abolitionist no. 5

For a columnist or pundit, there’s no greater temptation than to get something

written—Quick! Now! —about the latest, greatest, deadliest catastrophe. After all, if

it bleeds it leads.

I felt that urge the night of the Paris terror attacks. For once, I resisted. I wanted

more information. I wanted to see how the usual suspects responded. I wanted to see

whether or not my own immediate assumptions and predictions would hold up before

I held forth.

Unfortunately, my assumptions and predictions turned out to be spot-on. The

American and European political classes didn’t bother waiting for the bodies to cool –

or, for that matter, to even be counted – before commencing their triumphant dance

on the graves. The attacks may have been unexpected, but they certainly weren’t

unwelcome. The political class immediately pivoted from a pro forma parody of

normal peoples’ heartfelt condemnation to special pleading for more power.

Within hours, prominent War Party mouthpiece (and former US ambassador to the

United Nations) John Bolton rushed out a piece on ―four important lessons we must

learn‖ from the attacks. Predictably, ―never trust John Bolton with any decision more

consequential than ordering pizza, and even then be watchful lest ye end up with

anchovies‖ didn’t make the cut.

CIA director John Brennan and his predecessor, James Woolsey, blame

whistleblower Edward Snowden for the attacks. Snowden crashed the US

intelligence community’s illegal surveillance party. If only state apparatchiks had all

the unaccountable and unlimited power state apparatchiks wanted, we’d all be safe,

see?

Who should we blame for the murder and mayhem in Paris? Of course—OF

COURSE! —the evil individuals who planned and carried out the attacks.

But when the prescriptions of an identifiable American ideological tendency – call it

―neoconservatism,‖ call it ―hawkishness,‖ call it ―interventionism,‖ call it whatever

you like – can irrefutably be observed to have culminated in the horror of 9/11, the

quagmire in Afghanistan, the debacle in Iraq, the fiasco in Libya, the rise of the

Islamic State and innumerable other evils, at some point we should stop clapping in

unison with their blood-soaked boogie-woogie and cease trusting to their highly

questionable wisdom for solutions.

Americans and our European cousins face a stark choice: We can stop letting our

political classes try to run the world, or we can keep letting the innocent pay in blood

for our politicians’ hubris.

The Abolitionist The Young Americans for Liberty Campus Newsletter

―War is mass murder,

conscription is

slavery, taxation is

robbery.‖

–Murray Rothbard

Paris: No Grave Too Warm for

the Political Class to Dance On

By Thomas L. Knapp

Issue 5 11/18/2015

Editor: Will Porter

The Abolitionist | Young Americans for Liberty

[This article originally appeared on Antiwar.com November 17, 2015.]

2


Turkey Notified France About Paris

Suicide Bomber Twice in Past Year

By Jason Ditz

Speaking at the G20 summit, President Obama insisted he was ―not aware‖ of any

particular intelligence in the lead-up to Friday’s ISIS attacks in Paris, saying there

have been concerns ―periodically‖ but no specific mentions of anything to prove

France ahead of time.

This is just the latest in a series of reports in which US officials say their intelligence

had nothing on the Paris attack, despite a growing number of other countries which

reported providing direct intelligence to France of an impending attack in the days

(and even hours) before the strike.

Turkey reported that they’d also provided intelligence to France relating to one of the

attackers, Omar Mostefai, a 29-year-old Parisian who was identified as one of the

suicide bombers. Turkey says they’d provided France intelligence on him twice in the

past year.

Intelligence officials across the West have emphasized their heavy focus on keeping

tabs on ISIS returnees who had gone to Syria and returned home, though it appears

that this was the case with most if not all of the attackers on Friday, and somehow

the intelligence was still insufficient to stop the attacks.

[This article originally appeared on Antiwar.com November 16, 2015.]

The Intellectual Intolerance

Behind ―Check Your Privilege‖

By Gary Galles

A decade ago, no one had ever been told to ―check your privilege.‖ Now it commands

an appreciable ―market share‖ in academia and social justice rhetoric. But it does so

despite sharply opposed interpretations of its meaning. In fact, its expanded footprint

is partly because of its ambiguity.

It Could Be an Invitation to Debate

In a sense, ―check your privilege‖ largely amounts to ―check your premises‖ behind

your views, and many are willing to recognize that such a reminder can be useful in

advancing conversations about social issues.

However, I question whether people are so bereft of concern for, or understanding of,

one another that they need repetitive ―check your privileges‖ reminders that imply

they would believe more accurately and act more effectively if only they were more

empathetic. I tend to agree with Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments,

that:

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his

nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness

About YAL :

Young Americans for Liberty

(YAL) is a chapter-based

organization dedicated to

spreading the ideas of

human liberty, free trade,

and peaceful foreign policy.

With over 600 chapters and

204,000 activists nationwide,

YAL is one of the fastest-

growing pro-liberty

organizations in the country.

This weekly newsletter will

provide relevant news and

commentary on the issues

most important to YAL,

libertarians, and anyone

generally interested in

politics, philosophy, and

world affairs.

3


necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it

... we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others.

Further, repeatedly sermonizing to fix people as a way of ―uplifting‖ them becomes

little more than nagging, and any insight it may add gets crowded out. In the same

way, repeatedly invoking ―check your privilege‖ tends to destroy its usefulness,

leaving increased irritation and disharmony.

But the Phrase Could Simply Mean ―Shut Up‖

And when does ―check your privilege‖ become code for ―be quiet‖ rather than

―evaluate your premises‖? ―Check your privilege‖ is about shutting down discussion

when the user is making the assertion that you are hopelessly confused in your

understanding, and that your opinions amount to aggression (whether ―micro-‖ or

―macro-‖). This position was well articulated decades ago by Robert Heinlein, in The

Moon is a Harsh Mistress:

Where do you start explaining when a man’s words show there isn’t anything he

understands about [a] subject, [but] instead is loaded with preconceptions that don’t

fit facts and [he] doesn’t even know [it]…?

The assertion of your hopeless confusion then becomes the basis for claims that,

unless you are a member of some accepted victimized class, you must be part of the

oppressor class. Therefore, as Max Borders put it:

Your rights and opinions are invalid and you have no real complaints or suffering

because you belong to X group. Or, more to the point, you are obligated to pay

because people who look like you in some ways did bad things at some point.

In other words, others assert that they don’t need to listen to you, much less respect

your arguments.

The Ad Hominen Attack

That leap involves several logical failings. Included in that list is the idea that any

guilt for what was true of some members of an arbitrarily defined class or group

(rather than treating people as the individuals they are) at some point in time passes

on to every current and future member of that class or group. In addition, it

incorporates the ad hominem fallacy that because you are judged as bad or part of an

oppressor class, your argument is false, while conversely, their self-defined goodness

and non-oppression means theirs must be true, both of which are unrelated to the

logical validity of an argument.

Given that ―check your privileges‖ could mean either ―remember to be empathetic, so

we can better understand and help‖ or ―we can disregard your beliefs and violate

your rights,‖ how can we tell which one is intended?

Where confusion reigns, to better understand and help requires the confusion to be

replaced with clear, accurate understanding. That, in turn, requires a serious,

ongoing ―give and take‖ conversation.

However, when ―check your privilege‖ is used to preemptively cut off conversation by

stopping those who disagree from any chance to be heard, much less to rebut their

demonization and targeting, no improvement in either empathy or outcomes can

4


result. So the key to evaluating ―check your privilege‖ is to ask what would be

entailed if it was intended to advance such a serious conversation.

How Real Dialogue Happens

Importantly, any conversation would not stop at ―watch your privileges.‖ It would

only begin there. By itself, the phrase says you are wrong in your understanding or

views, but it leaves how completely unspecified, beyond having something to do with

membership in some allegedly dominant or privileged group. Stopping the

conversation there leaves ―check your privileges‖ as an insult, without any ability to

clarify understanding or reduce disagreements or disharmony.

Progress toward better understanding and results would require several more steps.

It would start by precisely specifying what faulty premises, assumptions, or

arguments someone supposedly holds, either included or excluded inappropriately.

Then it would explain why it is inappropriate for the issue being considered. It would

lay out the correct or appropriate premise that would take its place and articulate the

reasons why.

Building on that foundation, it would show how the ―new and improved‖ premises

would change one’s conclusions. Consequently, it would lay out the appropriate

remedy based on the alternative analysis. In the process, it would have to account for

how the proposed remedy cannot be explained solely on a narrowly self-interested

―more for me‖ basis—completely apart from the argument offered—as part of laying

out the new special privileges that would be created for those put forward as victims.

It would also have to explain how others will be affected in order to address the

asserted problem, including whether there would be coercive impositions on members

of the supposedly dominant or victimizer class who had nothing to do with the ―sins

of the fathers.‖

When ―check your privilege‖ means think more carefully about others circumstances,

which may be far different than yours, and to be empathetic, it can be useful in

advancing our potential for mutual understanding. But it has to be only the

beginning of a much farther-reaching discussion to bear fruit—a discussion which,

carefully and earnestly pursued, would lead us back to the self-ownership and

voluntary arrangements of liberty.

In contrast, when ―check your privilege‖ is used as a magic phrase to peremptorily

end ―social justice‖ discussions, it is the assertion of a special privilege for some to be

allowed to define themselves as white hats and those who disagree as black hats,

without ever having to make a real argument. It also allows users to turn it into an

epithet of social demonization to try to impose their ―solutions,‖ always at the

expense of the supposed black hats. In the process, it undermines social cooperation

by undermining the rights upon which it is built.

[This article originally appeared on Mises.org July 18, 2015.].

YAL Group Schedule:

11/18/2015 – General

meeting. 4:00pm-5:30pm in

LA 161.

11/25/2015 – General


LA 161.

12/2/2015 – General


LA 161.

12/9/2015 – General


LA 161.

[Note: This schedule is subject to

change.]

5


America’s Papers Brush Aside Israeli Brutality

By Greg Shupak

Editorial statements allow newspapers to articulate their collective position on the

issues of the day and, in the case of major publications, they carry particular

authority. Such articles play an important role in shaping public opinion and

therefore need to be subject to special scrutiny.

Severely flawed editorials on the current uprising throughout Palestine have

appeared in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the

Washington Post.

One shortcoming is that they foreground Israeli concerns and sideline those of

Palestinians.

For example, the Globe is worried that ―the growing sense of hopelessness among

Palestinian youth will continue to threaten Israel’s future.‖ The paper evidently does

not regard the ―hopelessness among Palestinian youth,‖ or the causes of that, as

urgent problems in their own right. Rather, it regards them as troubling if they

adversely affect Israel.

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times’ 20 October editorial opens with the sentence, ―For

weeks, Israelis have been terrorized by frighteningly random assaults.‖

The United Nations monitoring group OCHA reports that in the 19 days leading up

to that editorial, 43 Palestinians were killed and 5,100 injured, compared to the

seven Israelis who were slain and the 70 who were injured. But the leading paper of

a major US city does not bother itself with whether those Palestinians felt

―terrorized.‖

For the New York Times, ―Israel has every right to defend its citizens, and it should.‖

Yet nothing in its 15 October editorial suggests that Palestinians have any such

right.

What recourse Palestinians have in the face of myriad forms of daily violence is so

low a priority for the paper that it is not mentioned in that editorial. By this

omission, the paper is suggesting that what Palestinians ―should‖ do is submit to

Israeli brutality of the sort displayed in the days leading up to the editorial.

Such brutality included Israeli forces killing nine Palestinian civilians in Gaza, one of

them a child; the Israeli air force launching missiles ostensibly at a military training

site south of Gaza City and killing a 26-year-old pregnant woman and her 3-year-old

daughter; eight attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians between 6 and 12

October and 29 during the previous week.

Assigning Blame

Meanwhile, the first four paragraphs of the Washington Post’s editorial are devoted

to describing and assigning blame for the recent violence. Seven sentences therein

focus on how to stop violence enacted by Palestinians against Israelis.

Contact Information :

Please feel free to contact us

with questions, comments,

concerns, or anything else

you’d like us to know.

We accept article

submissions; contact the

editor for details.

Will Porter – YAL Chapter

President for WCC and

Abolitionist editor:

Cell -

248-464-0564 (Call or text)

Email -

[email protected]

Twitter -

@WKPAnCap

6


Of the three that criticize Israel, one does so on the grounds that the extrajudicial

killing of Palestinian minors is ―counterproductive‖ and another on the grounds that

Israeli state violence is supposedly useful to ―Palestinian leaders.‖

The message the Post sends is that Palestinian violence is unjust and must

immediately be halted, whereas Israel should avoid killing Palestinian youth when it

might generate bad PR that could hinder its objectives.

Furthermore, none of the editorials provide their readers with context necessary to

make sense of what has recently happened between Israelis and Palestinians.

To understand the events of this fall, it is necessary to have a sense of their long-

term, underlying causes. Endless expansion of Jewish-only settlements in the

occupied West Bank are one such factor that goes unmentioned in the editorials.

There are now at least 600,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including East

Jerusalem. The construction and expansion of Israeli settlements violate

international law: the Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an occupying power from

moving its civilian population into the territory that it occupies.

Also absent from these editorials is any mention of Israel’s demolition of Palestinian

homes. In 2014 alone, this practice displaced 1,177 Palestinians in the West Bank,

including East Jerusalem. More than 500 people have been displaced so far in 2015.

America Brings Calm?

Demolitions are an important part of the dynamics at play, yet the editorials fail to

inform their readers about them.

Israel has reacted to Palestinian protest by attempting to crush it and by resorting to

such tactics as arbitrarily arresting minors, detaining activists without charge or

trail and arresting the family members of activists.

The proliferation of illegal settlements, the demolition of homes and the violent

repression of dissent are features of daily life for the Palestinians at the center of the

current tension in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Overlooking this all amounts to a

lie of omission by these widely-read papers.

Another weakness common to these editorials is the remedies they suggest. The

papers call for further negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as a

way to reach a solution.

This proposal is hopelessly flawed.

Mahmoud Abbas’ presidency of the PA lacks a democratic mandate and he cannot

legitimately claim to represent the Palestinian people. The Post knows this: it writes

that Abbas ―has become irrelevant‖ and notes that he remains in office six years after

his elected term expired.

In the next paragraph, the paper suggests that the US and some other governments

should try to halt the current violence with ―calming interventions.‖

7


Similar arguments are made by the Globe and the Los Angeles Times. This position

is absurd because, as Israel’s sponsor, the US is a party to the conflict rather than a

neutral arbiter.

The American ruling class and its arms industry have a vested interest in Israel’s

regime of occupation and apartheid and have supported this regime for decades.

There is no reason whatsoever to think that this policy has significantly changed.

This handling of the fall uprising is only the most recent example in the long and

sorry chronicle of US media coverage of Palestine and it demonstrates that American

media outlets are not simply reporting the news. Rather, they are active participants

in the country’s power elite.

By misleading their readers, these newspapers help maintain consent among the

American public for the US government’s crucial support for the oppression of

Palestinians.

Dr. Greg Shupak is a writer and activist who teaches media studies at the University

of Guelph. He lives in Toronto.

[This article originally appeared on ElectronicIntifada.net November 16, 2015.]

abolitionist no. 5

Documents