NewsParty Politics

The South Carolina Libertarian Party (SCLP) executive committee recently voted 8-1 to reject NLP Vice Chair Arvin Vohra as their representative in the LNC, to censure him for his comments regarding veterans and active soldiers, called for his immediate resignation, and, in the event he does not resign, called on the LNC to remove him before their next scheduled meeting.

I spoke with three individuals within the SCLP about the issue: executive committee member and the single dissenting vote on the resolution C. James Brandmair, Greenville County Chair and Marine combat veteran Matt Wavle, and SCLP member J. Harper Sharp. All disagreed with the resolution and attempted to offer language changes to soften the tone of the resolution and remove language asking for Mr. Vohra to resign, but none were passed.

When I asked Mr. Brandmair why he was the single dissent to the resolution because he has seen Vohra do more good than harm.

“This may have just been a mistake and we all make mistakes. [Arvin] is doing what he thinks is best for the Libertarian Party, as we all do.”

Mr. Brandmair, an anarchist and member of the Radical Caucus of the Libertarian Party, believes that while Arvin’s unique method of crafting arguments for maximum controversy may cool the passions of some moderate Libertarians and minarchists, his articulation of anarchist positions serve to “educate and open the eyes of many that the mission of the military has been corrupted and that the people should take accountability for that. It’s our responsibility to turn that around by voting and speaking our minds.”

Greenville County Chair Matt Wavle traveled an hour and a half to attend the meeting in Columbia, SC where the resolution was passed. While not a member of the executive committee, Mr. Wavle spoke at the meeting against the resolution. “The desire to censure someone for speaking their mind is something that belongs in the Republican or Democratic parties, but never in the Libertarian Party,” Mr. Wavle said. “We win by presenting a better option, a better solution. What we did in that resolution was an attempt to silence a voice we disagreed with.”

Arvin Vohra during a presentation
Arvin Vohra gives a presentation promoting his book: Lies, Damned Lies, and College Admissions.

Mr. Wavle was clear that when he says “we”, he uses the term loosely.

“This decision was far from unanimous within the state party. I spoke against this resolution because people don’t have the right to be unoffended. The Libertarian Party is great because we have diverse opinions. As a 12-year combat veteran in marine corps, silencing opinions is something I can’t support. I’ll stand against it every time. How can we even communicate if everyone needs a safe space?”

J. Harper Sharp, a new Libertarian, attending the meeting as well. It was his first state meeting and attended not just because he was interested in the process, but also because C. James Brandmair is a friend and Libertarian mentor.

“The decision was to reject Arvin’s representation of South Carolina. South Carolina is not a member of any region, so the representative duty falls to the Vice Chair. Furthermore, the state decided to push national to remove [Arvin] from his national position. I don’t think that’s what we should be doing. I don’t agree.”

In response to the resolution, Arvin Vohra said, “The fact that not a single state, and not the LNC, have put out resolutions opposing military policy says enough about where they are. They believe it’s their job, and mine, to pander. They are wrong. Our job is to fight the government, including the enforcement and propaganda arms.”

When reached for comment, State Chair of the SCLP declined to expand on the cover letter attached to the resolution. Both the cover letter and resolution can be found here.

Friday’s are pretty dank, and so is our Facebook page! Every Friday we’re going to drop the most popular dank memes from our Facebook page here in a gallery for your viewing pleasure.

If you haven’t stopped by and given our facebook page a like, please do!

 

Opinion

Why does society not think we could live peacefully by ourselves to do as we please, so long as we do not force ourselves on others or their property?

Would you just decide to go poisoning water wells? I mean, after all, you would still risk the punishment of other residents like you do now.

So with all these laws, why do we not have a peaceful society by now?

There are a lot of causes and majority are based in political actions, but now we have the knowledge and means to accomplish this goal. Not only that, but it can be done by the proper means intentionally through peaceful secession, rather than that of a governmental collapse.

The first thing which must be understood is that government is merely made up of people. People who we have granted collective power to. We now use them as simplistic delegates to solve our political issues by using their organization of merely other humans who have power. No matter how many laws, or how many people consent, there is no way to ensure that a human in politics could ever avoid the need for public appeal overcoming their stances. I mean after all, if one politician is saying they need to do nothing and wait, or if anything do less; then the opponent saying there is a problem that they need to fix will naturally be the one favored.

It’s in our nature to want immediate gratification for fixes of society. This simple error continuously sets precedents of needing more government in different areas. Meanwhile, the people saying they will do those have lined their pockets more and more with the money of those benefitting. For the majority of citizens, it is hard to realize that the partisan bickering is merely arguing over who has control of the nation’s extorted money, and the top donors are those who directly benefit.

This continuously happens again and again. Increasing spending and power to one side or the other. There’s really no end because the government can never fail as long as everything it does is legal, and only the individual politicians can be punished. They never have to worry about bad results if their term is going to expire anyway. This enables them to provide so-called “safety” as if they were the only ones who could do it and express little concern otherwise. That major misconception is a widespread fallacy. The government can only provide inefficiently by making certain areas seem more efficient while simultaneously hurting the entire economy by devaluing the currency.

Now comes my second point. There is nothing government can do which a private business could not do better. Especially since they are the ones who monopolize the highest bidders with their laws, then try to tell you more voting can fix the imbalance those monopolies have. We really do not need them for anything.

I know what you’re thinking, and everyone does at first.
“Who will protect muh freedom?”

However, it’s not like society would not be protected. On the contrary, a secession into statelessness would thrive based on the interest of those who abuse government’s monopoly on force now.

When the government is no longer around to force payment from citizens in order to benefit oligarchical constituents for defense contracts and monopolizing the society’s defenses, then the ones most concerned with keeping the society safe wouldn’t be looking out for the individuals, but rather the property they are liable to pay for. The insurance companies.

That on top of millions of wealthy investors from all over the globe would be investing heavily to manufacture in a society with no taxes, creating seemingly unlimited job growth. All of those investors would also be investing to maintain the security of their investment alongside the insurers. With all this production occurring and no minimum wages, it would be harder to be unemployed than it would be employed. As more investors make their business models and buy land, the more employees will be needed by them.

Regulations which they would otherwise need to adjust for themselves to meet consumer demand would no longer be mandated on a national level and causing the employment, wages, and prices to suffer for the new price floor and unnatural production line shift. It would no longer be a select few businesses who would have otherwise failed, but get subsidized by tax dollars. No more allowing them to become monopolized into the 1% due to continuous profit with no risk of failure. Enabling them to produce crap quality, crap prices, crap work environments, and crap wages with no repercussions.

On the contrary, they would have to compete for the only available labor in that area to work at their investments. No more shopping for jobs. Jobs would come shopping for you!

Since there’s all this production, no taxes, and no unnecessary regulation then the cost of living itself comes down substantially. Not only does this allow a charity to cover far more people who need it, but also to do it far more efficiently. Also since those businesses are no longer able to abuse law for their advantages, they have to use ‘less evil’ routes such as appealing to the public outcry of charity to compete. I myself would rather buy from the guy donating to what I liked. On top of that, right now we already see in the organics industry how third-party certifications are thriving against the “USDA Certified Organic” because the qualifications aren’t arbitrarily mandated laws, they are merely a standard to be met. There is no good reason to let a single entity have a monopoly on safety certification, that is an area that needs competitive innovation! We should have video dissections of all our products online by now!

Once you consider the newly lowered costs of all items in the economy along with the jobs, it would clearly enable poverty to decline in levels we have ever seen. Furthermore, there would be no regulatory price floors on the size of land purchases, along with the type of building you could construct either. Not only does rent become immensely cheaper, but so does owning property, to begin with. No more stopping people from living in little shacks if they wanted to.

Roads? Schools? Hospitals?
Basically imagine the city halls turning into competing for delegation and insurance firms for firefighters, security [police], road payment, arbitration courts, insurance, electricity, water, sewage, garbage men, charities of things like land preservation by collective purchase, etc, etc….

Except you don’t have to pay for what you don’t want to.
Your government would be COMPETING for your money, not taking it from you with force.
Plus it would all be an incredibly cheaper without the bureaucracy creating price floors on every one of those services! Crazy pipedream? That’s what the redcoats said about the revolutionaries! Threatening that their livelihoods would be in great peril if not for the kingdom’s protection. Yet when they finally tried to rebel, the kingdom turned out to be the threat they spoke of!
That is why they ensured we would have the right to peacefully secede from a tyrannical government at any time.

All we have to do is get the majority to realize that after all is said and done….. We really don’t need government for anything, and we are better off without them. The only reason they enacted the US federal government was because of fear. The fear that without being able to use force to do things like pay for emergencies, that they would be overcome again by the British or another battle.

Many don’t know that we were closer to voluntary anarchism prior to the US Constitution with no issues under the Articles of Confederation, and ease of secession. However back then they didn’t have the technology, as civilized of a society, high standards of living, and concept of morality we do today against slavery. They didn’t have means to create big insurance agencies, they had no other way to imagine payment of their protection and laws enforcement rather than forcing it out of the citizens.

But we have that now….. We can do it.

Look at that neck-beard!

This isn’t some overnight basement dweller’s fantasy…. This is a long thought out and thoroughly detailed Austrian economic-based society. The structure of which is continuously being outlined with more detail by an infinitely growing amount of scholars and professors who have dedicated countless hours of work to promoting this intellectual revolution. Not only do they have the most rational understanding on what the concept of “freedom” is, but they have now been able to create a global movement thanks to modern technology.

Nearly all have studied more economic history than all of congress, and who understand the concept of “freedom” with far more rationality.

It’s time for another revolution into a more prosperous society yet again.
This is the future. This is Austrian economics.
This….. is Anarcho-Capitalism.
#PlantTheSeedToSecede#LibertyHasEvolved

Check out the Mises Institute to learn more at mises.org. It is entirely free online and dedicated to planting the liberty seed. Everything you could think of has been covered explaining how it would be done, and how much better it would work.They have a vast library of over 300 books, and counting, relating to Voluntarism and Anarcho-Capitalism. Along with dozens of hours of video discussions and audio. There’s also a course available to help guide you through it all for $20 to support their cause plus some quick tutorials on Austrian economics, including a “boot camp,” available through either their website or going to the Youtube channel “misesmedia.” Spread the word, and go plant some seeds!

Party Politics

This is an exciting time for the Libertarian Party, coming off of its most successful presidential campaigns in the party’s history. Gary Johnson, though uninspiring and clumsy as he could be, was enough to engage a large number of people that were previously independent or uninterested. Paired with the two lackluster, scandal-ridden major party candidates, the LP was able to look reasonable, and even attractive. With more media attention than usual and an acceleration of the social media campaign opportunities, The Libertarian Party and its candidates were able to convince over four million voters that they had a chance to make history.

The LP’s success was historic, but the future may be looking even brighter. One must examine the social climate of America, and abroad, to understand the collective consciousness shift that has been taking shape to understand the full implications and opportunity presented to such a minor actor in the current political sphere. Where do Americans place their beliefs? What are their expectations in a candidate, or a party? How does a candidate address the gravitational pull of populism? How can the party appeal to the common man in meaningful ways, and generate an identity of its own? First, we must examine the events leading up to the election.

In 2014, presidential nominees were already showing interest, hinting at bids, and making campaign preparations. I have no faith in either major parties to represent the people. Thus, I was almost certain that we would see the most expensive consent ever manufactured, with a 90’s re-run of Bush vs. Clinton. Since my entrance into the liberty movement in 2007, I had conceded that the major parties have a will of their own. They serve to protect the politically and economically elite. The country, just four years prior, had equally moderate shades of status quo. I thought it would be nothing short of a money-slinging showdown of two equally terrifying candidates. Then, in 2015, the world was introduced to two wildly extreme choices, and I was proven completely wrong about the power of collective activism and a uniquely American desire for radical change.

First, Donald J. Trump, a real-estate mogul with zero experience holding public office. A flamboyant millionaire television personality with a seemingly genuine disgust for both parties. His campaign, and his nomination was nothing short of spectacular. He faced some of the most powerful and popular conservative republicans. He showed no shame in saying whatever it took to win support, often contradicting himself in the same day. His views were never in line with true conservativism, and quite often it seemed he went out of his way to embrace, and embellish, the stereotypical Republican, as seen from the left.

Second, Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont. A self-professed socialist, targeting millennials with unrealistic promises such as outrageous minimum wage standards, tuition-free secondary education, and higher taxes on the rich. Bernie ran against, arguably, the most powerful public figure in America, Secretary Hillary Clinton. Not even the Democratic Party was ready for the following he would garner. Bernie successfully captured the bleeding hearts in the young and old, while offering solutions to those financially struggling, regardless of how unrealistic his promises were.

Two things they each had in common, was a rabidly aggressive, public disdain for the “establishment in DC,” (I’m sure we can find a reference to that in almost every speech both candidates,) and promised radical change. To me, those are the ideas that won the election. The same can be applied to Brexit. That’s what’s selling right now, radical outsiders, rebellious warriors, antiheroes of the people.

Bernie’s controversial defeat, paired with Trump’s failures and puppet-like behavior since the victory, have even further shattered the confidence of Americans that the answers they need will come from Washington, or the two major parties. They are correct, and it’s about damn time they wake up. Rule number one, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Rule number two, never trust a politician when he promises the state will care about, or for, the people.



Then we have the Libertarian Party, and Johnson/Weld. Two former republican governors, moderate republicans, moderate liberals. Self-identified as Jeffersonian Classical liberals. Their campaign, and nomination were also unprecedented. Gary Johnson narrowly won the presidential nomination after two contentions, and Bill Weld’s VP nomination was also contended, defeating Larry Sharpe in a second vote by only a few delegates. The anarchists were furious, feeling the party had traded principles for pragmatism, prompting James Weeks II to strip down to a thong, live on C-SPAN, assumingly in protest of the moderate candidate that would be representing him.

As the election race continued, Clinton struggled to garner the youth and minority vote that Bernie inspired. Gary Johnson continued to distance himself from the hardline, and traditional, Libertarian beliefs, even distancing himself with the conservative libertarians that got him elected. Meanwhile, the “Trump Train” turned the volume up to 11, promising to build a massive wall, crush Islamic terrorists (all of them), and jail Secretary Clinton if elected. Gary limped to the finish line with a disappointing, yet still record number, 4% of the vote. Clinton won only in the small pockets you would expect a Democrat to win. Trump, meanwhile, seemed to have united the country in a crushing electoral victory.



Now here we are in 2017, and it seems that the Trump revolution will be nothing more than a few tax breaks, lavish vacations, and WWIII. The Berniecrats are busy creating gender pronouns and microaggressions, and the Republican conservatives have been reduced to observers and obstructionists within their own party. We essentially have much of the people feeling politically homeless.

This is what the Libertarian Party has been waiting for. I know 2016 was sold as the best chance the LP would ever get at success, but I can’t disagree with that enough. We were woefully unprepared. I’m not talking about the infighting, and I’m not talking about the on-camera Gary-gaffes and blunders. I’m talking about, in my best Gary voice, BOOTS ON THE GROUND! State and local affiliates were either unorganized, unwilling to participate, or non-existent. There is no chance of winning without community presence and outreach. ZERO! Without the R or D stamp of approval, the only way to get a large enough number of votes is organically, through advertisement, marketing, and putting a local face on the LP brand.

The good news, it’s happening. Currently, there is a massive influx of members and support, and it’s shaping into an entirely different brand of Libertarian than we’ve ever seen before. Growth is not always peaceful, friendly, or smooth, however. The growing pains can be seen most recently as the infighting and arguing over branding and message continue to evolve. One thing that is happening regardless of the Party and its members, is libertarianism is becoming cool. The ideas of self-ownership, free markets, and individual empowerment are sweeping through college campuses. Young Americans for Liberty, in ten years, has gone from hosting speeches to be heard by dozens, to thousands. It seems the most extreme, or disenfranchised, of them have found the Libertarian Party as a vessel for activism.

The LP can position itself as a dominant force in politics, but it must shed its moderate/conservative skin. The people are clear, they want a radical, and they want that person far removed from the current business-as-usual model. They don’t need to be eased into accepting freedom. They need to be exposed to it, in an open and honest way. They need to be invited to it, by having the party and its members actively engaging individuals currently ignored. They need to have reason to vote, and pure, unadulterated liberty offers the reason for everyone. Liberty is logic. Liberty is honesty. Liberty is anti-establishment. Liberty is change. Liberty is cool, and it’s about time the Libertarian Party presents itself as an outlet for intelligent, virtuous, rebellious, and open minded individuals of all walks of life.

Opinion

The Libertarian Party is not a safe space. Just in case you don’t understand that, the Libertarian party is not a fucking safe space. For far too long, the Libertarian Party has been relatively stagnant. In 30 years of being fringe conservatives and impotent anarchists, they have little to show for their existence. Their only path to success was through the Republican Party, as the closest reality we could ever achieve is to look conservative enough to do a few conservative things. Now, with the Libertarian Party on the brink of revolution or destitution, is not the time to play the same old Republican games.

This is not to discredit the libertarian minded Republicans that have been able to help grow our party, and spread our ideals. From Ron Paul to Justin Amash, the liberty movement itself is far from useless in the Republican Party. In fact, I would go as far as to say that: If you are adamant about holding office and effecting real change, no matter how minimal, the Republican Party is the most viable and pragmatic.
However, this has achieved NOTHING for the Libertarian Party, itself! The numbers have remained consistently abysmal, at best for over, for over 40 years. It wasn’t until the election of 2016, with that special combination of two horrible major party candidates, and the Johnson/Weld ability to gain media coverage. Gary was chosen as a pragmatic, former Republican governor to represent the party. Seemingly, this fit into the Republican with a bong, Randist, stereotype of Libertarians.

Something went terribly off the conservative tracks, though. Gary started pandering to the left, trying to pick up Sanders voters. Suddenly, pragmatism shifted left, and the former pragmatists couldn’t stop crying about principles. Gary is advocating for Universal Basic Income and Carbon Tax. While his running mate, William Weld, is explaining how to DIY an automatic weapon, and openly admitted that his goal is to help Clinton win. That was not the pragmatism they were hoping for, or accustomed to.

The result, an exponential boom of interest, activists, and even anarchists. Only one thing is crystal clear from 2016, people want radical change. Gary may have been a moderate libertarian in a lot of eyes, some maybe don’t consider him one at all, but what he did changed the game for the Libertarian Party. It brought exposure to those more radical opponents of his in the Party. People like Larry Sharpe, John McAfee, and Austin Peterson, articulate people within the party, are reaping the benefits of Gary’s shedding of the conservative skin.

So, this is a warning. If you are interested in joining the Libertarian party, beware. They have strippers, Satanists, and anarchists. I feel like the damage has already been done, and it’s too late to stop it. The young radicals have already infiltrated the LP Facebook page, posting nipples and evil. They have members that openly do drugs, and advocate for prostitution and various other kinks. If you try to restrict their ideal of liberty, you may get called words like statist, pleb, or fascist.

I repeat, the Libertarian Party is not a safe space for boring, emotional people. If you are routinely triggered. If you suffer from butthurt syndrome when someone peacefully doesn’t live their life like you. If your feelings, and perception of public image, are easily shaken by young punks and dope smokers. Please, find a safe space somewhere else.

Opinion

When I was a young lad(many, many moons ago), I discovered the Sex Pistols for the first time. I didn’t bother to learn about the history of the band, and it was years before I watched The Great Rock n’ Roll Swindle…all I did was turn on that first record and the absolute rawness, the complete unbridled individuality that screamed out of my speakers, spoke to me on a deep level. Sure, you’re probably wondering how a band that barely knew how to play their instruments(I always joked that Steve Jones and Paul Cook were the best two man band in punk rock history) could be so influential. It wasn’t the music(as many three-chord punk bands who tried and failed to emulate them found out), it was the dangerous message: I do what I want, you don’t own me. It was a message that any rebellious kid could identify with because I mean who wants to listen to their parents or teachers? Most were content to leave it there, and after they hung up their Chuck Taylors and took out their piercings, they joined the rat race and submitted to one authority after another: their professors in college, their boss at their job, their friends who had their own professors and jobs. Punk rock was anarchy-lite, quickly abandoned for the realism of responsibilities and commitments. Death and taxes. But always, underneath that basic “you don’t own me mom” sneer of punk rock was the idea: If my parents don’t own me….does anyone? It’s that dangerous message, the fish-hook buried in the candy bar, that kicked off a world of discovery for me. Listening to the Sex Pistols scream about anarchy in the UK was the catalyst for a life spent questioning all authority, seeking the ultimate freedom of the individual. But these days, the freedom of the individual seems swallowed up in big government nanny-state rhetoric…I’m more likely to see a Bernie sticker on a punk rocker’s guitar than an anarchy symbol. How the hell did we get here?


There’s always been a left-wing lean to punk rock…the working class’ struggles were immortalized in the music of the Clash, songs like “Let’s Lynch the Landlord” by the Dead Kennedys, and lyrics like these by The Ex: “The bourgeoisie was not needed and we proved it / No church, no masters, no guardians / Property collectivized, we took over the estates / No necessity for money to exist, everyone would work / And exchange with other collectives – no need for the state.” There were precious few conservative punk rockers…the Ramones’ own Johnny Ramone was a life-long voting Republican(to the chagrin of his left-leaning bandmates), and the band FEAR has taken some heat by the punk community for being conservative in their politics. But that’s about it…and it makes sense if you think about it. Punk rock in its very origins was reactionary, a nihilistic scream against the materialism and plastic commercialism of the late 1970s. They hated the status quo, and conservatism most assuredly WAS the status quo. Google “anti-Reagan punk” and you’ll have quite the playlist. Punk rock from its very beginnings was anti-authoritarian, populist, and socially liberal above all. The freaks and outcasts from modern conservative society were welcome, in fact being too “normal” meant you were looked at with distrust.

The reactionary attitude extended to capitalism as well…it was seen as exploitative, anyone seeking a record deal with a major label was a “sell-out” and bands promoted themselves through fanzines and collective efforts. The more DIY you were, the more “punk rock” you were. Later in the 90s when Nirvana was selling out arenas and record stores Kurt Cobain bemoaned the state of the record industry as co-opting what was essentially a grass-roots movement and selling it as a product. He was absolutely right. The music industry had long been controlled by the “big four” companies: Universal Music Group, Sony, Warner, and EMI. Their monopoly privileges and cooperation with radio monopolies(EMMIS, Radio One, and Clear Channel own most of the radio stations in the US)meant that all roads to super-stardom went through them, and with that came contracts ensuring that the companies owned a majority share in any profits the artist might earn. This state-enforced capital funnel meant that the artists were essentially serfs to their record labels.

Keep in mind this was before the advent of the internet and other technologies which allowed musicians to more directly interact with their fans and circumvent the major labels, so many punk rock acts who were looking to avoid “selling out” started their own labels. The music industry was seen as a vampire sucking the life out of productive musicians and something to be avoided as much as possible. Capitalism was the enemy, they declared…while participating in it. Remember how at its core punk rock was reactionary and anti-authority? The main authority later punk musicians had to rebel against was the music industry itself, a monolithic authority propped up by monopoly privileges and an almost inescapable permeation of every facet of popular culture. This leviathan was the target of many later punk bands like NOFX, Rancid, and Bad Religion, who started their own record labels and movements as a reaction to the exodus in the mid-80s and 90s of many punk bands to the major labels. Bands like the Offspring and Green Day were derided as sell outs and turncoats in the punk underground.

Politically, punk rock focused most of its efforts on this monopoly throughout the 90s. Clinton was in the White House by this point and even though there was still some anti-statist sentiment in most punk music, the Democrats were seen as somewhat “safe” compared to the GOP. Keep in mind punk rock rose to prominence in the 1980s as a reactionary political movement against Reagan conservatism and people who came of age during this time listening to bands like Reagan Youth and the Dead Kennedys found themselves more and more turned to leftist politics. Clinton promised change to the left-wing base, and like most who lived through the Obama years can attest, the left wing is pretty silent when one of their boys is in the White House. Kids who were in their adolescence during the Reagan years were voters now and registered Democrats. The Clinton “surplus” and the relative boom of the dot.com years only encouraged them more and more that the Democrats were the party of the future. Social issues became more important, and the ideas of individual freedom and anarchy gave way to pragmatism and “voting for the lesser evil”. These middle-aged punks got married, had kids, and blended into the cycle of responsibility and paying taxes.

Then the 2000 election happened, and the uproar by the left was matched only by the Trump win in recent days. 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq only fueled the fire. All of a sudden high school kids were getting political and getting into punk music again. Old punkers NOFX trotted out anti-Bush albums and Fat Mike, their frontman, even started punkvoter.com…a website with the stated goal of removing Bush by mobilizing the young voting base to vote Democrat. Holy hell! It was a wild decade, with Rock Against Bush and other protest efforts lining the coffers of Fat Wreck Chords and Epitaph with plenty of new fans’ money. This wasn’t the grass-roots anti-authoritarian reactionary movement of the 1970s…this was corporate rock opportunism at its finest. Honed to perfection from decades of working within the music industry, all of a sudden being anti-authoritarian meant voting Democrat! It was hilariously absurd if one hadn’t seen the writing on the wall from punk’s very beginnings. It was always simply a reactionary movement, never an anarchist one. Anarchism in punk was basically nihilism…which is completely unsustainable. One eventually finds values. The punks of the 80s and 90s found value in socially liberal policies and anti-capitalist sentiment. Nevermind that the capitalism they experienced was the result of government intervention in the market, bestowing privileges and monopolies to a few corporations which mined their movement for profit. Their penchant for socially liberal government policies ensured that punks that did vote would generally vote Democrat. Their built up hatred for the capitalist structure(while ironically participating in it wholeheartedly) ensured that they would be receptive to socialist ideas. The rise of Bernie Sanders and the subsequent reaction to the Trump win was, therefore, unsurprising, if not predictable.