Political Correctness/Totalitarian Humanism


By Keith Preston March 10, 2023

The beginning of the pandemic three years ago this month sparked a revolution. First, the global capitalist classes used the pandemic conditions as a pretext for massive economic consolidation and upward wealth distribution. The economic and social effects of pandemic conditions triggered an insurrection by the lumpenproletariat that subsequently turned into a general popular rebellion.


Sound familiar?

The ascendant sectors of the capitalist class used the rebellion as a pretext for riding the wave of popular revolt to power. Hence, the “woke revolution,” which occurred in various institutional sectors over the past three years.  A coalition of digital capitalists, bourgeois bohemians, “newly rich,” professional-managerial class sectors, minority elites, abetted by neocons, the media, other corporate capitalists, and Never Trumpers subsequently became the dominant factions of the ruling class.

Totalitarian humanism is the self-legitimating ideological superstructure of this new ruling class coalition. Hence, the massive proliferation of “woke marketing,” ESG, DEIB, iconoclasm, and other efforts to assert totalitarian humanism’s cultural and ideological hegemony. “Woke Capitalism” is now the centrist, pro-ruling class position. Interestingly, Woke Capitalism has been able to coopt virtually all of the so-called “Left” as the “new bourgeoisie.” Hence, the dominance of the upper middle class on the present-day “Left.”

While Woke Capitalism functions as the new ruling class, the professional-managerial class functions as the new clerisy, i.e., the disseminators and arbiters of the dominant social values and cultural paradigm. The rise of “woke marketing” represents the dominance of totalitarian humanism among the “ideas industries,” of which advertising is certainly one, along with media generally.

“Conservatism,” ostensibly to the right of totalitarian humanism, is now dominated by people who would previously have been considered moderates, libertarians, center-right, or moderate liberals in terms of opinions, along with assorted weirdos drawn from tabloid subcultures. “Conservatism” is now the party of the largest sectors of the proletariat and lumpenproletariat as evidenced by voting patterns and cultural norms. Trailer park values are now the norm on the “Right,” as evidenced by figures like Boebert, Greene, Ashley Babbit, etc.

The leader of “Conservatism,” Trump, is not a “faith, family, and flag” type but a representation of Hugh Hefner’s Playboy philosophy, only lacking the chic refinement and watered down to trailer park levels. These political trends overlap with reproletarianization of labor and the growth of a massive lumpenproletariat rooted in deindustrialization, globalization, and the Third Worldization of the US political-economy. “Ghetto culture” is now the norm among the general working class.

Greenwald has aptly described the totalitarian humanist coalition that comprises the present-day ruling class, and why the “left” is now conservative in the sense of being the defenders of the dominant ideological superstructure.


Meanwhile, Trumpian “conservatism,” the trailer-park nursing home coalition, functions as a defacto “left” in the sense of being an oppositional culture, but one that is a controlled opposition, essentially a revival of Nixonian faux populism. It is interesting that serious Marxists like Maupin, Haz, and Hinkle understand this and are consequently orienting themselves toward “MAGA Communism” and “Patriotic Socialism,” as opposed to pseudo-Marxist liberals like the CPUSA, DSA, PSL, SA, WSWS, etc.

To the degree that European ideologies apply to American politics, digital capitalists and the PMC are now the bourgeoisie, the “wokes” are the fascists, and “conservatism” is the left. Indeed, the US “right” in its present form resembles early Europe socialism in certain ways. Early socialism was a mixture of old elites trying to reclaim their former position, middle-class reformers, proponents of utopian colonies, and violent revolutionaries. Comparable tendencies can be found on the US Right today.

The remnant sectors capitalist class from before the digital revolution, middle-class types complaining about drag queen story hours at school board meetings, back-to-land/I-want-a-trad-wife prepper types, and MAGA/”Stop the Steal” insurrectionists. The digital capitalist revolution and globalization are having the same economic and social effects as the industrial revolution and mercantilism in the 19th century. It makes sense these would be having the same political effects as well.

The totalitarian humanist revolution that is sweeping developed “First World” countries and being exported elsewhere is no different than the liberal revolution that swept 19th century Europe. Totalitarian humanism demonstrates the same class chauvinism and imperialist “snobbery” that Domenico Losurdo identified as intrinsic to liberalism. The most dangerous aspect of the present situation is that the neocon alliance has successfully embedded itself in and effectively co-opt the broader totalitarian humanist coalition.

This is evidenced by the presence of neocons like Victoria Nuland (Mrs. Bob Kagan) and neocon adjacents/allies like Samantha Power (Mrs. Cass Sunstein) and Anthony Blinken in the State Department, as well as the presence of neocons/adjacents in the controlled opposition. Lindsey Graham is a neocon operative who now masquerades as a Trumpist, while the neocons are grooming Ron “Guantanamo” DeSantis as a counter-Trump they can puppet master more effectively.

As I demonstrated in my contribution to Paul Gottfried’s latest anthology, the neocons are not conservatives, liberals, or conventional leftists, but a freakish subspecies of leftism like the Girondins, Trotskyites, Khmer Rouge, People’s Temple, or MEK. The neocons are seeking a two-front war with Russia and China while opening new fronts in Latin America as well, such as Lindsey Graham’s proposed invasion of Mexico.

This is reminiscent of the Third Reich’s efforts to wage a two-front war with Western Europe and Russia while opening a third front in northern Africa. Containing Russia and China is a legitimate geopolitical goal for the surrounding countries, but not for NWO revanchism. Totalitarian humanism was able to coopt the Great Lumpenproletarian Insurrection of 2020 the same way the Bolsheviks coopted the Russian Revolution, or the Khomenists coopted the Iranian Revolution.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to have been a response to the ascension of totalitarian humanism with its pro-NATOist, expansionist, and cultural imperialism paradigm. Neocon-led totalitarian humanist foreign policy is about using Ukraine as a proxy war to attempt a “color revolution” or force “regime change” in Russia itself. The neocons still want revenge for the Cossacks, the Pale of Settlement, and the assassination of Trotsky.

A Pan-European and/or Caucasian/Central Asian defensive alliance to contain Russia would be legitimate. The eventual dissolution of Russia into 100 Estonians or 1000 oblasts would be welcome. But not at the cost of risking nuclear exchange or consolidation of the NWO Panopticon. A Southern/Eastern Asian or Pacific alliance to contain China would be similarly legitimate, as would the dissolution of China into multiple regions or a million villages. But not to merely eliminate a rival to the Atlanticists within the global capitalist class.

The exportation of totalitarian humanist revolution through American cultural imperialism will likely result in the repeat of America’s “culture” war in countries worldwide, with the same regional, local, tribal, and sectarian fragmentation. The resulting breakdown of states will result in the broader proliferation of fourth-generation warfare forces and non-state actors generally, which will create opportunities for bottom-up anti-imperialism through the creation of startup societies and federated networks.


Leave a Reply