11 replies »

  1. This is a good long-term argument for setting up anarchist alternatives to groups like Amnesty International. Imagine if AI propagated NA propaganda?

  2. “Imagine if AI propagated NA propaganda?”

    When the alternative anarchist and pan-secessionist tendencies grow large enough we can start infiltrating and gaining leadership positions in groups like Amnesty International, the ACLU, or the NRA and bending these organizations in our direction.

  3. On a slight tangent, I like this term ‘alternative anarchism’ that’s been floating around. It serves as a good umbrella label for these converging currents, as well as sounding edgy and counter-cultural. Of course, once we ascend to the mainstream, the term will become as redundant as ‘alternative-rock’ did in the mid-90s, but no need to worry about that now. LOL

  4. Disgusting. Most of the mainstream “civil liberties” and “human rights” organizations have unfortunately fallen under the spell of totalitarian humanism.

  5. Here’s a thought I’d like to throw out there. The lack on concern in America for harm that befalls men is attributable to two different worldviews. What’s going on, big picture wise, is that the PC feminism of the 1970s is converging with the Victorian chivalry of the 1870s. In my understanding, before Gloria Steinem et al came along, there was a tendency to put women up on a pedestal, to treat them differently than men. It was believed there were two worlds, the rough and tumble world of work, in which men fought for resources and perhaps weren’t exactly ethical in the process, and the pristine world of the home, in which women, safely isolated from the wicked world, nurtured the family and were beacons of Christian virtue. This world view never fully went away. It merged with PC feminism to create the misandry of today. The lack of concern for men is both a reflection of the modern PC belief of men as evil and a throwback to Victorian times when it was expected that life would be rough for men. That’s their lot in life. They get the excitement and glory but also assume the danger of the world outside the home. If a woman gets hurt, however, that’s a tragedy, because she was supposed to be protected, to enjoy security in exchange for giving up the chance for excitement and glory.


  6. That might explain the sense of entitlement and superiority many feminazis seem to have. I had one of them tell me once that when women rule the world war will end because “peace and negotiation” are feminine values. Yeah, right. Tell Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, or Jeanne Kirkpatrick that.

  7. I think you’re right. The worldview of many is a confused mess. I think this is often the natural result of believing what is convenient to believe, even if that means believing opposing propositions.

  8. I suspect that the Stephen Baskervilles of the PC feminist movement have more internally consistent worldviews, but, based on this great article


    I also suspect that many of the students and even professors at the top schools adopt Victorian women-on-a-pedestal views on occasion, because, as the article points out, the ruling class is intellectual bankrupt:

    “Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France’s ruling class are bright people — certifiably. Not ours. But didn’t ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn’t most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d’Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France’s ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America’s ‘top schools’ is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that ‘the best’ colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.”

    The article makes other good points as well. To rephrase one, in regards to the ruling class, Nietzsche was right, God is dead. But in the place of traditional Christianity, they’ve adopted a new religion, in which they themselves are godlike saviors. (To add my own thought here, the “holy trinity” of the new religion are Democracy Worship, Cultural Marxism, and Therapeutism.)

    I disagree with the article, however, when it says the ruling class is anti-democracy/anti-equality because of their belief in their superiority. As I wrote a few months ago to Lew Rockwell,

    “There are two cults of democracy that seem at first to be in conflict, the cult of equality and the cult of the expert. In areas such as the monetary policy and foreign affairs, we non-experts are told by the politicians and the media that we couldn’t possibly begin to understand the intricacies involved and how to best manage them. But doesn’t that conflict with Biden’s recent speech in which he said we are all equal? Ah, that’s where the cult of education comes in. The cult of education resolves the seeming contradiction. Through education/training, people equal to you and me receive special knowledge that we could have gotten ourselves if we had gone through the same education/training.”


    “If everyone went to Harvard,” the ruling class says, “they’d be as smart as us.” I’m reminded of the South Park episode when one of the families moved to San Franscisco and added to its smug level (not to be confused with LA’s smog level). The San Fran residents, you could infer, believed that if everyone lived in San Franscisco, they’d be progressive and enlightened too. But they don’t, so they’re not.

Leave a Reply