7 replies »

  1. Most of the altright is astroturf designed to delegitemize any kind of white conservation politics from materializing without the heavy stigma of jackboots, hoods, and armbands. On the level of moral terpitude; however, even the comicbook baddies of the likudnik funded troll movement have nothing on modern neoliberalism. The latter doesn’t simply ignore the moral agency of broad categories of people for spurious reasons, it strategically eliminates, recreates, and modifies arguably natural categories to eliminate competitors and promote the growth of unstable covalent tribes for political exploitation.

    Consider the universal behavior of the moral elite in the neoliberal west: they reject the moral imperative to assist all refugee populations in danger of genocide, eg. They are in diffident to the plight of the Boers, but they claim it is a human right for any third world population, unlikely to intellectually or economically challenge them, to make economic pilgrimage to the Holy West.

    Similarly consider the pivot from a paternal class relationship within states to that of the crass liberal economic widget fetishized by Radian libertarians. The neoliberal considers all life valuable but places that value at the lowest common denominator. Families who have lived for generations in a sleepy Irish seaside village must be equivalent to the newly immigrated refugees who will invariably replace them by simple reproductive math within a generation. The subordinate in the hardest of the old regimes had nothing like this to worry about outside of a literal invasion.

    So without any particular rutt on the trunk I don’t think this argument from morality can be placed on dissidents of any sort. When the status quo is so obviously intent to commit genocide against people who are their supposed charge the moral calculus is obvious. The anarchist rebuttal would be “ah but you see, the mere existence of a state makes this behavior inevitable,” but this would not explain why all non-western states tend to overwhelmingly not engage in these behaviors despite having plenty of their own foibles.

    Neoliberalism is uniquely immoral and dangerous to the population that allows it to take root and fully flower. The end result is the abolition of all institutions which would secure the future existence of that local people’s person and property.

      • I think you and I would agree that the global political and economic elites are our ultimate enemy, regardless of our specific ideological leanings. I would also concur that because neoliberalism is the ideology of these international elites neoliberalism is consequently our main ideological enemy as well.

        I tend to welcome the rise of the BRICS, the Shia block, and the Global South as counterpower to the dominant Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabi axis. I’ve been writing about that possibility for at least 15 years or more. But that is still an intra-mural conflict within global capitalism. The populist movements that have emerged in the West in response to globalization and neoliberalism are helpful in the sense that they create antagonism. But all they want to do is turn back the clock to the pre-globalization era. Brexit was an illustration of that. As you know, I favor working toward a global alliance of independence movements as means of subverting the international system and the states that are their component parts. However, smaller states or separatist movements can still be easily co-opted by neoliberalism, as was the case with the Catalan separatists, or by factions within global capitalism, which has happened to the Kurdish independence movement to some degree. I am also supportive of the start up societies movement, but some of these can become components of global capitalism as well, which smart cities such as Dubai and Singapore have done. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly push from the ground up when building resistance to globalization and neoliberalism.

        • I’d argue global capitalism as a monolith is relative mistake. China has come to epitomize global capital gaming and yet it is not the least bit neoliberal with respect to its national integrity and social continuity.

          The problem for western dissidents of all kinds is that nobody wants anything to do with them. Neoliberalism ensures the short term wealth of the western elite and the long term demise of the west for their civilizational competitors.

          • I think it goes without saying that the 500 year Western hegemony is starting to recede with the East being on the rise. The BRICS are challenging the West’s economic and military dominance (which is why there is so much anti-Russia hysteria nowadays). The Shia block has aligned itself with the BRICS in order to challenge Western-backed Zionist-Wahhabi hegemony in the Middle East, and the Global South has moved Eastward as well. The US has largely retreated from Latin America compared to the dominance it once had there (figures ranging from Assad to Chomsky have acknowledged this). Although the US is still trying to maintain a foothold in the region (the recent Trump administration actions involving rolling black efforts to normalize relations with Cuba, and the “sanctions” on Venezuela are a good example, as were Hillary’s efforts to organize a coup in Honduras during her time in the State Department). Right now the hot spot in the East-West conflict is the Middle East, obviously. But increasingly Latin America is moving Eastward in favoring of trade and economic relations. I think the same scenario will eventually play out in the Middle East as in Latin America, where Western influence recedes and Eastern influence rises. Then the next hot spot will be Africa, given the escalating US military presence there and China’s growing developmental efforts in Africa.

            • Here’s another thought: Is there really even a “West” anymore other than the US Empire? I think a strong case could be made that Europe essentially killed itself of during the two world wars, and what we have had since then is a European continent that is a collection of American and/or Russian colonies.

              It seems to me that the so-called “West” nowadays is really just the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabi empire. A good analogy might be to a situation where the US had 120 rather than 50 states, with 30 additional states in Europe, and a few dozen more spread out through the Middle East, the South Pacific, East Asia and Oceania. Israel and Saudi Arabia are just deep red states (Texases in the Middle East). Western Europe is just New England or the West Coast across the Atlantic, and Eastern Europe is just a Slavic version of the Midwest.

Leave a Reply