Three Way Fight Responds to ATS

…and then says no to any further dialogue.

In some ways, this discussion reminds me of the foreign policy debates between realists and liberal-humanist-universalists. Not coincidentally, the realist George Kennan became a supporter of something resembling pan-secessionism in his final years, whereas supporters of “human rights internationalism” typically regard secession as an abhorrent idea.

Categories: Uncategorized

11 replies »

  1. Now that’s what I call passive-aggression! Lyons has a go at “Rightists”, placing ATS under that banner; he offers up incomplete representations of various ATS contributors’ views (including Yours Truly); then he gets all restrictive and aversive when he’s called out on it, shutting down debate.

  2. I noticed he keeps refering to elusive ways in which social control takes root in small scale institutions, and yet never mentions any specifically. I will infer from this that either A) he considers himself intellectually superior to ATS and therefore is exempt from doing so or B) he’s running out of ideas and wants to end the conversation as soon as possible. My guess is that the truth is a combination of both. He recalls nothing so much as a secular leftist version of Bob Larson, studiously keeping tabs on any and all “satanic”/”fascist” elements supposedly poisoning society.

  3. “I would tend to look first to people who have been silenced or marginalized within these communities, such as queer Hasidic Jews, for guidance or leadership in this area.”

    Sounds like the premise for a Monty Python sketch.

    Seriously thought, this is the problem with these guys, he has no qualms at all about wondering how he might go about inflicting his values on a community which isn’t asking for his Solomon like judgement. He has gone so far as to wonder about how he might co-opt elements of that community in order to give himself some imaginary legitimacy when he imposes his dull 20th century agenda on it. I would imagine this is how Rumsfeld thought about invading Afghanistan (to liberate the women!).

    The big laugh comes however later on when he rejects secessionism on the basis would lead to; “the rise to dominance of new imperialist superpowers”. This from a guy who two paragraphs earlier was musing on how he could re-order Amish and Hasidic societies!

    To be fair I don’t see Lyons even pretending to be anything other a bog standard Statist lefty dreaming of his benevolent enlightened dictatorship armed to the teeth with the power of the state. He effectively argues that decentralisation would mean accepting “inequality, exploitation, and violence” (like centralisation has, or could, stop any of that) and the implication is that the state is absolutely necessary as the lesser evil (at best).

    Talking of inequality how come he doesn’t accord Orania the same rights as the Amish? How come some queer white isolationists doesn’t get a say? (Of course, because they don’t exist as it is impossible for any official “favoured minority” group member to be anything other than a gold plated progressive).

    And he wonders why no left wing thinkers were included in the list of radical political philosophers?

    BTW hadn’t someone better go and tell the Afghan Resistance that they’ll never be free of Imperialism unless they get a powerful central state? I’m just worried that having defeated both the Warsaw Pact and NATO without one they might not have grasped this vital fact?

  4. I would stand by my comments that Lyons’ original critique of my work is probably as good as I would ever expect to get from the hard Left. But after observing his most recent round of comments, I find it increasingly difficult to take him seriously.

    Philosophical differences aside, the main factual quibble I have with his discussion of us is his persistence in conflating ATS with vulgar libertarianism of the “low tax liberal” type. I mean, this website is littered with material that is critical of capitalism and discusses possible alternatives. It’s also a bit odd that he dismisses us as pie in the sky utopians and cynical, cold-hearted anti-humanists at the same time.

    I suppose the biggest problem I have with Lyons is that he never explains what he’s actually for other than, apparently, expanding the welfare state and holding Pride Marches in Hasidic communities.

  5. >To my mind, Live and Let Live is the defining philosophy of the American rebel.

    If it isn’t, the person isn’t a rebel for long, or will be in a life-long rebellion against everything and everybody (such as the AnComs and most of the increasingly entrenched, politically as well as mentally, hard left it is part of).

  6. “I suppose the biggest problem I have with Lyons is that he never explains what he’s actually for”

    All ATS critics abstain from full engagement.

  7. “All ATS critics abstain from full engagement.”

    They do this because their intention is not to refute ATS as an intellectual competitor, but to fend it off as a threat to their turf.

  8. What’s particularly hilarious is when Lyons criticizes us as unrealistic utopians, while at the same time promoting the concept of an entirely reconstructed humanity exhibiting, on a universal scale, perfect equality of, well, just about everyone, everything, every time every place, without presenting any ideas on how to actually achieve such an other-worldly ambition.

    I’m not even sure how Lyons defines “capitalism” in the first place. The way he describes “capitalism” it sounds like some all-encompassing evil metaphysical entity like Satan.

Leave a Reply