Ad Hominem Argument: A Classic Example 5

Carol Moore is someone who deserves credit for helping to publicize the secessionist cause. See her website here. Unfortunately, she has delivered a classic example of an ad hominem argument against Yours Truly in response to my suggestions that the radical Left should seriously consider the possibility of adopting a secessionist outlook. You can see Ms. Moore’s response here. Here it is in full:

While Preston’s article seems rational, if you look at the list of articles he’s published he also promotes “National Anarchism” which is against “miscengenation” and promotes (as opposed to merely accepting) separation of the races. He also promotes revolutionary violence, including by Tim McVeigh. FYI.

The ad hominem part of this is obvious. What Carol is saying amounts to is: “Yes, Keith Preston makes reasonable arguments as to why the radical Left should consider secession, but he’s also a bad guy, so this refutes or at least dimishes his arguments.”  A response to the charges is in order:

“…he also promotes “National Anarchism”…”

Guilty but proud. See my discussions of National-Anarchism and related views here, here, and here. National-Anarchism is a freshingly interesting and vibrant current when compared with the dull conformists and predictable lefto-losers associated with the mainstream anarchist movement.

“…which is against “miscengenation”…”

There’s no “n” in this term, but as something of a serial miscegenator myself I don’t really care what views National-Anarchists may or may not hold on “miscegenation.” See John Derbyshire on this one. I don’t really adhere to any of the Christian taboos about “adultery” or “fornication” either, but I’ve also promoted Christian secessionist or separatist groups in the past. I’ve even promoted Mormon polygamists. To demonstrate the absurdity of this kind argument against the National-Anarchists, imagine if a Muslim, an Orthodox Jew or a Seventh Day Adventist were to make an argument like this: “Yes, Preston makes reasonable arguments in favor of secession by Muslims, Jews, and Adventists, but he also promotes individuals and groups that eat pork, drink alcohol, and refrain from keeping the Sabbath…..”

Enough said on that point.

“…and promotes (as opposed to merely accepting) separation of the races…”

As an anarchist, what I actually advocate is a concept I call “separation of race and state” on the same model as the Jeffersonian idea of “separation of church and state.” If racial and ethnic integrationism of the kind favored by liberals and leftists can take place on its own without the coercive apparatus of the state to compel it, and without the economic pressures generated by state-capitalism and imperialism, then so be it. On the other hand, if the kind of racial separatism favored by “racial conservatives” (for lack of a better term) is indeed normal or natural, then that’s fine by me as well. My guess is that there would probably be some of both, with the degree of extremes on either end depending on other factors like local culture, institutional forms, ideological currents, economic factors, population size, geography, history, individual personalities and so forth. Imagine if Carol were to instead make an argument like: “Preston promotes (as to merely accepting) separation of the cultures and religions where hippies, Christian evangelicals, Catholics, goth-rockers and Jehovah’s Witnesses simply do their own thing-what a god-awful thing this is!”

What leftoids just can’t seem to accept is that some of us just flat out don’t give a damn if races are “separated” or not. Indeed, some the present-day “anti-racism” hysteria is starting to sound a lot like the anti-commie  panic of the 1950s or the “Satanic panic” of the 80s. If Joe McCarthy were alive today, no doubt he would be talking about the evil cabals of racists who’ve infiltrated American institutions. If Dana Carvey were just inventing his “Church Lady” character today, he’d have to make her a PC liberal: “Satan?…Racism!!!!!”

Enough said on that one.

He also promotes revolutionary violence,…”

It is quite unlikely that the existing regime, ruling class, and empire is going to let territories within the U.S.A simply walk away without a fight. So, on that great day of reckoning, it is indeed quite likely that secessionist movements will indeed need defense organizations of a “fourth generation” nature. See Hezbollah, Hamas, the FMLN, or the Peoples’ War Group. See 1776, 1861, or Spain 1936. Pacifism doesn’t interest me.

including by Tim McVeigh

McVeigh got an “A” for attitude but an “F” for tactics and good sense, in my book.

Enough said on that one.

5 comments

  1. This is strikingly similar to the attitudes of sanctimonious leftards when dealing with those who hold views contrary to their own. Small ideological differences are considered to be of greater importance than the much larger, common enemy, so potential allies are dismissed, and the anti-state movement is greatly diminshed as a result. I can only imagine how limp and ineffective the anti-state movement has been rendered because of this. These people need to realize the importance of separating the cultural from the political, which requires an acceptance of difference and a rejection of liberal universalism. Their situation is comparable to that of an individual who would like to have a large group of friends and an active social life, but rejects every new person he meets based on impossible elitist standards.

  2. “These people need to realize the importance of separating the cultural from the political, which requires an acceptance of difference and a rejection of liberal universalism. ”

    I regard this as the most serious intellectual problem at present concerning political theory.

    What’s interesting is that “cultural conservatives” of my acquaintance who favor secession don’t really seem to have as much problem with people of other value systems as liberals and leftoids. For instance, I know a number of paleocons, neo-confederates, and Christian fundamentalists who accept that there will probably be gun control, gay marriage, and legal abortion in seceded liberal regions like, say, Connecticutt. That’s rather tolerant of them, considering, for instance, many of them believe abortion to be the murder of innocent children or the strong religious taboos they may hold against same-sex marriage. I wrote a little more about that a while back:

    https://attackthesystem.com/2008/07/pan-secessionist-anti-universalism-vs-totalitarian-humanism/

  3. Well, if that’s the case, she need not worry, as I’m not trying to “lead” the secessionist movement. What I am more interested in is developing a new intellectual paradigm that will in turn inform and inspire a future wave of revolutionary elites. This new wave of radicals will subsequently be the leadership corps of an actual pan-secessionist revolutionary movement that is in part inspired by the newly emerging radical ideologies of which national-anarchism is one. This is what I have written on that elsewhere:

    “The standard pattern in the history of the advancement of radical movements is that a new revolutionary outlook first captures the imagination of the intellectual elite, who become dissenters, and this new outlook then advances into the ranks of those who are most likely to opt for radicalism, or who have the least to lose by doing so. So, in turn, the intellectual dissidents are joined by student radicals and rebellious youth, bohemians and counterculturalists, members of the lumpenproletariat and the underclass, and marginalized or outcast social groups. Eventually, radical ideas begin working their way into the ranks of the conventional proletariat, and then into the middle class, and, finally, the establishment, with social reactionaries reluctantly being dragged along. At this point, the revolution is complete.”

    At this point in the game, I would advise someone who is trying to be a public leader of a secessionist movement to refrain from openly associating themselves with me. I’d be their Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright.

  4. I didn’t realize this woman was the annointed gatekeeper of the secessionist tendency (I won’t call it a movement). Race will play a huge part in any successful secession. So what?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s