Political Correctness/Totalitarian Humanism

Race and Reparations: A Question for Christopher Gunderson

Anarchist turned Commie Christopher Gunderson says:

 Preston’s fantasy that poor Blacks will “trade” civil rights protections and affirmative action for “reparations” resulting in mutual “sovereignty” (that is to say some David Duke-style scheme to partition the country on racial lines) should not require the dignity of refutation.”

Let’s look at some data:

U.S. communities with a majority African-American population

U.S. counties with a majority African-American population

U.S. cities with over 30% African-American population

African-American neighborhoods

U.S. cities with majority non-white populations

Clearly, there are hundreds if not thousands of localities in the U.S. with a “majority-minority” population. Would not conversion of all of these places into independent city-states and free association on the “neighborhood anarchism” model while utilizing the Carson model of class-based economic reparations be a better means to self-determination for the poor and working class sectors of American’s minority racial/ethnic population groups than the current liberal paradigm of compulsory integration, affirmative action, and the welfare state? The elite sectors of the minority groups who view the state as a means of self-advancement would lose out with the adoption of such a paradigm, but so what?

17 replies »

  1. I’ve noticed has an emotional attachment to it’s favoured policies as an end unto itself, regardless of their outcomes and the potential of proposed alternatives. In his mind, “civil rights protections and affirmative action” are sacred items in and of themselves. There exists a religious parallel, to practices that are entirely abritrary but church traditionalists insist upon anyways. Basing his response on the pre-existing assumption that you are a clost racist, he likely interpereted your proposal as a front for racial separatism. This speaks to the “nazi under every bed” paranoia that grips the Left more than it does any reasoned analysis. For types like him, the goal is not to successfully analyze and refute other’s views, because he doesn’t live in a world of differing opinions; he lives in one of the Truth VS Evil, with the former having to vanquish the latter at every turn. Even if it is with ad hominems and unsubstantiated assumptions.

  2. I don’t think Gunderson will accept your proposal, for three superficial reasons….

    1) The Left operates under the assumption that their favoured groups are sitting ducks for insurgent bigots without the nanny state. Also, the absence of the latter negates any messianic involvement by them, denying them their romantic attachment to the underdog.

    2) The idea is rooted in particularism rather than universalism, making it unpalatable to them aesthetically, as a major component of their teleology is the world’s eventual culmination in a rainbow hand-holding circle.

    3)The established narrative of the Left includes state involvement which, as stated earlier, is as big a part of their religion as their ends in themselves.

    We could use these to speculate on the real factors driving them, but I’d prefer to let people speak for themselves. In any case, I think Gunderson’s response would be a good example of Left-wing psychology in action.

  3. “ Preston’s fantasy that poor Blacks will “trade” civil rights protections and affirmative action for “reparations” resulting in mutual “sovereignty” (that is to say some David Duke-style scheme to partition the country on racial lines) should not require the dignity of refutation.”

    Surely the argument made here is not for any country to “be partitioned on racial lines” but to allow societies to partition themselves however their self selecting components see fit if it wishes to? If that turns out to be along racial lines, which it probably would in a significant minority of cases, so be it.

    What’s the alternative position? That the instincts, tendencies, values, whatever you want to call them, are suppressed by the power of the state? The old argument, we must have a interventionist state to protect us from ourselves at any price. (and they say the right are all pessimists)

    (Excellent points Parish)

  4. Ha! That’s hilarious. If I recall correctly, William Gillis is a leftoid-libertarian moron of the aptly named Long Johnson species. I remember him once attacking the old guard an-coms at LibCom.Org for not being zealous enough in their embrace of PC race/gender identity politics. Here’s an example of his logic: http://williamgillis.blogspot.com/2009/05/fractured-rulership-is-power-stronger.html

    Money quote: “It has always appeared quite clear to me that we should consider ourselves lucky to live in a world defined by global Empire.”

    Anarchists for World Empire!

    It’s because of idiots like him that I began the project of developing an alternative anarchist movement in the first place.

  5. That blog post of his borders on nearly unreadable meaninglessness…most likely arrived at after a long day of hitting the bong.

  6. I looked at the Cascadia Now FB page, Gillis joined to group after that thread was started, obviously just to chime in and attack Keith. What is sad though is how he can just throw something like that out there and other people just accept it uncritically. Accusing Keith of being a “neonazi entryist” is like claiming that methadone is a gateway drug to heroine. I do like those Cascadia guys in general though.

  7. It wasn’t for nothing that Rothbard and Rockwell came to regard libertarianism as the “party of the stoned.”

    Seriously, I don’t really think race is the real reason why these “leftoid” people exhibit so much hostility to what I do. There are very few actual “people of color” in those circles. I think the persistent accusations of “racism” are a smokescreen.

    Tom Naylor mentioned that he suspects the real reason for the attacks on him by the “watchdogs” like the SPLC have less to do with the relationship between SVR and League of the South and more to do with Tom’s criticism of the US-Israel alliance and the threat secessionism poses to that alliance.

    I think there’s a similar issue at work in my case as well. If there’s one value the Left clings to over any other it’s “Defend the Sexual Revolution to the Death!” In other words, what these leftoid people really object to is my conciliatory attitude towards social conservatives like religious traditionalists or ethno-preservationists whom they view as threatening left-wing pet causes like abortion, gay rights, transvestism, state-subsidized sex change operations on demand, public BDSM, etc.. Whenever I am able to trace the actual identity or background of those who throw the “fascist-racist-nazi” label at me it is almost always someone from the feminzazi/homo-totalitarian camp. Or if it’s a “person of color” who is attacking me then it’s a “LGBT” “person of color.” For instance, I’ve long heard that Daryl Lamont Jenkins of One People’s Project is a homosexual for whom little antifa white boys serve as punks. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it would certainly be consistent with what I’ve seen in such circles over the years.

    It’s the same situation with the national-anarchists. What they really object to there is that Troy made some comments in a interview years ago about how abortion and homosexuality are contrary to “natural order” (he was a Catholic at the time, I think, and he’s since modified his position). Any time the Left attacks the N-As they almost always drag out that quote.

    It’s like we were discussing in my interview with Paul Gottfried. The Left today has nothing to do with peace, social justice for the poor, self-determination for oppressed nationalities, or any of the other things associated with the Left in the past. The Left today is simply the party of personal hedonism. That’s why the Left has no real interest in anti-system revolution. Fighting the revolution might take time away from bathhouses and raves.

  8. I would be labelled a hedonist, more so when I was younger. I was a libertine, decadent, punk who liked the drugs and all. Oddly enough that’s how I ended up hanging out with and supporting skinheads. Where I come from the skinheads came out of the punk scene and was a reaction to the predatory and exploitive nature of those supposedly downtrodden peoples championed by the left. There were always black guys and gay kids in the scene but at some point black gangster types started showing up at our hang outs, picking fights, harrassing girls and selling kids bad drugs and then the chicken hawks started cruising the scene all sweaty and leacherous and gross. A lot of my friends became skins not to establish the Fourth Reaich but to defend our little hedonistic community from assholes who came into our space and tried to impose themselves on us.

  9. I think you explained away his concerns pretty well in the interview but I kind of doubt he listened to it.

    It might be appropriate to equate the folks on “Nazi lookout” to bird watchers. They observe, take a few notes and report their findings to others in the field. It serves no real purpose other than a sense of self-satisfaction and camaraderie.

    Last year someone accused me of being a white supremacist because I posted a Naylor article and because Naylor associated with the League of the South. If I wanted to use that sort of logic I could’ve called them out for being a misogynist because they posted a link at me from SPLC (as evidence of Naylor’s secret white supremacism) which was created by a known misogynist: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/morris-dees-pathological-narcissist-and-ultra-creep/ If I wanted to take guilt by association further I could start accusing these types of being Nazis because they use websites that talk about Nazis so therefore they are Nazis. They speak english and many people critical of homosexuality throughout history have spoken english so therefore they’re aiding the anti-homosexual agenda by speaking english. The possibilities are literally endless.

  10. “I would be labelled a hedonist, more so when I was younger. I was a libertine, decadent, punk who liked the drugs and all. ”

    So was I. I’m all for libertinism. Something like the “Kowloon Walled City” would probably be my ideal community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City But that’s not what the PC Left is about. As Gottfried said in our interview, the biggest misconception about these people is that they are moral relativists or libertines. They’re actually very doctrinaire moralists. Yes, some of them may engage in sexual decadence, but they’re very moralistic about their decadence: “It is your moral obligation to revere my sexual identity as a cross-dressing sado-masochist.” I get the impression some of them think that when they’re putting on their dog collar they think they’re putting on a priestly collar.

  11. I generally regard these kinds of attacks as signs that we’re moving in the right direction.

    Of course, the totalitarian Left is going to attack us as anarchism is antithetical to everyone of their ambitions. Of course, the rising upper middle class that is in the process of embedding itself in the state sees us as a (potential) threat to their self-advancement. Of course, Communists like Gunderson are against us. Of course, special interest groups connected to the totalitarian Left are against us. Of course, “anarchists” who identify primarily with the cultural values of the totalitarian Left consider us to be their enemy.

    Everything is moving along on schedule.

  12. Keith, do you see the Totalitarian Left culminating in a totalitarian state ala the Soviet Union, with the ATS and aligned factions as dissidents? I’m speculating as to the evolution of TL, and what possible forms of persecution those in this camp may eventually face.

  13. I wrote a little bit about that recently at AltRight: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-myth-of-the-rule-of-law-and-the-future-of-repression/

    I think a modern totalitarian leftist state would have to be different from the USSR in a number of ways. First, I don’t think it would try to completely nationalize the economy under a command system the way old guard commie states did. Also, they couldn’t really outlaw leaving the country the way the commies did as that would interfere with the global economy which ultimately serves the universalist aims of the totalitarian left.

    I think what we will see will be a convergence of things that are currently going on. Part of the future totalitarianism will resemble what we see in the European countries today where people with un-PC beliefs are subject to criminal prosecution and/or the imposition of severe bureaucratic sanctions. For instance, I suspect CPS will eventually start removing the children from the homes of parents who are deemed excessively racist, sexist, homophobic, religious, etc. or who smoke in the presence of the children and things like that. I I also think public bureaucracies in general will become ever more intrusive in their efforts to regulate social relations towards desired PC ends (for instance, non-state organizations or institutions will be increasingly subject to ever great regulations under PC ideology). Eventually, I think there will be efforts to criminalize clerics who teach critical views of things like homosexuality or feminism.

    If the Scandinavian countries are any lesson, I think there may be efforts to regulate sexual expression along PC lines (Iceland’s ban on strip clubs or Sweden’s crackdown on the clients of sex professionals comes to mind, although a positive side effect of that would be to create a split between the feminazis and left-libertines, with the latter perhaps moving closer to our camp).

    One lesson we can draw from countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa is that we will see the Left try to create a system of race/gender/gay/ et.al cronyism or nepotism that gives no consideration to matters of merit, competence, or efficiency. The result of that will serious economic decline which ironically will hurt the poor among women and minorities the most. Also, I think we will likely see an increase in violent crime directed against un-PC targets while the state looks the other way. Obvious examples include racially motivated violence against individual whites, or vigilante attacks on people deemed racist, sexist, homophobic, et. al.

    We also have to consider that the future totalitarian left will inherit the massive military industrial complex, police state, and prison industrial complex that previous regimes have established. Those by themselves contain a lot of vested interests that the totalitarian left will have to placate and it logically follows they will use these for ideological purposes or for political repression. I don’t think we’d see Soviet or Nazi style repression (it wouldn’t be that well organized). Instead, I think it would be closer to the kinds of repression we’ve seen in Latin America, Africa, or the Middle East (e.g. extra-legal killings or massacres of dissidents carried out by state security agencies-El Salvador in the 1960s-1980s is a good illustration of what I mean).

    I think the main way the future left-totalitarianism will resemble the Soviets is in the US of medicine and psychiatry as a means of political control. For instance, I could very easily see people who are labeled as politically incorrect being sentenced to psychiatric prisons as a means of ostensibly “re-educating” them or giving them “sensitivity training” or “rehabilitation.” I think we may also see the use of psychiatric drugging as a means of attempted political control. All of this would be perfectly in keeping with the therapeutic bent of contemporary society.

  14. S. E. Pearson,

    “Surely the argument made here is not for any country to “be partitioned on racial lines” but to allow societies to partition themselves however their self selecting components see fit if it wishes to? If that turns out to be along racial lines, which it probably would in a significant minority of cases, so be it.”

    What Gunderson is referring to is older proposals that some American white supremacists (KKK and Nazi types) used to make where the US would be partitioned along racial lines, with different ethnic groups forced to relocate to selected areas, and separated by a “Berlin Wall” like scenario. Obviously, something like that would be the polar opposite of anything we talk about here and would require a totalitarian system of incomparable brutality.

    That kind of thinking is for the most part foreign to the “new white nationalism” that has developed in the US over the last 20 years, which is really a separate movement from the old-style race-hater lunatics from the 70s and 80s. There was a very good book about the new movement published some years back by Carol Swain, a black woman: http://www.amazon.com/New-White-Nationalism-America-Integration/dp/0521808863 In fact, I’d say Swain’s book has influenced my own thinking on the question of white nationalism more than anything else I’ve ever read.

    Most of the serious thinkers that I’m familiar with in the WN milieu favor the preservation of what they consider to be white cultural identity either through the creation of intentional communities (like the “Pioneer Little Europes” model or the Orania model) or migration to particular regions of the US ( the upper northeast, the Pacific northwest, or the Western heartland) with the goal of eventually creating ethnostates in those regions. Here’s an example: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/02/09/white-zionism/

    There are also proposals that have been floated for the peaceful racial partitioning of the US. Here’s a couple of them: http://attackthesystem.com/americans-for-self-determination/ and http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/mhhart01.html

    I don’t see how the PLE/Orania model is incompatible with pluralist anarchism. Essentially, what such folks want to do is create voluntary communities oriented towards a commonly agreed upon theme or set of values. In this regard, they would be no different from the Amish or Hasidic communities found in parts of the north eastern US.

    The idea of creating regional ethnostates is more problematic because there are few areas of the US that are not racially mixed in their population base to at least some degree. If a “white Zionist” ethnostate gains independence, what are they going to do with all of the minorities in their region? Some WNs may favor compulsory expulsion but that’s hardly compatible with any kind of libertarian values. Also, I don’t think such an idea will “sell” to large numbers of people, including whites as many whites will have non-white friends, family members, economic associates and find such an idea offensive. It might be argued that as white racialists became more powerful in a particular region the other ethnic groups might emigrate from what they see as an increasingly unfriendly environment (a type of reversal of “white flight”).

    On the other hand, I think it is quite likely there will be a rise in “identity politics for whites” in the future as the ruling class becomes increasingly hostile to white working to middle class interests. I think there will also be an increase in ethno-tribal politics among non-whites beyond the standard liberal-civil rights paradigm, particularly as the US population becomes more ethnically diverse due to immigration and as class divisions within the minorities widen. For instance, I think nationalist-separatist-racialist-tribalist tendencies among poor blacks and Hispanics will grow in the future, and we’ll also see the growth of similar ideas among more recent immigrant populations (Arabs, Indians, Asians, Africans).

    So it would seem to me that it is our message that most fits with this emerging paradigm. In terms of political structures, our core ideas or regional secession, devolution to the city-state level, “neighbor anarchism,” free association, “separation of race and state,” neo-tribalism, etc. All of these ideas seem to be the appropriate “third way” (or “fourth way”) beyond the establishment paradigm of totalitarian humanism or old fashioned white racism or some kind of violent, fracticious, malevolent version of tribalism.

    “What’s the alternative position? That the instincts, tendencies, values, whatever you want to call them, are suppressed by the power of the state? The old argument, we must have a interventionist state to protect us from ourselves at any price. (and they say the right are all pessimists)”

    Well, that’s obviously what the Left wants. For some of them, it’s just a means to absolute power (Sean Gabb and I discussed that in an interview that will air on VOR this week). For others, it’s more of a religion like Michael points out. In their view, it’s not enough for people to simply go about their business, look out for themselves and others closest to them, and maintain at least outward civility towards outsiders from their own community (racial or otherwise). Instead, everyone is supposed to be actively engaged in the holy struggle against racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever the cause of the day is with whites being guilty of racism simply by existing. It’s no different from the Christian idea that people are sinners just by being alive and that one’s life should be devoted to the pious pursuit of God or whatever.

    The Left has the same attitude towards “bigotry” that right-wing puritans have towards things like drugs or commercialized vices. It’s not enough to simply recognize reality for what it is and seek harm reduction solutions. Instead, there has to be some kind of moral purification that’s never attainable and creates chaos in the process of seeking it.

  15. One thing I think should be pointed out is that TH will enjoy its full fruition during a time of extreme economic and monetary decay inherited from previous regimes, and as such won’t last very long. They will likely spend most of their time and dwindling resources looking for rubber bands to prop up the failing system. In this context, they will likely lose their zest for PC and instead use it as a form of ideological bread and circuses to distract attention from economic and financial decay. By this time, the majority of the population will be as privately indifferent to PC as Soviet subjects were to communism during previous eras. So-called “Millenials” born in the 80’s and early-90’s already distinguish between “political correctness” and “political incorrectness” while considering the latter a legitimate concept….so I predict those being born during the current decade will be even less attracted to it. Because of this, I see dissident factions such as ATS enjoying widepread popularity, albeit only privately, so their task may be rebuilding society after the collapse rather than toppling the TH regime, which will likely be a mere stopogap between our current decay and eventual dissolution.

  16. PC, like any other ideology, has two layers: 1) what is appears to be on the surface and 2) what it actually is beneath said surface. The former enjoys a mass appeal because it concerns ethical universals (i.e. disliking a group becasue they are a group is bad, how can we not oppose it?), making it commercially accessible, so to speak; additionally, it provides the new convert with a pretense of importance and moral superiority, while abdicating him from any intellectual obligations. This is also it’s achille’s heel, as it makes it a hobby appealing only to materially satisfied people with no real problems and concerns. Given that it’s assumptions about our society are growing increasingly untenable, it will likely die out as a passing fad as the system decays and it’s former adherents find themselves saddled with real personal problems.

Leave a Reply