the discrimination and stratification of the labor force, dump the social safety nets and essential government programs–like universal basic education, and reject the advanced technology of the world only made possible by governments pouring money into industry that would otherwise dominate our economy? The only thing left about this system is with regards to its social attitudes, which also require a pervasive government to enforce in all our lives, how deep libertarian does this idea intend to go?

  • 28. Christo  |  February 4th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Libertarianism explained:

  • 29. Mike  |  February 4th, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    27: Left libertarians (for the most part*) don’t just want to regulate markets, they want to abolish the market completely. Some are anarcho-syndicalists that want to see democratic worker’s unions run the economy. Others promote different but related forms of stateless communism such as council communism. I believe that if we did away with the private ownership of the means of production, workers would democratize trade and essentially do away with what we currently know of as the market (speculation on commodities futures, trade in stock ownership, etc).

    Please read:

    *there are some left libertarians that would allow the market to continue in the form of small worker owned enterprises. Mutualism, worker collectives with open trade between them, etc…

  • 30. unger  |  February 4th, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Padre: Do you have even the slightest reason to believe that government intervention hasn’t been the primary, or at least a primary, driving source of labor force stratification? I mean, pardon me for bursting your bubble, but from the Enclosure Movement to the Wall Street bailouts, I see a shitstorm of intervention on behalf of the well-connected. It’s perfectly delusional – there’s no other word for it – to imagine a strong government that does not create and sustain a well-connected minority. It’s eminently fair to say that if you aren’t a libertarian, you’ve got your nose firmly enconsced in Lloyd Blankfein’s ass, whether you’re aware of it or not.

  • 31. Pascual Gorostieta  |  February 4th, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    I am noticing more leftists packing heat. I myself am armed because I think there well be many flashpoints perhaps against corporations or with Low-level political violence, think The Troubles on steroids.

    At #19 Leftist militias as chick magnets would be hilarious. Conversations would be golden.

    At #25 II never really understood Durruti worship. Cipriano Mera was a much better commander.

  • 32. Pons Seclorum  |  February 4th, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    “Are we ready to throw away intervention–invite the discrimination and stratification of the labor force, dump the social safety nets and essential government programs–like universal basic education, and reject the advanced technology of the world only made possible by governments pouring money into industry that would otherwise dominate our economy? The only thing left about this system is with regards to its social attitudes, which also require a pervasive government to enforce in all our lives, how deep libertarian does this idea intend to go?”

    Padre, if you are so convinced of the necessity of government action in all spheres of life, why would you bristle (as I presume you do, being a reader of Ames) at the subsequent pervasive crony capitalism that presently afflicts our society?

  • 33. Necronomic Justice  |  February 5th, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Dear “L”ibertarians,

    Capitalism is oppressive in and of itself. my boss and landlord have way more control over the lack of liberty I have in my day to day life than the cops and the state have at this time.

    It Doesn’t matter if WalMart and Chevron and what ever multinational cooperations get smashed. Wage slavery will still be wage slavery. Mom and Pop business owners can (and do) fuck over workers (and the environment) with the best and biggest of them.

    Your free market capitalist utopian bullshit can fuck right off as far as I am concerned.

  • 34. Necronomic Justice  |  February 5th, 2010 at 10:29 am

    @Everyone who is trying to rally a mass movment under a banner of “class war.” If your concept of “class war” doesn’t aim to abolish wage slavery in all it’s forms (including the state capitalism of the USSR, etc.) Y’all can fuck right off also.

  • 35. Necronomic Justice  |  February 5th, 2010 at 10:32 am

    One final thought, because I know some douche bag will now bring it up.

    “L”ibertarians, I have heard the bullshit about the concept of self ownership. And having the freedom to sell your self into slavery . . . Yeah fucking sign me up for that utopia.

  • 36. unger  |  February 6th, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    “No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power — whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government — could act in a way of which he himself disapproves. A socialist advocates socialism because he is fully convinced that the supreme dictator of the socialist commonwealth will be reasonable from his — the individual socialist’s — point of view, that he will aim at those ends of which he — the individual socialist — fully approves, and that he will try to attain these ends by choosing means which he — the individual socialist — would also choose.” -Ludwig von Mises

    He means you, Necrotic Brains. You want the government to save you – but suppose the government turns on you, as indeed it already has? Who would you rather fight? Your neighbor or the State? Centralism is suicide! Libertarians do not doubt that your neighbor may be every bit as vicious as you say, and worse; we merely take seriously that skeptical worldview, which you do not, and doubt all the more that the State, that people invested with overwhelming power and authority, are likely to be one bit better than your neighbor.

  • 37. Christo  |  February 7th, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Unger, do you know what a straw man is?
    That’s what von Mises is doing.

    You also forgot to add the wikipedia link:

  • 38. Necronomic Justice  |  February 7th, 2010 at 5:26 am

    @36 I am an anarchist. What off the wall fucktard are you going to quote now in response to that? Maybe your lord and savior, von Mises, isn’t the best choice as an appeal to authority on what I may or may not have given thought to?

  • 39. unger  |  February 7th, 2010 at 11:37 am

    christo: You forgot to post the wikipedia page about fallacies – you know, the one that makes publik skuled cretins like yourself think they’re fucking Aristotle, and the one that does not do nearly enough to get it through people’s heads that the fallacies aren’t magical incantations, that saying, for instance, ‘straw man’, does not suffice without a (correct) demonstration that the argument in question really is caricatured.

    Necrotic Brains: Nigga please. You’re about as anarchistic as the Pope. You can’t speak of any good in abolishing anything, or any bad in not doing so, without appealing to some concept of transcendental order. And when you speak of ‘class war’ and ‘mass movements’ to abolish ‘wage slavery’ and the like, you aren’t talking of moving people’s hearts to voluntarily relinquish Power, are you? I doubt it; people who hoot the way you do don’t think that way. You’re talking about putting bayonet to ass. That, too, is quite enough to show you for a poor anarchist – you know, imposing your order by force, the same as any sovereign might – but worse: I am certain you don’t think the deed should be done in any decentralized manner. If you did, you’d have far more common cause than dispute with libertarians: you’d be calmly persuading, not jeering. As such, I conclude on the evidence that you’re just one more statist, who differs from Dick Cheney only in his capacity for self-delusion.

  • 40. Necronomic Justice  |  February 7th, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    @39 “voluntarily relinquish Power”

    Bwahahahhahahaha What world do you live on?

  • 41. Necrotic Brains  |  February 7th, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    I appealed to some concept of transcendental order once, and all I got was this invisible hand job.

  • 42. Christo  |  February 7th, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    Happy to oblige

    “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]…

    “This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.”

    And if you’re not sure what socialism is:

    “Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]

    “Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential[4] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[5]”

  • 43. Rubicon  |  February 8th, 2010 at 9:55 am

    @Necronomic Justice: a question– so what is the ideal scene? Does it mean we revert to a more agrarian/self-sustaining culture? Do we become more like this guy:

    Do we crush the military/industrial/academic “eye of the pyramid” (your choice of method) or do we simply disconnect and ignore them? I think this is a fundamental question we grapple with, knowing that the current system (and cultural values) are fucked up. Anyone else want to chime in?

  • 44. unger  |  February 8th, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    christo: Since he’s declared he’s an anarchist, it’s a moot point, but I think you know just as well as I do that it was reasonable to assume, from his comments and from the statistical fact that most people are not anarchists, that he favored some sort of state intervention to correct those perceived evils. Mises, like all Austrians, and like the 20th-century statists to whom he made that remark, who called themselves ‘socialists’, defined ‘socialism’ as centralized economic planning, not economic egalitarianism. If Necrotic Brains had been in favor of government intervention, it most assuredly would have been accurate to call said intervention ‘socialist’ under those terms, and to point out that he had altogether too much trust in the people who were to enact it.

    Or in other words: welcome to the 20th century, bitch. Today’s ‘conservatives’ aren’t royalists; today’s ‘liberals’ aren’t free-traders; ‘it’s not the end of the world; just a slight change of plan’. Put down the K-Y jelly, drop your dick, go talk to people, and get used to the idea that common definitions change and that idiosyncratic definitions are a part of history, culture, and life.

  • 45. Necrotic Brains  |  February 8th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    @43, I will get back to you with my personal thoughts. I am short on free time right now.

    But just to give you an idea of where I am coming from for now, I am a member of the WSA,

    And am in agreement with the Anakismo editorial statment,

  • 46. Christo  |  February 9th, 2010 at 3:07 am

    I can’t see how you made that leap from being in favour of some kind of economic intervention of, for and by the people to having “too much trust in people”, by which I’m guessing that you think that having *some* trust in people is impossible..?

    You’re right though in that socialism has moved from centralized economic planning to economic egalitarianism. But how narrowly do you define Planning? YMMV

    Deep down though most conservatives really are royalists. They always to bow and scrape to their Betters and kick down to their Lessers.

  • 47. unger  |  February 9th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    I deny that any State intervention can be ‘of, for, and by the people’. It must always be by certain people for certain people. And the whole point of a State is that its authority within a territory is unchallengeable – that what is commanded is done, and resistance is cowed or exterminated. A State that permits nullification or secession is no State at all. Hence it is silly to speak of having ‘some’ trust in authorities. If you want a government to ‘level the playing field’, and you yourself are not in power, you must trust, quite absolutely, that their definitions of ‘level’ and ‘playing field’ are the same as yours, or at least are tolerable. In practice, their definitions almost never are – as Obammy fans are slowly discovering, and as Goldwater Republicans (all five or six of them) discovered, in a different way, with Reagan, Bush and Dubya. It is fair to say that most conservatives are royalists; it is unfair to insist that most liberals are not. They differ only in their definitions of ‘betters’ and ‘lessers’. Both want the State to stomp a boot on someone’s face, and both maintain a childish faith that it will really stomp who they want.

  • 48. Christo  |  February 10th, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Yeah man, no disagrees that states are nasty things. But the difference between what liberals want, the freedom to exploit their “lessers”, and what people on the left want, the freedom of food, shelter and all the other things I quoted at 42.

    Anarchic or “stateless” communism/socialism/what have you is not incompatible with such ambitions of the left. This boogeyman of the Evil State you shake before us doesn’t scare me that much, I’m afraid. I bet there’s a lot of people in Eastern Europe right now pining for the old Evil Communist/State Capitalist days.

    Yes, there is no cure for people being pricks. The dick-heads will always be among us. But surely the best prophylactic – in addition to people fed, sheltered and otherwise socially secure – is free, liberal (in the old sense) education for all and a culture of people not taking shit from anyone, in the nicest possible way of course.

  • 49. Ilona  |  February 10th, 2010 at 11:45 am

    “If only Mark could come off…” Of course he can! Even better if he was back in Moscow. His the Chief Rebel General of Exiled Angel Penises in fukken charge!

  • 50. Ilona  |  February 10th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    @ 38. Necronomic. “I am an anarchist.” As the mightiest corporate slave of them all corporations I can assure you: No, you are not an anarchist. You’re a sad mindfuk joke manufactured by some other sad mindfuk jokes etc. You’re just a childish… – phrase not found – still living in the Suckville Poo Poo Land of No Balls of Suckdom no matter what.

    I’ll bet the 3rd ball of Mark the Chief Rebel General of Exiled Angel Penises in fukken charge you don’t have enough m-o-n-e-y to be a real anarchist. Yeah! Money! How about that? Doesn’t compute? OK. I overstand. And overrule.

    Money = possibility to make some r-e-a-l choises that really matter and eventually a possibility to say a heartfelt: “Fuk you all and fuk off your slave mentality manufactured and designed to destroy us all for the masses!”

    And then again, even t-h-e money won’t set you really free. Why is that? Let’s keep it simple – cos that’s wot I am and the forum here is eXiled: you’re just one part of this whole machinery. OK? No? Fuk it!

    Masses is y-o-u. No matter what homegrown potatoe you chew at. Never bought anything by a big corporation? Like electricity or something highly suspicious stuff from your nearby under cover operation grocery thingy perhaps? Hmmmm… You seem to have a computer of some sort. Think a-l-l the (war)technology put in it. That’s fukken anarschaischtah! Nice disillusionnal mindfuk thou… Back to the nature?

    Back from the nature… “Sorry for the interruption… What is this? Some r-e-a-l news coming in? Shiiit! Please, go on… What? At least 2/3rd or 3/3rd of the human race has just been viped out… And just because of the one single anarschaischtah mastermindfuk who just got it alright like Linkola ment it. Welldone, jerk.”

    I know you’re sucker for this – I mean the stupid ones like your mother: apocalypse! It is most likely to happen.

    There. Now you have it. Go back to your fukken blaaaah blaaaah boring nature and leave us alone!

    Nooo. Not really. All you anarschaischtahs are just cute. Enjoy the ride!

    Ps. What is your escape plan?

  • 51. Ilona  |  February 10th, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    And he stupid ones like my mother. Ok, perhaps yours as well and Mark’s. Shiiit. They are stupid.

  • 52. Ilona  |  February 10th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Thanks Mark/Yasha/??? for cutting off my rant.

    Actually the word “penis” can do the shit!

  • 53. Russian Dude  |  February 14th, 2010 at 1:36 am

    This is one of the most intelligent conversations I’ve heard in a long, long time. As painful as it was to revisit, I wish that these kinds of conversations would occur more often.

    About the Ossetian War:

    “External observers frequently miss the point that Russia’s stake in the conflict over the unrecognised republics is much higher that that of Georgia’s entry into NATO or the destabilisation of energy transit routes that bypass Russia. Russia simply could not afford to lose: in view of the harsh nature of the conflict in Abkhazia and Georgia in the early 1990s, Georgia’s seizure of these territories would mean ethnic cleansing, and the flight to Russian territory of many tens of thousands of embittered and armed refugees. The loyalty of the North Caucasus republics of North Ossetia and Adygeya, tied by blood relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, would be undermined. North Ossetia, moreover, is the largest and most loyal autonomous republic in the region. Russia would have been shown to be weak before the entire North Caucasus, and this would have marked a return to the situation of the 1990s. The reaction of the international community to Russia’s war with Georgia, no matter how harsh, could not compare in significance to the implications of a new war in the North Caucasus. Georgia’s attempt to export the ethnic conflict that it created in the early 1990s to Russian territory had to be intercepted at any cost.” – Moscow Defense Brief, Independent Russian Analysis.

    WTF were these idiots thinking? Oh right, Rove, the brain, left the building.

Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)


Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed