The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep. 157: Is social media social? W/Rik Storey

 

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Rik Storey to discuss whether social media is social or anti social? Has social media “improved” things if indeed one can believe in improvement? Is it not the case that social media is radically superior to the network television era of the 1950s to 2000s? What are the downsides of social media usage? Is social media more truthful, if indeed truth exists, than previous forms of technology for the production and dissemination of information? Is engaging in certain forms of “lifestyle anarchism” (such as giving up social media for a period of time) useful? What are the downsides of social media compared to previous technological paradigms?

Ep. 156: Why anarchism means antifeminism and why antifeminists should be anarchists.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why abolishing the current existing managerial state will decrease the prominence women have in society. The modern managerial welfare bureaucratic state with its highly regulated economies are a boon for the feminist movement. In five key areas including family law, justice, education, economic regulation and welfare, the modern managerial state helps the feminist cause while robbing men, particularly young men, of rights and opportunities. A curtailment of this bureaucratic managerial regime would strengthen the position that men have in society and weaken women’s position. Hence, only right libertarians who are opposed to feminism can sufficiently call themselves anarchist if one thinks through the consequences of the curtailment or abolishment of the current existing state.

Ep. 155: Should dissidents and anti-war people h@te veterans?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether servicemen ought to be hated since most recent wars are pointless, if not outright criminal, and leave western home countries both poorer and more insecure. Are veterans merely just doing a job and following orders? In the US since Vietnam it has been an all volunteer force. What should be done about these men (as well as woman) and how should dissidents treat them? For better or worse in the US there exists some amount of veteran worship especially amongst the so-called normie right. You could say in a healthy society which doesn’t engage in pointless wars this might be worthwhile; however, these conflicts tend to make the US/West both poorer and less secure. The destabilization of foreign countries is a huge contributing factor to migration to the West. The economic costs of the wars and maintaining this expensive gargantuan standing army means less money is spent on building out the home country. One of the few areas which gets huge taxpayer subsidies is the arms industry which Western Elites for obvious reasons don’t want to outsource. A dollar spent on missiles, F35s, and air craft carriers is a dollar which can’t be spent on flood relief, children, nice houses and consumer goods. How should libertarians, paleoconservatives and anarchists view the people who staff these organizations? Would a statement that your sacrifice was pointless and made the US worse off be a good response?

Ep. 154: Our beef with declinism. #Tradcats#Libertarianism#Apocalypse

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the blind spots of declinism. Recently Bob Murphy was interviewed by Reason magazine’s Nick Gillepsie about whether libertarians, or more broadly people on the so-called “right,” are unduly pessimistic. The first question is whether the areas such as economy, culture and fertility/family formation are in decline and when did they start? If it is in decline, what can actually be done about it and what are the social and psychological implications of living in a declining society? Bob Murphy’s answer to the question was he was a Christian which is a robust answer but why get out of bed in the morning, let alone start a family or a business, if indeed the pessimists are right?

 

Ep 153: Did Julian Assange or the Deep State win?

The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses whether the State and the Pentagon “won” against Julian Assange. First of all, we here at this show think Assange is a hero and he will be remembered as a hero by most right thinking persons; however, did the State accomplish what it wanted? The state managed to get Assange, who is in poor health thanks to his time in prison, to plead guilty to the Espionage Act. On top of that he was confined to the Ecuadorian embassy and spent 5 years in one of Britain’s worst prisons. Will this deter both whistleblowers and the publishers of classified material? This is on top of the fact that Assange never even set foot in this entire ordeal on US soil until his short stopover at Saipon. What is the future of whistleblowing and publishing materials against the US as well as larger NATO military-security state?

Ep. 152: Are we all criminals before the State, International law & God?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether anyone is innocent on various levels. Do any innocent people exist in the eyes of god, international law (if such a thing exists) or the managerial state bureaucracy? On the theological level, why do people baptize children if indeed children are considered cute and innocent? When do children become adults? Why do antiwar activists stress the death of children in war considering that they have the potential to become future soldiers if the conflict is long enough. If the Chinese or the Russians were to wage war on any NATO country would we (or most people) be considered accessories to the regime or collateral damage? If the prominent anti war activists/critics including Julian Assange, Norman Finkelstein and Scott Horton, are “right”, are most Americans or British "innocent"? On the most petty level don’t “law abiding” citizens break all sorts of “petty” laws everyday which only rarely/selectively enforced? Are we all guilty of something?

Ep. 151: Is Plato's Guardian model of the family right? Cutrone, Fraser & Caplan.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Plato is right in his guardian family model where children are raised without knowing their precise parents. Will keeping parents anonymous cut down on favoritism (as well as disfavoritism) and make society more cohesive and less individualistic? Why are intellectuals so boring and traditional when it comes to family and marriage? Isn’t gay marriage “conservative” as opposed to free love or the platonic guardian system outlined in Plato’s Republic? If any kind of "Heaven" or Kingdom of God exists would monogamous marriage exist in that place or would it be more like Plato's proposed system? 

Ep. 150: Is there a market for truth?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether there is a market for truth? Do people want to know the truth, if it does indeed exist, and can it be produced on the “market”? What are the incentives for those who want to spread the truth? Do the so-called “traditional” print media and “journalists” do so? Did the internet make things better or worse? What exactly do so-called reporters and journalists do? Can someone “report” on an event such as a war which takes place in many different locations plenty of which have restricted access or only "selected" access by local authorities? Does everyone have a bias? Why even bother reading the so-called news if you aren’t sure it isn’t merely propaganda? Outside of voting better, which as good theoretical anarchists and libertarians know is a probably a waste of time, what can a news or truth consumer do?

Ep. 149: If Anarchism existed, would it be right-wing?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether anarchism, or abolishing the state, would lead to what is normally understood as right wing. There is a movement to try to transcend or render meaningless the terms left and right; however, even though the terms may not be entirely useful in all areas, this axis still reveals a lot of truth. Anarchism done in the 21st century and beyond will be abolishing the modern secular liberal managerial state not the ancien regime. If abolishing the modern managerial state one will also abolish state welfare, what Michel Foucault and Charles Murray would call warehousing the poor, as well as the state school system. If these institutions are abolished who will care for and educate the children? Who would care for the elderly and poor? The likely organizations or systems would commonly be called "right wing" or traditional. If abolishing the state merely leads to the abolishment of modern technology what scenarios will that lead to? If there is no birth control, maternity care, medicines and various other technologies it is unlikely modern gender norms will be sustained in this primitive society. Thus by common usage of the terms left and right it is unlikely that abolishing the modern state will lead to any scenario which is left-wing. Whilst there maybe fewer megacorps the left anarchists and left libertarian critics of megacorps misunderstand the progressive role they actually play in modern society. These aren't your grandad’s megacorps nor is this your great-great granddad's state which is being abolished. 

Ep. 148: Does the Left hate the poor? Are Charles Murray and Michel Foucault right?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Charles Murray and Michel Foucault are right that the left hates the poor? Murray and Foucault are two intellectuals whom some might categorize as being at opposite purposes, they are in fact both critical of the modern managerial welfare state. When the modern left speaks of helping the poor arguably they are “warehousing” the poor by providing them a steady dose of just enough necessities which thereby creates dependency on the state.

Are those dependent on the state likely to criticize, let alone overthrow it? Welfare robs the poor of what Murray would call agency while also demobilizing them. Certain thinkers who at times are associated with the “right” have in the past defended welfare precisely on the grounds to co-op/prevent the revolution. The revolutionary left should appreciate this argument, which is arguably Foucault's leftwing part, by saying that warehoused poor won’t make very effective elite revolutionaries. Murray of course would make the point in coming apart and losing ground that undisciplined and unskilled persons aren’t exactly “flourishing.” Murray himself states that he first recognized this in a rather anthropological manner by working for the peace corp seeing how academics treated the so called “natives.” In this manner Foucault and Murray might be much closer than some think. As the classic aphorism states, if you give a man a fish he isn’t hungry for a day, but teach a man to fish he won't be hungry for a lifetime.