The winning essay in the Libertarian Alliance’s 2010 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize. Congratulations to David Robert Gibson.
Paul Craig Roberts provides a concise but comprehensive overview of the authoritarian legal revolution that has transpired under the Bush and Obama regimes.
Last February Cheney said on ABC’s This Week that “I was a big supporter of waterboarding.” US law has always regarded waterboarding as torture. The US government executed WW II Japanese for waterboarding American POWs. But Cheney has escaped accountability, which means that there is no rule of law.
Vice president Cheney’s office also presided over the outing of a covert CIA agent, a felony. Yet, nothing happened to Cheney, and the underling who took the fall had his sentence commuted by President Bush.
President Obama has made himself complicit in the crimes of his predecessor by refusing to enforce the rule of law. In his criminality, Obama has actually surpassed Bush. Bush is the president of extra-judicial torture, extra-judicial detention, extra-judicial spying and invasions of privacy, but Obama has one-upped Bush. Obama is the president of extra-judicial murder.
Not only is Obama violating the sovereignty of an American ally, Pakistan, by sending in drones and Special Forces teams to murder Pakistani civilians, but in addition Obama has a list of American citizens whom he intends to murder without arrest, presentation of evidence, trial and conviction.
An additional curiosity is that this system of outright elective dictatorship that consolidated itself in the 2000s fits perfectly with the “seventy year cycle” theory of American history discussed in this article by Steven Yates. Notice that Yates is writing in the year 2000, and predicting a crisis and major political change is on the way. This was just before Bush was elected, before September 11, 2001, before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, before the beginnings of the terror war and the subsequent legal revolution that Roberts describes.
The Gingerbread Person?
The good news is that the more ridiculous this PC shit gets, the quicker people will turn against it, and the sooner it will fall. I look for this to be the major political fault line in the future: a rising new elite committed to PC ideology, and a growing class of the economically declining against whom PC is used as a weapon of political, economic, and social control.
1984 is here, says civil liberties attorney John Whitehead.
Two great articles on the up and coming elites.
The New Elite by Charles Murray
New group formed for the New York area. Check out their very well done blog.
Good stuff on the neocon nature of the Tea Partiers from my friend Jack Ross at the American Conservative.
But even he seems to take a misguidedly benighted view of the tea parties, as implied by the notion that they have been merely co-opted by the neocons. I would argue, to the contrary, that the Tea Party movement is in fact fundamentally neocon in its first principles.
What else needs to be said about the Tea Party?
This article is a couple of years old, but this guy is on the right track. Gentrification usually brings with it higher rents, more laws, and more police repression, not to much attacks on economic and cultural activities that don’t jibe with the yuppie lifestyle.
Mr. Manning, who has been the church’s pastor for 27 years, said the intent of the boycott was to return Harlem to its pregentrification days of 1990, without the crack, crime and boarded-up buildings. His hope, he says, is that declining property values will make housing affordable for those he believes are the neighborhood’s rightful owners: black people.
“It is our homeland. It is our Mecca. It is the only place we have,” he said, his voice rising. “It ought not to be overrun the way that’s happening. We are an endangered species.” But many of the new residents of Harlem are in fact middle-class African-Americans.
Mr. Manning’s many critics say his call for a boycott is irresponsible and would devastate a neighborhood that has only recently showed signs of even modest economic well-being.
Now that Bush’s wars are Obama’s wars, the antiwar left is silent. Oh, they still maintain they oppose the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but that’s only in theory. In practice, they seek to subordinate the antiwar issue to the long litany of progressive causes. Their so-called “strategy” is to channel antiwar activism into building whatever rally or candidate the union bosses are sponsoring that day.
What galls me most of all is the lack of urgency, the complacency with which these self-proclaimed leaders of the antiwar movement approach the question of how to stop the US war machine. I find it galling that people who are so quick to accuse others of racism would be so focused on the trials and tribulations of an American auto worker who makes fifty bucks an hour over that of a dirt-poor Pakistani villager whose family has just been decimated by a US drone attack.
The great downfall of the US antiwar movement has been its dogged insistence on a multi-issue approach. It’s gotten to the point where these rallies all have the same character and tone: the whole litany of grievances is laid out, and every victim group gets to lodge its particular complaint. Opposition to our foreign policy of global intervention is just a single note in a symphony of protest. No wonder there are no more antiwar protests coming from the left – they’ve bored themselves to death!
And us, too, I might add.
The fact remains that Nixon was driven from office because of the Watergate burglary. No one was harmed. Nixon did not kill anyone or claim the right to kill, without proof or accountability, American citizens. If the dastardly President Nixon had a Justice (sic) Department like the present one, he simply would have declared Woodward, Bernstein, and the Washington Post to be a threat and murdered them by merely exercising the power that the Obama administration is claiming.
Nixon might be too far in the past for most Americans, so let’s look at Ronald Reagan.
The neoconservatives’ Iran/Contra scandal almost brought down President Reagan. It is unclear whether President Reagan knew about the neocon operation and, if he did, whether he was kept in the loop. But all of this aside, what do you think would have been President Reagan’s fate if he, or his Justice (sic) Department, had declared that Reagan had the power as commander in chief to murder anyone he considered to be a threat?
Instantly, the media would have been in an uproar, law schools and university faculties would have been in an uproar, the Democrats would have been demanding Reagan’s impeachment, and his impeachment would have occurred with the speed of light.
Today in Amerika, approximately 25 years later, the ACLU has to go to federal court in order to attempt to affirm that “if the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.”
In reply, the Justice (sic) Department told the court that murdering American citizens is a “political question” that is not subject to judicial review. The “freedom and democracy” government then invoked the “state secrets privilege” and declared that the case against the government’s power to commit murder must be dismissed in order to avoid “the disclosure of sensitive information”
If the Obama Regime wins this case, the US will have become a dictatorship.
In short, there is no employment data, and none in the works, unless gimmicked, that supports the recovery myth. The US rate of unemployment, if measured according to the methodology used in 1980, is 22.5%. Even the government’s broader measure of unemployment stands at 17%. The 9.6% reported rate is a concocted measure that does not include discouraged workers who have been unable to find a job after 6 months and workers who want full time jobs but can only find part-time work.
Another fact that is seldom, if ever, reported, is that the payroll jobs data reports the number of jobs, not the number of people with jobs. Some people hold two jobs; thus, the payroll report does not give the number of employed people.
The BLS household survey measures the number of people with jobs. The same October that reported 151,000 new payroll jobs reported, according to the household survey, a loss of 330,000 jobs.
The American working class has been destroyed. The American middle class is in its final stages of destruction. Soon the bottom rungs of the rich themselves will be destroyed.
The entire way through this process the government will lie and the media will lie.
Quantitatively, Republicans will be more inclined to more rapidly dismantle more of the social safety net than Democrats and more inclined to finish off the remnants of civil liberties. But the powerful private oligarchs will continue to write the legislation that Congress passes and the President signs. New members of Congress will quickly discover that achieving re-election requires bending to the oligarchs’ will.
This might sound harsh and pessimistic. But look at the factual record. In his campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton’s foreign adventures and vowed to curtail America’s role as the policeman of the world. Once in office, Bush pursued the neoconservatives’ policy of US world hegemony via military means, occupation of countries, setting up puppet governments, and financial intervention in other countries’ elections.
Obama promised change. He vowed to close Guantanamo prison and to bring the troops home. Instead, he restarted the war in Afghanistan and started new wars in Pakistan and Yemen, while continuing Bush’s policy of threatening Iran and encircling Russia with military bases.
Americans out of work, out of income, out of homes and prospects, and out of hope for
their children’s careers are angry. But the political system offers them no way of bringing about change. They can change the elected servants of the oligarchs, but they cannot change the policies or the oligarchs.
Kevin Carson on the real Obama.
Yeah, Obama’s been imposing a regular Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution on the country, all right. A continuation of the Bush version of TARP, a doubling down on the war in Afghanistan, a scorched earth battle to defend Bush era war criminals against their rightful punishment, new claims of plenary Executive power…. The most “progressive” thing he’s done is a national version of Romneycare (you can almost hear the insurance CEOs crying “Please don’t fling me in that briar patch!”).
Obama’s even more of a managerial centrist than he let on during the campaign. He was entirely truthful when he called himself a moderate. The real lie is the ideology of moderation itself.
Obama lied when he said, “There is not a rich America, and a poor America…. We are one nation, one people.”
No, we’re not. As Howard Zinn said, the U.S. political leadership talks as if there was some single “national interest” that “applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.” But it’s a lie…
…The idea that Obama is “hard-Left” is utterly laughable. There is no Left in mainstream American politics. Nancy Pelosi’s husband is an investment banker. Joe Biden was the Senator from MBNA, and now he’s the Vice President from the MPAA.
The genuine Left was virtually destroyed, as a major political force, during Woodrow Wilson’s War Hysteria and Red Scare. Since then, popular anger has been pretty effectively distorted and channeled by the myth of America as a “middle class country” with a common “national interest.”
Interesting article on President Bush II (aka President Alfred E. Neuman I) from Russia Today. Vincent Bugliosi has the right idea on what to do with this asshole: “If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren’t speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.”
RT interviewed the author of a book called “Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years” for comments on what the former president of the United States reveals in his memoirs. In particular, Bush says he personally approved the interrogation technique of “water boarding” of terror suspects and says it helped prevent terrorist attacks.
Former CIA officer Ray McGovern says no such methods can ever be justified.
“Torture is one of those techniques, one of those things that is always intrinsically wrong – just like slavery, or like rape, or genocide,” he told RT. “In the entire civilized world we recognized that after World War II – that’s why we have the international agreements, the convention against torture, domestic violence and so forth.”
“Waterboarding is universally recognized – everywhere but the White House – as torture,” McGovern stated.
Baker, in turn, pointed out that Bush planned the invasion of Iraq even before he became president.
“I actually had an opportunity to interview a man who was in direct contact with George W. Bush when he was running for president of the United States,” Baker claimed. “I describe the conversation. They were working on a book in 1999 and this man asked Bush what he intended to do in office because he needed to put something into the book, and Bush actually told him that one thing on his mind was that he hoped to invade Iraq. This was quite astonishing to this man, and so he asked why he wanted to do that. And Bush said, ‘I’ve become convinced that you really can’t have a successful presidency unless you are seen as a commander in chief. You need a small successful war to get your ratings up and in order to pass your agenda.”
This is pretty good. It’s a much more objective, analytical, and intelligently written examination of the Alternative Right than what is typical among most “ant-fascist” types. Some highlights with my comments:
Paleoconservatives don’t have a mass following or much in the way of institutional power these days, but they do have a fairly lively intellectual scene. The defenders of Western civilization offer a number of competently written, well-produced journals, websites, and blogs, and a whole cohort of younger writers along with older, more established figures. Some of what they have to say is the same old predictable poison, but there is also some genuine political ferment going on, with ideas from other sources (tribalism and national anarchism, the European New Right, black conservatism, even the Left) contributing to comradely debate.
In some ways, I think the Alternative Right is something new and a step above old-fashioned paleoconservatism. It brings a lot of residual paleo influences with it, but its evolved past paleoconservatism in some ways as well. Its adherents tend to be younger, less religious, less attached to more standard forms of conservatism, and more radical in their thinking than the paleocons of the 1980s and 1990s or even more recently. “Post-paleo” is a term I’ve seen thrown around to describe the Alternative Right. Even today, I’ve noticed something of a generation gap among younger and older adherents of the Alternative Right.
Keith Preston’s role as an AltRight contributing editor is significant in itself. A former Love and Rage member who still calls himself an anarchist, Preston advocates a revolutionary alliance of rightist and leftist libertarians against the U.S. empire and writes prolifically through his blog, Attack the System, and other rightist outlets such as Taki’s Magazine.
This is an accurate description of myself except that I never actually belonged to the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation. I was at their founding conference in Chicago in 1989, and the idea at the time was for Love and Rage to simply be a publication for North American leftist-anarchists, not an actual political organization. The organization didn’t emerge until a few years later. I actually broke with that project after the conference, believing that it was being dominated by authoritarian leftists motivated by the usual paradigm of left-wing identity politics and who had a very limited understanding of or commitment to the anarchist position. I actually became somewhat notorious in the North American anarchist milieu as a “Love and Rage”-basher for a brief time around 1990. Eventually, that group split up when their “leader” decided to turn the organization into a Marxist-Leninist sect, so apparently my criticisms were well-founded.
And as this brief sampling of writings from AlternativeRight.com shows, some paleocons are also listening to other movements and rethinking old ideas. The fact that many AltRight contributors are involved in a range of other publications and political initiatives indicates that this is not an isolated development. To varying degrees, this same political ferment can be seen on other paleocon websites such as Taki’s Magazine and The Occidental Quarterly. More broadly, a dynamic interplay between paleocon and revolutionary forms of white nationalism can be seen on sites such as Attack the System, Occidental Dissent and American Third Position.
Attack the System is Anarchist in its ideological orientation, and not white nationalist. Occidental Dissent and American Third Position are explicitly white nationalist in nature. What sets Attack the System apart from other anarchist tendencies is its rejection of both the Old Left classical socialist dichotomy pitting proletarians against bourgeoisie or the New Left dichotomy pitting traditional outgroups against traditional WASP society. Instead, Attack the System holds to the radically anti-statist outlook of traditional anarchism within the context of a contemporary political and cultural analysis similar to what James Kalb uses to describe the Alternative Right: “In America today, Catholic trads, constitutionalists, libertarians, and HBD fans all count as conservative, I suppose because they all object to the omnicompetent PC managerial state and take a more laissez faire and less radically egalitarian approach to a lot of issues.”
Attack the System identifies the managerial state, its totalitarian humanist legitimating ideology, its left-wing of the plutocracy, rising upper middle class, and New Class socio-economic orientation, and, in the case of the United States, the American empire and wider body of international institutions that are a manifestation of the empire as the primary enemy, rather than simply “the bourgeoisie” as historically understood or the usual laundry list of Isms, Archies, and Phobia attacked by the modern Left. This obviously puts us in the same camp as much of the Alternative Right on a good number of issues and, by extension, we overlap with much of ordinary paleoconservatism, right-wing populism, and even white nationalism as well. But that’s not the whole story. We also overlap considerably with the “alternative left” to the degree that there is one, and many of the previously identified ten core demographics involve populations, ideas, or issues way outside of any kind of right-wing paradigm. Properly understood, Anarchist class theory is populist rather than Marxist in nature, meaning that Anarchism conceives of political struggle in terms of “The People vs The State” (and institutional entities or class groupings allied with the state) rather than mere employers of wage labor or owners of means of production. Historically, Anarchists have been everything from dissident aristocrats or even nobility (like Kropotkin) to peasants or common criminals. In a contemporary American society, Anarchists and their allies and/or constituents could theoretically include both white nationalists concerned about escalating institutional discrimination against whites or high crime rates in minority communities, and black nationalists concerned about economic devastation inflicted on black communities by state and corporate policies, police murder and brutality inflicted on blacks, or the high rate of imprisonment of blacks in the prison-industrial complex. The constituents for Anarchism could include religious conservatives who wish to simply practice their religion within the context of their homes, businesses, churches, private schools, or alternative media, without being bothered by the dictates of PC or the intrusions of the Nanny State, and it could also include libertines who wish to set up brothels and opium dens without being subject to repression under prohibition laws. All of these perspectives are compatible with the Anarchist paradigm. Those who find this baffling are simply stuck in old ways of thinking.
Radley Balko is one of the very best critics of the American police state of anyone who is relatively mainstream. Here he discusses what he considers to be the baffling situation of liberal media support for the drug war and opposition to marijuana legalization. His answer is that the media must not be that liberal after all.
It’s telling that the loudest voices opposing pot legalization are coming from the mainstream media, politicians, and law enforcement. The three have a lot in common. Indeed, the Prop. 19 split illustrates how conservative critics of the mainstream media have it all wrong. The media—or at least the editorial boards at the country’s major newspapers—don’t suffer from liberal bias; they suffer from statism. While conservatives emphasize order and property, liberals emphasize equality, and libertarians emphasize individual rights, newspaper editorial boards are biased toward power and authority, automatically turning to politicians for solutions to every perceived problem.
Because the left traditionally has looked to government to enforce its preferences more than the right, and certainly more than libertarians, it’s easy to see how someone might get the impression that the news media lean left. But you see the editorial pages’ lust for authority on issues like campaign finance reform, where unlike left-leaning groups such as the ACLU and the Sierra Club they almost uniformly support restrictions on political speech, despite the fact that their profession is inextricably tied to the First Amendment. This deference to authority was also on display in the Kelo v. New London case, where the Washington Post and New York Times editorial boards jettisoned traditionally liberal principles such as equality and fair play in favor of a broad government power to forcibly transfer property from people of modest means to wealthy developers. That position separated those papers from traditionally progressive groups like the NAACP and the AARP, which argued that eminent domain too often enriches developers at the expense of powerless groups.
But newspaper editors’ elevation of government power above other liberal concerns is clearest on criminal justice issues, where editorial boards’ deference to police powers aligns them with conservatives about as often as with liberals. To the extent that the criminal justice system treats minorities differently than it treats the white majority (which is a legitimate problem), you’ll find newspapers registering concern along with the left. But while liberals traditionally have sought to address this sort of problem by protecting individual rights, editorial boards tend to stop at expressing concern, generally opposing any reform that would put significant limits on government power.
Balko gets it half right. Yes, the media “suffers from statism.” But that makes perfect sense when one recognizes that the therapeutic state is a core component of the Totalitarian Humanist paradigm. As Dr. Szasz said, “In the nineteenth century, a liberal was a person who championed individual liberty in a context of laissez-faire economics, who defined liberty as the absence of coercion, and who regarded the state as an ever-present threat to personal freedom and responsibility. Today, a liberal is a person who champions social justice in a context of socialist economics, who defines liberty as access to the means for a good life, and who regards the state as a benevolent provider whose duty is to protect people from poverty, racism, sexism, illness, and drugs.”
The liberal media supports the drug war for the same reason they typically support gay marriage, affirmative action, expanding the welfare state, and nanny state laws ranging from mandatory use of seatbelts to smoking bans. All of these are perfectly consistent position from the totalitarian humanist ideological perspective.
This is encouraging:
For the last few months, my colleague Matt Welch has been tracking the positions of California’s newspapers on Proposition 19, the ballot measure that would legalize marijuana for recreational use. At last count, 26 of the state’s 30 largest dailies (plus USA Today) had run editorials on the issue, and all 26 (plus USA Today) were opposed. This puts the state’s papers at odds with nearly all of California’s left-leaning interest groups, including the Green Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Service Employees International Union, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
It is precisely these “dissident left” sectors-genuine eco-radicals, authentic black radicals, rank and file workers, sincere civil libertarians-that comprise the factions of the Left that we eventually need to bring into the Alternative-Anarchist/Pan-Secessionist paradigm. A breech between them and the Totalitarian Humanists works in our favor.
Interesting and, I think, accurate history of the modern Left from Paul Gottfried.
After 9/11, the fear of another attack on U.S. soil cleanly supplanted the fear of having one`s penis chopped off by a vengeful lover in the pantheon of irrational American fears.
While we`re constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they? How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations?
The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control was used.
— You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
— You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
— You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
— You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
— You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
— You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
— You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
SOURCE: The Progressive Review
On six different occasions between 1984 and 1994, I cast a ballot in an American election, including five general elections and one primary. Of my five general election votes, four were for Democrats and one for a Libertarian. I’ve only voted for a Republican once, in the 1988 Super Tuesday primary. I voted for Bob Dole, not because I liked him, but because I wanted to vote against two other candidates. The philosophe in me was thrilled at the prospect of voting against the Rev. Pat Robertson, and I also wanted to vote against Reagan’s Vice-President George H.W. Bush.
The Republicans are primarily the party of the right-wing of the traditional plutocracy, the upper class, and the military-industrial complex, with the uber-Zionist neoconservatives serving as their intellectual and political leadership, and the no doubt typically sincere libertarians, conservatives, and populists who vote for them are their useful idiots. I’ve previously explained why that is here and here. The Democrats are primarily the party of the newer, more high-tech industries as opposed to the traditional plutocracy of oil, agriculture, manufacturing, and finance (although elite banking interests and the great corporations obviously have their hands in both parties). In particular, industries related to the mass media and entertainment are aligned with the Democrats. That is why the New York and Los Angeles areas are among the few localities where the wealthy vote typically goes Democratic. It is in these newer industries where the newly rich, and the so-called “bourgeois bohemians” can be found. These represent a new, rising force within the plutocracy, and one that is more culturally liberal than the traditional elite. Essentially, the present manifestation of the Democrat/Republican dichotomy represents a class struggle between the traditional upper class (comparable to the old European aristocracies) and a rising newly rich that is comparable to the rising bourgeoisie of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The new rich and the bourgeois bohemians represent the rising upper middle and new upper class in the industrial sector, with the New Class of professional and bureaucratic elites representing this rising upper middle class in the public sector. This is also a cultural struggle, as the rising upper middle class represents the values of the post-1960s culture, with the traditional elite and the more traditional middle to upper-middle class continuing to represent the pre-1960s culture. To some degree, this is also a racial and religious struggle, with the Democrats representing the elite members of traditional outgroups, and the upwardly mobile sectors of America’s traditional racial and religious minorities, and the Republicans continuing to represent the traditional WASP elites and the traditionally dominant WASP culture.
As readers of this blogsite are aware, the American Revolutionary Vanguard/Attack the System platform and strategy is based upon a number of predictions and presumptions. The first of these is that the traditional WASP elite will eventually be dethroned by the rising, multicultural, post-60s upper middle class who will then constitute the new plutocracy and have full control over the economy and the state. This rising new elite brings with it the ideology of totalitarian humanism, which I have explained here, here, here, and here, and here. This ideology of totalitarian humanism is the contemporary equivalent of the Jacobinism of the French revolutionaries or the Marxists of the twentieth century. As the great liberal-monarchist scholar Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn observed:
Marxism is absolutely bourgeois and therefore appeals strongly to the left-of-center, middle-class mind with its commercial background. Waldemar Gurian was very much to the point when he wrote, “Marxism, and therefore Russian Bolshevism, does but voice the secret and unavowed philosophy of bourgeois society when it regards society and economics as absolute. “…It was the late Ben Hecht who admonished his readers not to believe in the picture of the Communist as a man with a bomb in one hand and a dagger in another. To Hecht, bolshevism was a movement that evolved logically from nice middle-class democracy.
In other words, proponents of totalitarian ideologies are almost always alienated intellectuals, professionals, and educated persons from the left-wing of the middle class, whether they be Jacobins, Marxists, Fascists, Nazis, or Totalitarian Humanists. This rising upper middle class considers itself to be revolutionary in nature, as indicated by an ideologue of Totalitarian Humanism, Tim Wise, a self-proclaimed, self-styled, professional “anti-racist”:
And in the pantheon of American history, conservative old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys, the keepers of the hegemonic and reactionary flame, the folks unwilling to share the category of American with others on equal terms.
Fine, keep it up. It doesn’t matter.
Because you’re on the endangered list.
And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart…
And by then you will have gone all in as a white nationalist movement — hell you’ve all but done that now — thus guaranteeing that the folks of color, and even a decent size minority of us white folks will be able to crush you, election after election, from the Presidency on down to the 8th grade student council…
Because those who have lived on the margins, who have been abused, maligned, targeted by austerity measures and budget cuts, subjected to racism, classism, sexism, straight supremacy and every other form of oppression always know more about their abusers than the abusers know about their victims.
Wise’s reference to “forty years” is particularly relevant because what he is referring to is the projected demographic transformation of the United States that is predicted to occur sometime around the year 2050. It is projected that at that point there will no longer be an ethnic majority in the United States. According to the utopian-universalist-Jacobin-Marxist beliefs of people like Tim Wise, everyone will then live happily ever after in a multicultural utopia administrated by enlightened New Class liberal elites like himself (or his ideological descendants) who will have a privileged existence in the manner of a Soviet apparatchik.
“Forty years” is also highly relevant to the ARV/ATS program. Last year, I published an essay titled “Forty Years in the Wilderness” where I projected a time frame for the advancement of our struggle and the achievement of victory. ARV/ATS differs from most other anarchist factions in that we conceive of the struggle not in terms of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie on the model of nineteenth and early twentieth century radicalism or in terms of traditional outgroups versus traditional WASP culture on the model of late twentieth century radicalism. Instead, we identify Totalitarian Humanism as the primary enemy, recognizing that it’s defeat of the traditional WASP elite is inevitable, and recognizing that the anarchist struggle against Totalitarian Humanism is the twenty-first century equivalent of the historic rivalry between Anarchists and Communists, between Stirner, Proudhon, or Bakunin and Marx and Engels, between the rival wings of the First International, between the Bolsheviks and the Kronstadt rebels, between the Spanish anarchists and the Spanish Communist Party, between Rothbard and the neocons, between liberty and statism.
The ARV/ATS outlook calls for the creation of a radical elite committed to the metapolitical outlook of “anarcho-pluralism,” a synthesis of the varying schools of anarchism and informed by relevant ideas from other ideologies (paleoconservatism, European New Right, bioregionalism, distributism, black nationalism). The ARV/ATS program advances the meta-strategic concept of “pan-secessionism” as the means of ultimately destroying the emerging Totalitarian Humanist state. The ARV/ATS outlook recognizes ten core demographics, each of them with numerous subgroups, that will be the natural constituency for the resistance to Totalitarian Humanism.
So what does this have to do with Tuesday’s election? This ABC News exit poll identifies an “anger vote,” implicitly rooted in the demographic associated with the “Tea Party” movement. One of the ten core demographics is the so-called “populist right” element that presently identifies with the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties are a reactionary, not a revolutionary movement, but this sector has the potential to become revolutionary once it finally realizes that it has no chance of reclaiming the state for itself and as it becomes increasingly subject to state repression as Totalitarian Humanism becomes more deeply entrenched in institutions. It is significant that the mainstream media would identify these sectors as an “anger vote” because anger is the sentiment that fuels revolutions. The exit poll in question also identifies an “economy vote.” This sector will become increasingly large and significant in the future as economic decline and widening class divisions continue. It is also significant that the “economy vote” went for the Republicans. This is an indication that the economically frustrated are casting their lot against the political party most strongly identified with Totalitarian Humanism in the public mind. The “economy vote” is at present drawn primarily from the sinking middle class, which is another of the ten core demographics.
Others among the ten core demographics are the lumpenproletariat, traditional outgroups that are not included within the Left’s pantheon of the oppressed, and declasse sectors (persons of affluent origins or class positions who reject the values of their class). The various drug cultures are an obvious example of these. California’s Proposition 19 for the first time brought the drug decriminalization movement into the mainstream of American politics. Particularly significant is that the Obama administration, the most committed to Totalitarian Humanism of any regime in U.S. history, was openly hostile to Proposition 19, and Attorney General Eric Holder, himself a Totalitarian Humanist ideologue, threatened to disregard Proposition 19 in California if it were to pass.
Still others among the ten core demographics are racial minorities outside the liberal paradigm, the lower class members of the traditional outgroups, or members of the traditional outgroups who reject the values of Totalitarian Humanism. The ABC News exit poll indicates that the Republicans won the working class vote, the white Catholic vote, and roughly fifty percent of the women’s vote. As interesting as any other data from this election is the evidence of gains by black Republican candidates. What all of this indicates is that, as I have long predicted, the liberal coalition that forms the support base for the rising Totalitarian Humanist elite is unstable and is in the very early stages of showing its cracks.
None of this should be taken as an apology for the Republicans. The GOP represents the dying forces of a decrepit old bourgeoisie elite and a bankrupt empire. It is our task as revolutionaries not to side with the reactionaries of the GOP but to develop a movement that will eventually replace the Republicans as the primary competitors to the rising upper middle class and its totalitarian humanist ideology and state. Just as the Republican Party emerged through the collapses of the Whigs, and the synthesis of its more radical elements with a collection of fringe parties united by opposition to Southern secession, so is it our task to replace the Republican Party by absorbing its more radical populist elements and synthesizing these with others among the core demographics to be drawn from other sectors of American society, and unite these disparate elements under the banner of pan-secessionism.
The Phantom Left by Chris Hedges, representing the “good” Left
The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights—including habeas corpus—may have been revoked, but don’t get mad. Don’t be shrill. Don’t be like the crazies on the left.
“Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?” Stewart asked. “We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is—on the brink of catastrophe—torn by polarizing hate, and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. But the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don’t is here [in Washington] or on cable TV.”
Perhaps we Marxists are “undermining the Constitution.” I’m all for it. It’s not a holy document. It’s a racist treatise that divides American society into the have and have-nots. Even the rights we are granted are politically moderated. Attacking the injustices embedded in the Constitution is not an attack on the American people; it is an attack on the ruling class.
I refuse to buy into the American liberal notion of “bipartisanship”–that somehow “reaching across the aisle” is somehow better for everyone and is the only avenue to “change.”
Call me insane if you will, but the right wing is my enemy. I have no interest in working with them, or compromising away my rights for war funding.
The Democrats are not even the other side of the same coin. If the Republicans are the raised edges that cut into the skin of the working class, the Democrats are the pits that give the edges definition. It is not in my interest to murder my brothers and sisters in Afghanistan to continue the occupation of their country in order to pass the DREAM Act or to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That is an unacceptable compromise.
If that is “sanity,” then sanity is inadequate and unacceptable.
Yes! says Gonzalo Lira.
This is a question I used to discuss with a history professor of mine who was a Civil War expert. He got his Phd from Berkeley in the 1970s and Eric Foner was on his dissertation committee so you can guess what his politics were (very Meatheadish). He always insisted there was no evidence that blacks actually fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War. His arguments were the same as the ones Levine uses in the Post article. I’d ask him about some of the evidence to contrary (like the stuff cited by Williams and some of the responders to Levine) and he would dismiss it as unreliable or fabricated. He could never effectively answer my questions like why black historians in early 20th century America would want to forge evidence of blacks having fought for the Confederacy.
My tentative conclusion on this question has long been that the Confederate Army had a kind of policy on this question equivalent to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The official position of the Confederate political and military leadership does seem to have been to bar blacks from service. However, it’s also pretty well established that the policy was at least at times disregarded. There would seem to be two ways in which this might have occurred. One, local military commanders could have simply disregarded the policy when raising local forces out of military necessity. The other possibility is that the upper levels of Confederate leadership maintained an official policy of racial exclusion regarding military service as a means of avoiding public controversy, upholding the white supremacist ideological outlook that virtually all whites had in those days, and possibly avoiding unrest by white soldiers, but winked at military organizers and commanders who disregarded the policy in their actual practice (and possibly even encouraging them to do so).