By Yoram Hazony
I. The collapse of institutional liberalism
For a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, most Americans and Europeans regarded Marxism as an enemy that had been defeated once and for all. But they were wrong. A mere 30 years later, Marxism is back, and making an astonishingly successful bid to seize control of the most important American media companies, universities and schools, major corporations and philanthropic organizations, and even the courts, the government bureaucracy, and some churches. As American cities succumb to rioting, arson, and looting, it appears as though the liberal custodians of many of these institutions—from the New York Times to Princeton University—have despaired of regaining control of them, and are instead adopting a policy of accommodation. That is, they are attempting to appease their Marxist employees by giving in to some of their demands in the hope of not being swept away entirely.
We don’t know what will happen for certain. But based on the experience of recent years, we can venture a pretty good guess. Institutional liberalism lacks the resources to contend with this threat. Liberalism is being expelled from its former strongholds, and the hegemony of liberal ideas, as we have known it since the 1960s, will end. Anti-Marxist liberals are about to find themselves in much the same situation that has characterized conservatives, nationalists, and Christians for some time now: They are about to find themselves in the opposition.
By William S. Lind
The way the Presidential election is shaping up, most of the big issues will not be openly stated. They include race, with the Republicans the White party and the Democrats the black and immigrant party; socialism, with the Democrats in favor and the Republicans against; and freedom of thought and expression, with President Trump not only an advocate but a practitioner as he says things deemed politically incorrect while the Democrats hope people do not notice what the Left is doing on college campuses, where students and professors who dissent from cultural Marxism do so at their peril. But behind these largely unstated issues lies another: the Democrats are the party of fear while the Republicans, and especially President Trump, are the party of anger.
It is obvious how the media, which are almost wholly in the Democrats’ camp, pump up the fear. The corona panic is exhibit A: most people have figured out it isn’t very dangerous unless you’re lying in a bed in a nursing home, while the media talks as if the Black Death were again upon us. The Left puts more and more restrictions on daily life, all justified by COVID-19, but they fail to see how they are thereby stoking public anger. The latest example is widespread cancellation of fall college and high school sports, including football. That might seem a small matter in the great scheme of things, but it is not to the thousands of players and millions of fans. Their anger will turn into many votes for President Trump, because he is the angry man’s candidate. Some of his votes will be black votes, because sports, especially football, are young black men’s road out of the ghetto.
By Meagan Day
On August 19, President Donald Trump gave a nod of approval to believers in the QAnon conspiracy theory, which maintains that the president is secretly fighting to save the world from an elite satanic pedophile network, calling them “people that love our country.”
One week later, on August 26, Fox News host Tucker Carlson sympathized with Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager who killed two Wisconsin Black Lives Matter protesters and maimed another. Carlson suggested Rittenhouse felt he “had to maintain order when no one else would.”
At a glance, these provocations might appear disconnected. But they are deeply intertwined. In the span of a week, Trump and Carlson both gave the green light to extremist elements on the Right, QAnon conspiracy theorists on the one hand and armed pro-police adventurists on the other. In the process they each drew on the same bedrock narrative: that the streets of America — especially Democrat-run cities, but nowhere is safe — are teeming with lawless agents of anarchy who flout authority, terrorize innocents, and threaten civilization itself. Thus besieged, right-wing extremism of one variant or another is not really extreme at all. It is rational, even heroic and patriotic.
By Paul Gottfried
The American Conservative
In a perceptive and properly passionate piece on why “woke capitalism is a vanguard of unfreedom,” Rod Dreher notes that American corporations have become radically totalitarian and socially destructive. In pursuit of intersectional politics and anti-white, anti-male indoctrination, corporate executives now impose mind-boggling restrictions on employees, from forbidding them to use gender-specific pronouns to compelling them to attend tirades against “white privilege.”
Totalitarian humanism as the ideology of the rising sectors of the capitalist.
That’s a pretty good cover for the fact that Biden can hardly talk anymore.
Matthew Heimbach resembles a pro wrestler who makes his name as a heel character and then tries to become an even bigger name by switching to a face character. This sounds like the #WalkAway of the Alt-Right, lol. A former Nazi becomes a Commie and former SJWs become Trumpists. Pathetic.
Anyone who wants to be part of a genuine resistance movement needs to realize two things: 1) the Blue Tribe/Red Tribe partisan cultural civil war is a manufactured scam that is being puppet mastered from the top by the power elite and should be rejected; 2) these gangster/cult groups on the far left/far right are a dead end and should be rejected as well.
I remember the Buckley-Rangel debate well. It was one of the moments when I began to realize the Right are not always the bad guys and the Left are not always the good guys. Of course, today I would say I am both beyond left and right. I would claim both Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine as proto-anarchists. In the tradition of Nietzsche (anarchist of the right) and Stirner (egoist anarchist), I’ve also moved beyond the concept of good and evil toward moral skepticism.
By Conor Friedersdorf
Nearly 30 years ago, the PBS program Firing Line convened a debate about the War on Drugs, which has contributed more than any other criminal-justice policy to deadly street violence in Black neighborhoods and the police harassment, arrest, and mass incarceration of Black Americans. Revisiting the debate helps clarify what it will take to end that ongoing policy mistake.
Congressman Charlie Rangel led one side in the 1991 clash. Born in 1930, Rangel served in the Korean War, provided legal assistance to 1960s civil-rights activists, participated in the Selma-to-Montgomery marches, and represented Harlem for 46 years as a Democrat in the House. He was once arrested while participating in an anti-apartheid rally. Opposing him was William F. Buckley Jr., the conservative intellectual who founded National Review in 1955 and took the wrong side in some of the most significant racial-justice controversies of his day. In an infamous 1957 editorial, Buckley justified the imposition of white-supremacist racial segregation in the American South. He opposed federal civil-rights legislation in the 1960s. And he was an apologist for South Africa’s apartheid regime in the 1980s.
Todd Lewis is joined by Keith Preston, Swithun Dobson, and Terminal Philosophy to explore what is Fascism?
By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit
Exile in Happy Valley
“I have never really understood exactly what a ‘liberal’ is, since I have heard ‘liberals’ express every conceivable opinion on every conceivable subject. As far as I can tell, you have the extreme right, who are fascist racist capitalist dogs like Ronald Reagan, who come right out and let you know where they’re coming from. And on the opposite end, you have the left, who are supposed to be committed to justice, equality, and human rights. And somewhere between those two points is the liberal. As far as I’m concerned, ‘liberal’ is the most meaningless word in the dictionary.”
“It’s not progressive to be soft on crime”
Embracing Trumpism as an antidote to the SJW cult is a remarkably bad idea. It’s a minor-league version of the ex-Communists who became right-wing reactionaries in the mid-20th century (which is how we got the Buckleyites and the neocons). What we need is a Stirnerite/Nietzschean left (which is a broad enough concept to include anti-authoritarian sectors of the center and right) in opposition to the Rousseauan/Hegelian left. Tim also embraces the standard “the economy has done well under Trump” line that is total nonsense. Trump has continued the neoliberal paradigm. His efforts to balance the trade deficit with China are peripherally a part of the wider class dynamics of the US economy because of sectors of the national security state that are concerned that the US has become overly dependent on China for military-related manufacturing.
This is a pretty good summary of what is problematic about what is often passed off as the “left” today. The totalitarian humanist left essentially wishes to compromise Enlightenment values like free speech, freedom of religion, due process, etc. for the sake of “repressive tolerance” and to compromise the individualism associated with the liberal tradition and re-embrace pre-modern notions of ascribed status based on immutable and/or socially assigned characteristics like race and gender.
This guy Vaush, a self-identified anarchist/libertarian socialist, seems to epitomize what I call an “anarcho-Democrat.” This is more or less the left-anarchist/anarcho-social democrat version of “Libertarians for Trump.”
This is a pretty good critique of MSNBC, which is basically a technocratic neoliberal version of the Communist Party.
The English anarchist who tried to assassinate Francisco Franco. There were actually factions on both sides of the Spanish Civil War for which I have some degree admiration, such as the anarchists on the Left and the Carlists on the Right. Although the anarchists could often be a little to Bolshie (like today’s left-anarchists) and the “right-anarchists” could often be a little too fascistic (like their contemporary counterparts). Franco himself was more a traditional Catholic monarchist than a fascist.
From Kate Sharpley Library
By John Patten
Stuart Christie 1946-2020 Anarchist activist, writer and publisher
Stuart Christie, founder of the Anarchist Black Cross and Cienfuegos Press and co-author of The floodgates of anarchy has died peacefully after a battle with lung cancer.
The problem with the perspective that is presented in this interview that it makes it sound like Trump is uniquely authoritarian compared to his predecessors. No one considers Eisenhower, whose administration organized a series of right-wing coups in other nations and whose immigration policies were far to the right of Trump, to have been a “fascist.” Paramilitary policing has been going on for decades, since the Nixon era. Unlike Trump, Poppy Bush actually deployed the military in response to the LA riots in 1992. Trump’s law and order rhetoric was “normal” until fairly recently (watch some old Bill Clinton speeches on fighting crime from the 1990s). ICE and CBP are no more “fascist” than the full range of federal alphabet soup agencies and not a few state and local police departments. Has this professor ever heard of the “war on drugs”?
It is fashionable in some circles to compare Trump with Eastern European or Asian authoritarians like Orban, Erdogan, or Putin without any kind of understanding of the differences between the political cultures of the US and those places, all of which have long traditions of autocratic rule. Hungary was a communist dictatorship 30 years ago, and had no liberal democratic tradition prior to the Stalinist era, having been Nazi allies in WW2 and historically under monarchist rule.
Erdogan is an Islamist, and while he has made moves toward the greater imposition of authoritarian rule in Turkey, the Turks have always been a conservative Islamic nation that has maintained secular government only because the military and deep state are secular, and has kept Islamism at bay. The conflicts between Erdogan and the Turkish deep state are somewhat similar to the conflicts between Trump and the US deep state, but with the big difference being that Trump is a far less competent political operator than Erdogan and with the Turkish deep state being in a much weaker position. For instance, Wikipedia notes concerning Erdogan that “starting with the anti-government protests in 2013, his government imposed growing censorship on the press and social media, restricting access to sites such as YouTube, Twitter and Wikipedia.” With Trump, it’s just the opposite. Trump himself has been subject to Internet censorship, and Internet censorship has been imposed not by the state directly but by the tech oligarchs themselves who are very anti-Trump.
Today’s “liberalism” (neoliberalism) is the ideology of the ascendant sectors of the upper and upper-middle classes.
Historian and author, Thomas Frank, discusses his new book, “The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism.”
The Democraps have gone out of their way to marginalize any “left” or “populist” elements within their own party while embracing Never Trump Republicans like Bloomberg and John Kasich. The ruling class is circling the wagons against mavericks from the left and right.
This is a comment from an Antifa-oriented social media page:
“I have a comrade who was monitoring the Boogaloo pages before they got taken down and said they were very pro-gay, pro-black, etc, just very accelerationist and anti cop. I cant wrap my head around it. They had a very incel vibe IMHO.”
This is exactly what we need. Hardline anti-System extremism that fully rejects any last vestiges of “law and order” conservative statism while completing shedding any affinity for culture war/race war/tribal war/civil war politics. We need a Boogaloo right of the kind described above and a Bolo’bolo left of the kind described in the adjacent post, and for these tendencies to eventually bend toward each other. Build the Boogaloo-Bolo’bolo Axis!
The “Booglaoo” movement would at this point seem, at least in some ways, to be the most advanced of any “extremist” sector in US fringe politics in terms of their overall thinking. In order to build an authentically revolutionary movement in North America, two things have to happen. First, the revolutionaries must shed any last remaining attachments to the system. That rules out the archaic American patriotism of many on the far-right and the “anarcho-Democratic Partyism” of many on the far-left. Perhaps some of these folks will move toward an actual revolutionary perspective at some point in the future, but for now, they are still too much under the residual influence of “Systemism.” Second, the revolutionaries must shed any attachment to the idea of a racial, cultural, tribal, ideological civil war. There cannot be even a hint of this among the actual revolutionaries. Unfortunately, most supposed “extremists” have not abandoned this idea at all, and often enthusiastically endorse as much, thereby making themselves into nothing more than parodies and caricatures of the Red and Blue tribes.
More so than other far-right tendencies, and most far-left tendencies, the Boogaloos seem to understand this if their recent public pronouncements and actions are any indication.