Last summer, I literally wrote a parody album about the Russian Revolution instead of going to therapy. On 12/26, AGitPop: In Offense of Marxism debuts free on Substack, but I'm teasing 2 songs early. First: "I'm a Dirty Rotten Commie" (to the tune of "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy") I give it to you, The People.

"Political organizations should be forced to hire anyone regardless of how they communicate their views; and refusing to employ someone who represents your values in a manner that you find detrimental is censorship"

@GoodAMLiberty Do you ever forget that you hate unions?

Because it evidently needs to be said: Communist ≠ Marxist; and Marx was never a popular Communist writer until Kapital became one of the few works the tsarist censors let slip into Russia because they literally thought it was so terrible that no one would read it. The Internationale, for its part, was composed by Eugène Pottier of the Paris Commune Anarchists, whom Marx openly shat on for being too peaceful. (That he was correct is incidental to the point.) The Internationale does not belong at any "Marxist" program, and it was always too good for the SFSR, which stole the Workers' Anthem, workers' agency, and free workers' soviets along with a thousand other things. It is an anti-authoritarian anthem in its soul; and the fact that the verses against the glut of the carceral state (3) and war and military conscription (5) are frequently omitted should tell you something about how it has been co-opted.

@ArmedBearCaucus The comments keep getting better

RT @susanhogarth: But it was a *discount*! @LudwigNverMises was practically *giving away* his valuable fundraising services! Can’t wait fo…

RT @LibertySentries: The derivative lawsuit against the former @LPNational chair Angela McArdle has outstanding legal bills equating to aro…

I’m not a collectivist, but I play them on the album. Will attempt to channel here: “The Consent Question”: Is consent ethically required for human interactions? Collectivists don’t contend with this question because it’s not a question worth contending with. Liberals and their fetishization of “consent”! It is liberal consent that is, itself, unethical. Prioritizing consent imposes demands both impossible to satisfy and unethical regardless. No; individual consent is not ethically required for human interactions, since the individual will and the collective good are often opposed. People rarely know what is good for themselves; even more rarely do they know what is good for others. More rarely still will they act for the latter at the expense of the former, absent coercion. Deal with it, lib. All human interactions involve an element of non-consent. The object is not to eliminate non-consent—this is impossible—but to render it, for once, moral: We create the conditions such that the force of non-consensual action benefits the collective. This is the only means through which we repeal the root of individual non-consent—the oppposition between individual wills. This is the only moral treatment of consent in society. It is precisely by prioritizing individual consent that exploitation occurs. ___ This response was brought to you by an unhealthy obsession with theories of mind.

RT @Natural_habitok: Fun Fact: When threatened the hognose snake will dramatically writhe in pain and turn over onto its back sticking its…

@ArmedBearCaucus For all intensive purposes, it's both, irregardless of what you think. You're just bias. 😆

Update: Devin is mediating peace talks and has offered this authentic photo of Batko as a gesture of goodwill Mfer literally wore sunglasses constantly until his eyes adjusted to natural light after being imprisoned for years Actually lived the "sun never sets on a badass" meme You don't love this man enough

Last night Kyle & I did a surprise livestream on Libertarian Party business, Trump’s so-called libertarianism, and other news of the day! Check it out.

The problem with "let's see how this plays out" mode is that it assumes (a) That anything only ever plays out to a certain point (i.e., its time horizon is severely truncated); and (b) That we have no power to be players, merely observers. "Everything is an equally viable strategy" sounds like a pragmatic approach to the self-congratulatory mind; until you realize that ends are not as "sticky" as we might like to believe. Intentions are not fixed and then acted upon in some linear, progressive manner: They move with the movements we undertake to achieve them. Action acts upon motive as much as motive decides action. Means condition ends. In the abstract, everything is a potentially viable strategy. In reality, certain measures all but require us to adopt the motives of an enemy. It is a slow, quiet seduction. No policy should be off the table in theory. In practice, things are rarely so simple. That is why we spend (or should spend) so much time on tactical analysis. If we want tariffs not to be abused in the future, we need to resist them even in the face of the possibility that they might be temporary and productive in the immediate present, when The Guy I Like And Secretly Trust is imposing them. The same goes for speech restrictions, enhancements to police and surveillance apparatuses, civil liberties violations, and state seizure of various market sectors. Assuming that state encroachment is a threat, state encroachment should be resisted. Basic stuff.

@stormnyx_ You should sell these through a shell corporation

Hey, did you all know that the LNC is having a short-notice meeting at 8ET? Neither did I until just now but @LP_Allies will be here to stream it for you!

@TheOtherMassie @DoniTheMisfit She and Trump are made for one another in that regard, it seems

just mentioned the Jones Act in a political parties seminar rip