It’s Hard to Win When You’re Playing Against the Referee 1

By Paul Gottfried

The Italian political theorist and longtime socialist journalist Carlo Galli recently published a short volume called Perché ancora destra-sinistra (roughly translated, “Why is there still right and left?”). Galli’s definitions show scant evidence of semantic evenhandedness. He seems to identify with a perfumed definition of the left as the good guys “favoring equality and freedom for every individual.” The right, by contrast, is assigned the less palatable role of having to “defend authority, economic inequality, and ethnic roots.”

German legal theorist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), on whom Galli and I have both written extensively, was much better than Galli in coming up with key definitions. Schmitt associated right-wing attitudes with such political theorists as Thomas Hobbes and St. Augustine—that is, with those who believed that human nature is violent and selfish and that social and political institutions exist to check dangerous human appetites. The left, by contrast, believes people are rational and kindly and can be made even better with a properly planned society. Unlike the right, the left also assumes that all human beings are roughly interchangeable and will develop similarly if exposed to the same meticulously engineered environment.

Galli associates the left with the creation of a modern democratic government aiming at universal equality. The right is not only against the progress of this scheme but is going nuts from failing to stop it. The “right” as defined in this book is not the Republican Party or the editorial staff of NR. It is, according to Galli, the side that views “disorder as a structural given, indeed as something primordial.” Having lost so often to its democratic-egalitarian enemy, this contemporary right “has come to view reality as unstable and contingent.” It now mocks any attempt to discuss “a priori conservative values” because “it is convinced that reality has no foundation.” The true right assumes “the contingent nature of all politics and the continuing disorder of the world.” In the interior of “any such possible right” is the “idea of existing without foundations (infondatezza), which suggests something irremediably nihilistic.”

More…

The Derb is the Word…or is He? Reply

From MRDA’s Inferno.

image

Who would’ve thought such a mild-mannered, bourgeois Englishman could ignite such a fibre-optic firestorm?

A few weekends back, all right-thinking Left-leaners united for a hyperextended Two Minutes Hate session against one John Derbyshire, a Brit expat and paleocon pundit who occupies a comfy niche amongst America’s “alternative Right”. Turns out that the round-goggled reprobate saw fit to scribe a rather un-PC survival guide for the melanin-deficient; and, judging from the resultant comments, and the rash of responses from various Lefty haunts, it appears to have left many a pissed-off Progressive in its wake.

Having previously clicked and leafed through Derbyshire’s output, including his musings on multiculturalism, immigration, and racial IQ, I registered little in the way of surprise when I read the article. It struck me as something of a synthesis of his scribblings, citing crime stats and group averages to concretize another slab of “conservative pessimism”.

I must admit that, whilst I’m not down with the paleocon paradigm for a number of reasons, I appreciate their often incisive criticisms of PC equalitarian conceits. Similarly, whatever misgivings I have with Derb’s Taki Mag piece, I admire his refusal to apologize to his detractors for speaking his mind, even in the face of a firing.

That said, “The Talk” left me feeling rather ambivalent upon “hearing” it… More…

Rick Santorum, I Hate Your Face Reply

Article by Jim Goad.

For me, politics isn’t so much about what sort of society I want to live in as much as what sort of people I want to avoid. I consider myself a misanthropic individualist.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Rick Santorum has been the Republican primary season’s Surprise Moral Warrior. He has already won eleven states, and depending on how he performs in Wisconsin tomorrow, he may continue to battle the icy Mormon cyborg Mitt Romney for the nomination.

Based merely on those who hate Santorum, I suppose I should love him.

After all, he has a rare talent for ruffling progressives’ preening peacock plumage, and that’s usually a good sign. To hear his haters tell the story, he is THE HEART OF EVIL and a DISGRACE TO THE HUMAN RACE who wants to pillage, rape, and divest all of America’s gay anal wombs of their Goddess-given recto-spiritual progeny—or something like that. They say he is a grotesquely bigoted bully whose heartless heart pumps solely on unrefined nitro-powered hatred, a sadistic closet case who is waging a violent Hate Jihad against women, homos, atheists, and every other untouchable pink lamb of modern sensitivities. As is the ironclad rule these days, the Anti-Hate Crusaders employ rhetoric and tactics that ooze far more palpable hatred than the “hate” they’re supposedly fighting, as evidenced in how they deliberately smeared his name with frothy brown anal lube in devising his “Google problem.” Because they took umbrage at the fact he supposedly said SHAME SHAME SHAME at them, they scream SHAME SHAME SHAME back at him, only ten times more loudly. They appear blind to the fact that the problem is hive-brain lynch-mob shaming itself, not which side’s doing it. Shame on all of you!

Last week he was targeted by the Racism Industrial Complex for allegedly calling Obama a “nig-” before correcting himself. I’m not convinced he said “nig-” on that video, but in the past he’s lied about calling people “black,” so it’s possible. Either way, I rate lying as far worse than using forbidden words, but I’m abnormal.

“I can’t muster one positive micron of feeling toward the man.”

But despite the fact that I hate his antagonists’ shriekingly misguided moralism, I can’t muster one positive micron of feeling toward the man. For starters, I have problems with his face. And his personality. And his politics. And his priggishness. And his authoritarian impulses. In politics as in life, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. In many cases, it’s merely some other jerkoff I dislike for entirely different reasons.

First there’s his face. Sure, it’s unfair to blame him for that incongruous nose jutting out of his lumpy head as if someone jammed a cheese wedge into a potato, so I will not hold him accountable for what is either an act of God or an accident of nature. But he is entirely to blame for that dorky, smug, imperious smirk that his attitude seems to have forever welded onto his visage. His is the mug of a priggish hall monitor who’s forever smelling something unpleasant.

But it’s so much more than his face. At a regrettably low, sad, destitute, and lonely point in my life a few months back, I found myself watching a couple of the Republican primary debates, and his personality rubbed me the wrong way like a Brillo Pad scraping against herpes sores. Both Santorum and I were raised as Pennsylvania papists, and he conjures distant memories of some generically uptight, passive-aggressive, repressed schmoe I would have hated during my dozen years of Catholic school. The fact that he’s Italian doesn’t help, either.

Next Page

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/rick_santorum_i_hate_your_face_jim_goad#ixzz1qzKx2CQz

Keith Preston on Balkanization and the state of exception 2

Keith Preston writes the blog Attack the System,  which attempts to tie together both left and right anarchism in a Pan-secessionism against the empire.   While I come from a radically different perspective than Keith, I find his critique of the way many left anarchists are militant shock troops of liberalism to be a serious and disturbing critique as well as the Nietzschean critique of modernity to be taken seriously and not softened as it has been in French post-structuralism.
More…

Noam Chomsky on the "New Atheism" 69

Noam takes on the atheist fundamentalists.

As an atheist myself, I’ve found these “new atheist” writers to be an embarrassment. First, none of the prominent ones are genuine religious scholars, historians of religion, or cultural anthropologists who can, for instance, examine  the cultural, historical, literary, or linguistic contexts in which the varying parts of the Bible were written to provide an explanation of why fundamentalist biblical literalists are, well, mistaken and ignorant. There are plenty of genuine scholars of religion whose work examines religious beliefs and sacred texts within their proper framework, such as Robert Price, John Loftus, Daniel Barker, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman, and D.M. Murdoch. These are the skeptics who are worth paying attention to.

Second, they typically conflate atheism with stereotypical liberal or radical left-wing politics when there’s no inherent relationship whatsoever. See Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Nietzsche, and Mencken.

Third, like the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair, they come across as narrow-minded and ill-informed bigots whose only purpose is to antagonize religious people.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

I haven’t been thrilled by the atheist movement.  First, who is the audience?  Is it religious extremists?  Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)?  Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)?  Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush’s current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)?  If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time.  Is the audience atheists?  Again a waste of time.  Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven?  If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs.  Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don’t have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)?  Plainly not.  The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds.  Who, in fact, is the audience?
Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the “new atheism” should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim — arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere.  In brief, to be minimally serious the “new atheism” should begin by looking in the mirror.

Without going on, I haven’t found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.

NC

Has America Moved Left or Right in Recent Years? 3

This is a question that is often debated by both sides of the conventional political spectrum. Here’s one person’s take on the issue.

I’d say it depends on how you define “left” and “right.” For instance, the ostensible conservative George W. Bush sought to expand federal control over education, expand the welfare state, implement an amnesty program for illegal immigrants, and engaged in Keynesian economics. These are all positions normally associated with the Left. Yet there’s no question that the U.S. regime became more militarist and police statist during the Bush era. Leftists usually consider such things to be “rightist” but these are distinguishing features of communist states as well. But Republicans like Bush are also business-friendly which puts them on the right in the modern sense.

I’d say both sides on this debate have a point. The U.S. has certainly become more militarily aggressive, police statist, and plutocrat-friendly in the last few decades. Yet the broader society and the resulting social policies have clearly become more “liberal” in the conventional sense. Same-sex marriage, for instance, would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.

I think these trends represent the general value system of the elite. The elite want to make money, wage war when it serves their agenda, and maintain domestic political control. They shudder at the idea of drugs and guns in the hands of poor white trash or inner-city black folks. But they also want to make use of abortions and have whatever kind of sex they want. They tend not to be religious conservatives and look askance at the religious right, except as occasional useful idiots who can be counted on for jingoistic support. They want a global economy and imported labor, so of course they’re pro-immigration and anti-racist.

So the end-game of the policy agenda of the elite seems to be a plutocratic and militarized albeit multicultural and socially liberal police state.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Conservative pundits love to decry the “radical left” in this country, but I don’t see it. Despite all the cries of socialism and Marxism, the radical ideology just isn’t there. While the Republican candidates seem to be racing toward the most extreme position they can manage, America’s left wing is increasingly moderate.

Take the health care bill for example. “Obamacare” was, and still is, called a government takeover of health care and accused of the usual rounds of left-wing extremism, but it wasn’t really that radical. It did create new laws regulations, but the biggest move in the bill was the individual mandate, a requirement that everyone have private insurance.

That’s right, the so-called government takeover actually works through private companies. The government didn’t take over anything. There was talk of a public option, a tax-funded insurance program for the poor, but that was gone by the time the bill passed. Other countries have governments that act as insurers and run hospitals, but ours can’t even try a middle-of-the-road private insurance system without a huge conservative backlash.

Despite the lax liberalism of the Democrats, it seems like they’re being accused of socialism more than ever. President Obama, a moderate who readily makes concessions to the Republicans, is still perceived as a leftist, and is even the subject of a local billboard that labels him a “Wannabe Marxist dictator.” The perception isn’t attributable to the radicalism of his own policies, obviously, but to the radicalism of his conservative counterparts. Someone looking from the Tea Party’s corner of the political spectrum, a corner abounding in tax cuts and border fences, could perceive practically anyone as a socialist ideologue. Obama isn’t actually that liberal, but he appears liberal to the conservatives because their vantage point shifts their perception of him.

That vantage point of the right is drifting farther and farther to the right, both with politicians and voters. Sure, the public may be increasingly accepting of gay rights, and Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned, but the Supreme Court gave corporations unlimited campaign contribution, the Christian right has become a major player in national politics, the existence global warming has become a disputed political issue and the Republican Party threatened to make the U.S. default on its debt.

Herman Cain suggested an electrified border fence, Rick Perry promised to do away with the IRS, Mitt Romney openly said that “Corporations are people, my friend,” and don’t get me started on Michele Bachmann. A few weeks ago, showing us just how extreme the right wing is getting, televangelist Pat Robertson told the Republican presidential candidates to stop their race for extremism.

Of course, this is happening during a primary, and the candidates will probably seem more moderate when the general election starts and they dive to the bottom of the barrel to start scraping around for anything with mass appeal. But have the Democrats ever shown this sort of degree of liberal extremism? Liberal politicians — the ones who are still around, anyway — often don’t even identify as liberal anymore. Now, they’re “progressive,” because “liberal” somehow became a dirty word somewhere along the way.

While there may be a radically liberal segment of the public, there certainly isn’t one in Congress. If it can be said that the Republican Party is drifting right, the same is also true of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders, the only real socialist in the Senate, was elected as an Independent. The website PoliticalCompass.org did an evaluation of the 2008 presidential candidates in both major primaries, and Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader were the only people even placed in the liberal quadrant. Everyone else, Democrats included, scored in the conservative quadrant; the Democrats were just closer to the center. Even though we usually perceive figures like Kucinich and Nader as extremely left wing, the political compass placed them close to the center, saying that even though they are “depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe.”

While Republicans regularly call for an end to the Environmental Protection Agency and suggest an invasion of Iran, how many Democrats suggest anything more radical than cap-and-trade or call for a massive shrinking of the military budget? When the 2007 mortgage crisis hit, the basic plan was to give them loans to tide them over through the recession, i.e., the bailouts. Plenty of Republicans suggested leaving the banks to collapse, but how many Democrats advocated nationalizing banks instead?

While radical beliefs aren’t necessarily bad, and they’re certainly not new to American politics, the recent shift is going one way. A political system with a strong presence in the middle ground is probably the best way to work, if only so the politicians are ready and able to compromise with each other. If neither side tilts too far to one side, things can get done (even if we wish the policies were more in line with our own) because of those people in the middle ground. The trouble is that the middle ground is being filled by the people who used to be on the left.

Brian Hampel is a junior in architecture. Please send all comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Indiana House Approves Bill That Allows Homeowners To Kill Police Officers 2

Article by Stephen D. Foster.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Republicans in Indiana are taking self-defense too far. In a move supported by the National Rifle Association, the Indiana House passed Senate Bill 1, which allows homeowners to shoot and kill police officers they believe are unlawfully on their property or in their homes. The bill could also extend to federal law enforcement officials.

According to the Evansville Courier Press, the bill is a response to a decision made by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2011. “The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes. That decision came in the case of Richard Barnes, who filed a lawsuit against police who followed him into his house while they were responding to a domestic dispute Barnes had with his wife.”

The key word there, is ‘believe.’ People have different beliefs when it comes to the police. Most people respect the boys in blue and understand that they are just trying to do a dangerous job that doesn’t exactly pay well. Some, on the other hand, have no respect at all for police and believe them to be the enemy at all time, whether they have a warrant or not. But it’s a particularly risky situation that Republicans are putting police officers in, because in some situations police officers enter homes when they have sufficient reason to believe that a crime is taking place. For example, if a police officer is walking by a home and a woman screams because her husband is beating her mercilessly, there isn’t time to wait for a court approved warrant to enter the home. Under Senate Bill 1, which passed by a 74-24 vote, the husband could shoot and kill the officer for entering his home and get away with it. And there are many other situations where police may deem it necessary to enter a home, such as the situation in which the Indiana Court ruled.

More…

Daryle Lamont Jenkins: An Illustration of the Schizoprenic Nature of the "Anarchist" Left 1

Listen to the podcast interview of Daryle. 

Daryle says quite a bit that I agree with in this interview.

Apparently, we are both admirers of the documentary “Anarchism in America.” We agree that the U.S. was originally a federation of sovereign nations that were eventually incorporated into a unified state through the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree that the U.S. will likely eventually split up into a multitude of smaller political entities and that that’s probably a good thing. We both accept the anarchist label for our respective political perspectives. But….

Daryle attacks Ron Paul for “wanting to defeat the first black president.” As if that has anything to do with it. Apparently, skin color alone should be enough to guarantee a head of state the right of re-election.

Supposed left-wing anarchist Daryle describes how he has collaborated with such organizations as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars (i.e. veterans of imperialist wars) to prevent free speech and free association. Oh, for the good old days when the American Legion and radical leftists were mortal enemies.

So apparently Daryle’s “anarchism” amounts to “Support the President and Support the Troops” in a vein reminiscent of Bush and the neocons, and collaborating with, ahem, patriotic organizations for the sake of shutting down free association and freedom of assembly for political dissidents and all the while crusading against freedom of speech for points of view that defy conventional political orthodoxy.

And of the two of us, I’m supposed to be the fascist?

Keith Preston Denounced as Leftist Hijacker of Libertarianism 4

So says a critic of my article “Should Libertarianism Be Cultural Leftism Minus the State?”

It’s great to be attacked as a neo-nazi entryist and leftist hijacker in the same week.

In the past, I’ve also been criticized for being anti-feminist, pro-feminist, homophobic, pro-homosexual, Marxist, capitalist, an anarchist entryist into white nationalism, a white nationalist entryist into anarchism, supporting Holocaust denial, opposing Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic, philo-Semitic, racist, not racist enough, reformist, pro-terrorist, Islamophobic, pro-Muslim, and too many other labels to remember.

Maybe I just have multiple personalities.

How the Working Class Vanished from Progressive Politics Reply

Yes!

Article by Stuart Bramhall.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

If OWS comes to be seen as a movement run predominantly by and for the working class, it will be the first grassroots movement to do so since the Great Depression. The last major mass movement during the Vietnam War was mainly a student-led movement. The working class, which in the sixties was represented by organized labor, was cleverly manipulated through a variety of strategies to throw their support behind the Vietnam War and other reactionary pro-corporate policies.

How Organized Labor Came to Represent Corporate Interests

The anti-union restrictions of the 1948 Taft-Hartley Act and extensive red-baiting during the McCarthy Era laid the groundwork for turning organized labor into the reactionary servant of corporate interests. After red-baiting caused the expulsion of militant rank and file unionists who previously held union officials to account, unions became largely toothless in addressing workplace grievances outside of wage demands. It also gave rise to a trade union bureaucracy that felt closer to management than the workers they supposedly represented. Corporate managers rewarded union officials with all manner of perks for delivering “labor discipline” (i.e. preventing rank and file workers from participating in disruptive industrial action). As former CIA officer Tom Braden bragged in the Saturday Evening Post in 1967, many AFL-CIO leaders were also on the CIA payroll. See http://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/04/lenny-brenner-on-tom-braden.htmlhttp://www.laboreducator.org/darkpast2.htm andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Braden

More…

The Day I Left the Left 9

Article by Jim Goad.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Late one Saturday morning in 1990 under the skeleton-bleaching California sun, I motored through a crumbled, hilly, ashen section of East LA looking to see if any of the Hicks Boys Stoners were around to sell me some weed. Named after East LA’s Hicks Avenue, they were a loosely amalgamated gang of longhaired Mexican metalheads who shunned traditional cholo gang culture’s aesthetic trappings in favor of Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez-styled muerte obsessions, Satan worship, and generally aimless nihilism.

A few weeks earlier, I had written a cover story about the Hicks Boys for the Los Angeles Reader, a now-defunct free alt-weekly largely distributed in West LA. The magazine’s publisher was a short, pie-faced man with a voice so high-pitched one would suspect he was mainlining estrogen. He was slick-bald on top with a horseshoe rim of quarter-inch grey stubble around the sides and a Pixy Stix-thin footlong ponytail hanging limply in the back. Merely describing his ponytail tells you all you need to know about his politics.

More…

The Crazy World of Limousine Leftists Reply

The adventures of Jane Fonda.

Actually, I’ve always thought the right-wing is too hard on Hanoi Jane. Whatever her faults, she was right about Nixon’s war crimes in Indochina.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

One day, at the height of her fame in the mid-Seventies, Jane Fonda turned up on the doorstep of her ex-husband, Roger Vadim. She was lugging a bulging sack.

Vadim’s glamorous new girlfriend let her in, thrilled to meet the movie icon at last. But her excitement soon turned to disbelief. The star of Julia, Klute and The China Syndrome had come to do her laundry.

Why? Because her second husband, Tom Hayden, a Left-wing activist with a bulbous nose and acne-scarred cheeks, had forbidden her to have either a washing machine or dishwasher. Far too bourgeois.

Jane Fonda had a turbulent marriage to her second husbandJane Fonda had a turbulent marriage to her second husband

Not only that, but he’d made her sell her comfortable house in Los Angeles and buy a shabby two-bedroom shack in Santa Monica that smelled of mildew, where the couple shared a mattress on the floor. She couldn’t even wear her Cartier wristwatch any more, because Hayden disliked any show of possessions. So she’d replaced it with a cheaper Timex.

More…

Elizabeth Wright, RIP Reply

Obituary by Richard Spencer.

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

I am saddened to learn of the death of Elizabeth Wright, the long-time editor of Issues and Views and a frequent writer for this online magazine. In AltRight’s infancy, Elizabeth made outstanding contributions, including devastating critiques of the Tea Party movement, all of which are worth revisiting.

I hesitate to use casual language, but if I could sum up Elizabeth’s writing in a phrase, it would be that she was willing and able to cut through the crap—to dispense with pretty lies and taboos in search of the truth, regarding race, politics, culture, and a host of other matters she examined. On a number of occasions in private conversation, my friend Paul Gottfried compared Elizabeth’s penetrating and undeceived mind to that of Sam Francis. A high compliment, indeed.

That Elizabeth was one of a kind, and irreplaceable, makes her death all the more heart-breaking. Without question, the history of the 20th century would have been different if Black Americans had looked to conservatives like Elizabeth, as opposed to the civil-rights industry, for wisdom and guidance.

She will be missed

***

Jared Taylor’s remembrance of Elizabeth can be read here.

Anders Breivik, Mainstream Islamophobia, and the Far Right Reply

Article by Matthew Lyons.

This is a very good analysis of all the subtle ideological variations of the Right with regards their attitudes towards Islam.

——————————————————————————————-

Anders Behring Breivik has been called a neonazi and a Christian fundamentalist. Both of these labels are misleading, although both contain elements of truth. Breivik is an Islamophobe and a right-wing conspiracy monger, but he does not promote Nazi-style Jew-hatred or call for imposing Biblical doctrines on society. His strongest political influences appear to be pro-Zionist, largely secular “counter-jihadists” who disavow traditional racism and maintain significant ties with political elites.

Understanding Breivik’s politics not only helps us understand the July 22 massacre in Norway for which he has accepted responsibility, but also highlights important trends and interconnections in right-wing politics in Europe, the U.S., and beyond. This is a difficult task given the size and complexity of Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto/compilation 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, not to mention his other writings. His work draws on many different political sources, which do not always agree with each other. For these reasons, any summation of Breivik’s politics at this point needs to be tentative. So far I have only read bits and pieces of Breivik’s writings and am relying here primarily on others’ excerpts and interpretations. I hope that my efforts to pull the pieces together are useful.

More…

Tolerance: Not a Two-Way Street? Reply

Article by Jim Goad.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

The rabidly politicized, mad-as-hell, accept-us-or-die quotient of gay Americans—at last count, somewhere between 97 to 99 percent of them—seem determined to prove that they can get just as offended as your average hillbilly breeder mountaineer, if not more so.

It’s as if they’re taking it to the streets, up into the hills, and down into the hollers to spread a simple message—“You think you can get offended, you stupid, hateful, one-toothed, inbred, Christ-worshiping rednecks? You ain’t seen an uptight bunch of whiny wah-wah emotionally retarded walking fetuses until you’ve tangled with us!”

Exhibit A: The highly publicized story of butch cunnilinguists Jennifer Tipton and Olivier Odom, the latter of whom on Tuesday apparently didn’t deem it an act of cultural provocation to attend Dolly Parton’s Dollywood Splash Country up in the generally Christian, generally conservative, generally heterosexual Appalachian Mountains while clad in a “[marriage is so gay]” sleeveless T-shirt that showcased Odom’s rippling biceps and tribal forearm tattoo.

At the entrance, a park official requested that Odom turn his her T-shirt inside-out in compliance with a park policy that bans potentially “offensive” apparel and body adornments. Odom complied, then filed a complaint with the park, and then apparently went crying to a receptive and empathetic press. Her partner Jennifer Tipton, whose voice isn’t nearly as deep nor her hair quite as short, said she found it “so offensive” that park officials found Odom’s muscle shirt so offensive. She also accused Splash Country of hypocrisy for not banning “rebel flags” and “offensive tattoos” among its other patrons.

“Clearly, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. So is the concept of whether acting like a barbarian when in Rome makes one an asshole.”

Between Thought and Action in Norway Reply

Article by Jim Goad.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

When I first read Ted Kaczynski’s Industrial Society and its Future, better known as The Unabomber Manifesto, I was impressed with how logically dispassionate it was, especially its devastating dissection of leftist masochism and hostility. Each paragraph—sequentially numbered as if they were biblical verses—built upon the previous one with mathematical precision, and I found myself nodding along with Kaczynski’s premise that technology was potentially the biggest threat to personal freedom in world history.

And then, walking placidly through all that ice-cold logic, I stubbed my toe on this line: “In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.”

A Norwegian police officer who assisted in Friday’s arrest of Anders Behring Breivik described Breivik’s demeanor as “cold as ice,” an especially disquieting observation when one considers he was talking about a man who’d just claimed the Spree Killing World Record by piling up at least 76 bodies—eight via a fertilizer car bomb in downtown Oslo and 68 using automatic weapons at a Labour Party youth camp on Utøya Island.

More…

Ten Things I Hate About the Right Reply

Article by Gavin McInnes.

——————————————————————————————————————————

The left gets a serious going-over on this site. Not that they don’t deserve it. If you come screaming into the room with an aluminum water bottle on your backpack and start ridiculing everyone for being ignorant, people are going to make fun of you. It’s fun to expose liberal hypocrisy, but the downside is that you get lumped in with Republican tight-asses. They can be just as irritating. For example…

1. THEY EXPECT DONATIONS
Conservative intellectual Bill Whittle recently did a great video called Walking Into Mordor where he explains how naïve it is to assume the rich can solve all our problems. He blames Hollywood for this assumption—which is fine—and then says he’s going to make his own pro-free-market movie. That’s even better. Then the guy puts a link up asking for donations to make this movie. What? Socialists such as Michael Moore may employ non-union workers, but at least they use real money to criticize America. Ever heard of an ad? I love me some VDARE, and Steve Sailer is brilliant, but both of them also ask for donations. If you can’t sell ads for your company, find someone who can and put them to work. That’s what I’ve done for every company I’ve started, and that’s why I can afford to be such a pedantic prick about it. You can’t mock liberals for assuming everyone who disagrees with them is on the Koch payroll and then quietly ask strangers to bankroll you. It’s bad manners to scoff at the very notion of political donations and then openly solicit them.

“Youth may be wasted on the young, but never really being wasted at all is just as bad.”

2. THEY TAKE CATHOLICISM SERIOUSLY
Hearing atheists rant is enough to make you wish you were in a foxhole. They are self-righteous and cruel and have no respect for the fact that we are living in a country that is 75% Christian. I’m not saying the believers are as irritating as the nonbelievers, they’re just…weird. You actually believe all that stuff with the guy in the gigantic hat and the jewel-encrusted robe shaking the thing with the water in it at everybody? What are you, Haitian? Hearing smart conservatives seamlessly lapse into a discussion about how they met the archdiocesan coordinator at the annual Vatican congregation of the Holy Spirit vows of the papal Christ throne, etc., is like someone pushed a Star Trek button on the conversation and turned it into bullshit. I don’t get how someone could call themselves pragmatic and rational and then talk about all this ancient astrology with a straight face.

3. THEY THINK IT’S BAD TO LET VEGETABLES DIE
I’m sure there are plenty of cases where someone has been at death’s door and just as people were giving up on them, they came back. That’s nice, but we all know the difference between murder and euthanasia is like the difference between porn and erotica—you can tell merely by looking. If they’re in a coma and it’s been a few months, let’s stop kidding ourselves and pull the plug. If grandpa is so old he can’t watch TV because he can’t follow the plot, it’s time to stop wiping his ass and let him go. The fact that most conservatives seem so averse to this makes me think they’re capable of brainwashing themselves into ignoring what’s right in front of their eyes.

More…

An Alien Pod Person in a Room Full of Leftists 5

Article by Gavin McInnes.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

There is a phenomenon here in the Northeast where being conservative—no, wait, being not left—is to turn everyone in the room into Donald Sutherland from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, screaming and pointing at you as if you’re an alien pod person.

I hear Berkeley is bad, and Madison is the only place I’ve ever seen one-person protest marches, but here in New York things are intense. It is a given that the political right is a cartoon pig who will do anything for money and wants everyone who isn’t a cartoon pig to die. The End. Nobody has ever questioned this and every time I do, it creates a hole in the space-time continuum that swallows the entire universe, or at least ruins the party.

During a break while I was working on a travel show recently, Anthony Bourdain was sitting at the lunch table and mentioned he’d like to skin Glenn Beck alive. Everyone nodded as if he’d said he enjoys tiramisu. I kept my mouth shut. A few months earlier I was in a similar environment when a cameraman casually mentioned he’d like to “kick Sarah Palin in the cunt.” This got the same placid reaction and when I begged to differ, it started a two-hour argument that ruined everybody’s day. That’s the problem with grazing amid a leftist herd. You’re constantly on the edge of a huge argument.

But when you don’t say anything, you hate yourself. I was on vacation in Mexico with a group consisting mostly of comedy writers, and a conversation began about Al Gore’s wonderfulness. I kept my mouth shut because I didn’t want to bum everyone out (especially my wife), but I didn’t sleep well that night and it still bothers me.

“How did we get to this point? The way I remember things, the left used to be the chin-scratching, idea-weighing side where dissent was encouraged.”

During a dinner party in Maine, the hostess told us a bunch of Internet rednecks ruined the immigration-reform bill on which she’d been working. I confessed I was one of said rednecks, and a nice dinner turned into a nice big fight that ended the night early. As everyone angrily grabbed their coats, the host said to my wife, “Your husband is a big bore,” and we haven’t been invited back, but I have no regrets about that night.

How did we get to this point? The way I remember things, the left used to be the chin-scratching, idea-weighing side where dissent was encouraged. I don’t think my views have changed. I still hate the government and despite the laughter it brings, I’d still call myself a feminist. The problem is, when the president is black and the fanatics who are oppressing women are brown, it’s racist to complain about the government and religion. The left went from thinking outside the box to becoming myopically fixated on anything that sounds mean or benefits “white males” (AKA someone who reminds them of dad). What remains is a sea of knee-jerk liberals who aren’t just intolerant of other points of view, they literally can’t handle the truth.

More…

A Reply to Matthew Lyons, Part Three: Sheep, Wolves, and Owls 55

This is the final in a series of essays in response to Matthew Lyons’ critique “Rising Above the Herd: Keith Preston’s Authoritarian Anti-Statism.” And here is the transcript of a recent lecture by Lyons where yours truly gets a couple of mentions. Part One may be viewed here. Part Two may be seen here.

By Keith Preston

“‘As long as the sun shall shine upon man’s misfortunes, the sheep will be eaten by the wolf.’ All that is left is, for those who know and can, to avoid becoming sheep.” –

-Vilfredo Pareto, The Rise & Fall of Elites

“(There is) a perpetual struggle between ‘freedom’ and ‘authority’; neither one of which will be annihilated. It appears, indeed, that we are left with a politics of perpetual protest. There cannot be any point at which those dedicated to liberty can sit back in security and assume the world is in peace, harmony and freedom…(E)ven if anarchy were to be achieved, eternal vigilance would be the bare minimum price for a modicum of success…(T)here is no final battle. The battle is forever.”

-Harold Barclay, Anarchist anthropologist

“What the common man longs for in this world, before and above all his other longings, is the simplest and most ignominious sort of peace — the peace of a trusty in a well-managed penitentiary. He is willing to sacrifice everything else to it. He puts it above his dignity and he puts it above his pride. Above all, he puts it above his liberty. The fact, perhaps, explains his veneration for policemen, in all the forms they take — his belief that there is a mysterious sanctity in law, however absurd it may be in fact. A policeman is a charlatan who offers, in return for obedience, to protect him (a) from his superiors, (b) from his equals, and (c) from himself. “

H. L. Mencken

“…a series of fundamental misconceptions…which prevented (man) from learning the lessons of the past, and…now put his survival in question. The first of these..is putting the blame for man’s predicament on his selfishness, greed, etc.; in a word, on the aggressive, self-assertive tendencies of the individual…I would like to suggest that the integrative tendencies of the individual are incomparably more dangerous than his self-assertive tendencies.”

Arthur Koestler

Matthew Lyons depicts the philosophical foundations that inform my political views in this way:

Preston’s opposition to the state is based on a radically anti-humanistic philosophy of elitism, ruthless struggle, and contempt for most people.

Preston embraces “a philosophical conservatism regarding human nature and the nature of society,” whose tenets include “natural inequality of persons at both the individual and collective levels, [and] the inevitability and legitimacy of otherness…”He is harshly critical of the left’s egalitarianism and universalism. Instead, he offers an elitist, anti-humanist philosophy that echoes Friedrich Nietzsche, Ernst Jünger, and Ayn Rand:

those who obtain the upper hand in the ongoing power struggle will almost always be the most ruthless, cunning and merciless of the competitors. The wolves will always win out over the sheep. Within the bleak framework of a perpetual war of each against all, there from time to time arises the exceedingly rare individual whom Nietzsche referred to as the “ubermensch.” This is the individual of superior will, strength, mind, spirit, discipline, intelligence, intuition, perceptiveness, shrewdness, wisdom, creativity, inventiveness, generosity and other such characteristics that set the human species a half step above the other animals. It is this individual who becomes the “anarch,” the “egoist,” the one who rises above the perpetual fog in which both the sheepish people and their vicious masters dwell…. It is persons such as these who carry with them the seeds of cultural and civilizational growth. For any sort of human existence to emerge beyond that of the merely animalistic, this type of individual must thrive…

Preston argues further that “the first purpose of any politics or ethics beyond the purely material or defensive” must be to protect and foster these rare, superior individuals, the anarchs. “It is apparent that the political framework most conducive to the advancement of the anarch is some sort of anarchism.” In other words, the main reason Preston supports anarchism is not to liberate all people — but to help a handful of superior individuals rise above the bestial mass of humanity.

This is a generally accurate portrayal of my view of human nature and the nature of human societies, as the extensive quotations from me in the above passages from Lyons’ essay would indicate. Just as Lyons’ critique of my economic outlook provides, on a general level, an illustration of the historic differences between the Marxist and Anarchist approaches to political economy, so does his critique also exemplify one of the most crucial philosophical conflicts in the history of modern Western political philosophy. This is the battle between egalitarianism and non-egalitarianism. This conflict is not necessarily a struggle between the Left and Right. As no less a man of the Right than Richard Spencer has observed:

 

…in my fantasyland, there would still be a Left and a Right—and granolas and libertarians and animal rights activists and Mormons, et al.—but they would operate within Western unity and natural hierarchy.

Some, no doubt, might counter that you can’t have a “non-egalitarian Left.” But I don’t agree with this at all. Jack London was a collectivist; HL Mencken, an anarchist; both were “leftists,” of sorts, and both rejected egalitarianism. And they both operated on a different planet than the whole spectrum of contemporary Leftists and Rightists, from Glenn Beck to Cornell West.

To this list of anti-egalitarian liberals and leftists could be added the socialist George Bernard Shaw, the anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and the classical liberal John Stuart Mill, all of whom expressed skepticism of the tendency of modern democracy towards ochlocracy. In his discussions of the conflicting visions of humanity and society found in traditional Western thought, Thomas Sowell has identified Plato as a proto-typical utopian radical and Aristotle as a proto-typical conservative realist. Yet it is interesting to note that neither of these two of the greatest thinkers from antiquity were egalitarians.

It should be a matter of common understanding that human beings are not “equal” on either an innate or behavioral level. Wide variation exists among human types with regards to both intellectual ability and physical or psychological fitness. It is therefore obvious that any sort of prosperous civilization with functional institutions must rank the intelligent over the stupid, the healthy over the diseased, the physically fit over the disabled, and the psychologically stable over the mentally disturbed. Persons with Down’s syndrome are not going to be neurosurgeons. Stratification must also exist whereby the wise are ranked over the foolish, the competent over the incompetent, the sober over drunks and addicts, the productive over the lazy, and so forth. Not even the most ideologically rigid leftist-anarchist commune could survive for very long and tolerate freeloaders, moochers, predators, or perpetually destructive or disruptive individuals, no matter how fervently committed the communards were to their egalitarian ideals.

More…

A Reply to Matthew Lyons, Part Two: The Subjectivity of Authoritarianism and Special Pleading as Ideology 28

This is the second in a series of essays in response to Matthew Lyons’ critique “Rising Above the Herd: Keith Preston’s Authoritarian Anti-Statism.” And here is the transcript of a recent lecture by Lyons where yours truly gets a couple of mentions. Part One may be viewed here.

by Keith Preston

“If the individual cannot get along with the community, and the community cannot tolerate the individual, what real good will state intervention produce—wouldn’t separation be, in any world, the rational, noncoercive, nonviolent solution? Yes, it might be possible to contrive a state process that would force a Jewish Community to accept the Nazi Individual, or a White Community the despised Black, or a Fundamentalist Community the threatening Atheist. But it needs only for the principle of free travel to be observed—to the advantage of both the leavers and the stayers—and the Nazi, the Black, the Atheist can all find congenial communities of their own. The virtue of a multi-communitied world would be precisely that there would be within its multitude of varieties a home for everyone.”

Kirkpatrick Sale

“Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany is a horror; Adolf Hitler at a town meeting would be an asshole.”

–Karl Hess

“When a previously disadvantaged group rises to power, it exploits its new position just as did the group or groups it has displaced.”

-Mark A. Schneider, American sociologist

“The ultimate aim of multiculturalism is the creation of a totalitarian state ordered as a type of caste system where individual privilege is assigned on the basis of group identity and group privilege is assigned on the basis of the position of the group in the pantheon of the oppressed.”

-Keith Preston

The core aspects of Lyons’ objections to my own outlook are fairly well summarized in the following passages from his critique, and these comments from Lyons are also fairly representative of the most common arguments against my views offered by Leftists:

Preston only acknowledges oppression along lines of race, gender, sexuality, or other factors to the extent that these are directly promoted by the state, particularly through formal, legal discrimination against specific groups of people. Arguing that “the state is a unique force for destruction,” Preston ignores or trivializes the dense network of oppressive institutions and relationships that exist outside of, and sometimes in opposition to, the state. It is these societally based systems of oppression, not state intervention, that perpetuate dramatic wealth disparities between whites and people of color, widespread domestic violence that overwhelmingly target women, and suicide rates much higher among LGBT teens than heterosexual teens, among many other examples.

Preston portrays secession as a voluntary process, in which many varied groups of people decide to go their own separate ways and coexist peaceably side by side. But what does “voluntary” mean in a context where wives are expected to submit to the authority of their husbands, workers to obey their bosses, or homosexuality is regarded as a perversion and a crime? And how long would peaceable coexistence last in the face of absolutist ideologies that are inherently expansionist? The leaders of a Christian Right statelet would believe that homosexuality and feminism are wrong not only within the statelet’s borders, but everywhere, and they would feel a religious duty to enforce this belief as widely as possible.

The bottom line is that the primary objection to anarcho-pluralism, pan-secessionism, national-anarchism, anarcho-libertarianism and overlapping perspectives raised by leftists such as Lyons is their fear that some individuals, institutions, organizations, or communities is such a meta-political framework will practice values disapproved of by leftists or engage in discrimination against groups favored by leftists. The selective and arbitrary nature of such criticism is easy enough to identify. Imagine if a right-wing critic of anarcho-pluralism were to make comments such as the following:

Preston only acknowledges oppression resulting from liberalism and the Left to the extent that these are directly promoted by the state, particularly through formal, legal discrimination against specific groups of people. Arguing that “the state is a unique force for destruction,” Preston ignores or trivializes the dense network of oppressive institutions and relationships that exist outside of, and sometimes in opposition to, the state. It is these societally based systems of oppression, not state intervention, that perpetuate dramatic disparities in  the rate of violent crimes perpetrated against whites by blacks and Hispanics, widespread dissemination of pornography that contributes to sex crimes and social decay, and the promotion of drug use, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality leading to teen pregnancy, illegitimacy, drug abuse, broken families, child neglect, venereal diseases, crime, welfare dependency and other social pathologies .

Preston portrays secession as a voluntary process, in which many varied groups of people decide to go their own separate ways and coexist peaceably side by side. But what does “voluntary” mean in a context where leftist localities have the option of banning private firearms and private property, where urban white families have to live among and send their children to schools with violent black youth, or where Christianity is regarded as a backward superstition and a dangerous threat to freedom and progress? And how long would peaceable coexistence last in the face of absolutist ideologies that are inherently expansionist? The leaders of a Marxist statelet would believe that Christianity and private property are wrong not only within the statelet’s borders, but everywhere, and they would feel an ideological duty to enforce this belief as widely as possible.

Such criticisms would correctly be dismissed as special pleading on behalf of right-wing ideological values, political interest groups and favorite causes. One of the principal ideas behind anarcho-pluralism is the recognition that irreconcilable differences between different political factions and population groups will always exist, and the need to establish societal institutions that are capable of accommodating such differences in a way that avoids both bloodshed and the subjugation of some groups by others. With regards to the “authoritarianism” question, it is necessary to point out that abstract notions like “freedom,” “liberty,” and so forth are understood in radically different ways by different kinds of people. Lyons gives no evidence that his own ideological preferences are somehow decreed by the cosmos, by some divine creator, or by natural law. The bottom line is that the political and social preferences of leftists like Lyons reflect the subjective value judgments of individuals and groups in the same manner as any other kind of assertion of ideological principles. Leftism is ultimately just another tribe like Christianity, Islam, fascism, libertarianism, Satanism, or veganism.

The selectivity of Lyons’ criticisms is further illustrated by his choice of which groups to attack from the list of potential constituents for anarcho-pluralism that I have identified. He focuses on three of these: the League of the South, Christian Exodus, and believers in Christian Identity. He chooses not offer any criticism of “Marxist-Leninists,” “Islamic rightists,” “people of color nationalist movements,” “militant environmentalists,” and so forth. It is only those tendencies that claim to speak for the interests of white Christians that he seems particularly concerned about. This raises the question of whether it is really “authoritarianism” that Lyons is worried about or whether it is merely white Christians as a general population group whom he regards as the problem with political “authoritarianism” not really being all that important if it is controlled by leftists and their allies or constituents.

More…

Left and Right Contrasted: A Reply to Larry Gambone 4

I recently commented on Larry Gambone’s explanation for “conservative support among ordinary people.” See the earlier post which includes a link to Larry’s initial comments. Larry’s critique of the Right provoked a lot of negative comments from our readers, even among those who lean leftward in many ways. I was actually somewhat surprised by that. Larry has since added some follow up comments to his original post, in particular a response to our colleague Quagmire. Read the thread here. Here are some observations of my own in reply to some of Larry’s arguments:

Working people have been under attack from right-wing and right-wing ideology-influenced governments for the past 30 years. Living standards and working conditions have declined because of this.

No disagreement here. Neoliberalism is a class war against the bottom layers.

Right-wingers don’t believe in freedom from the government, they are hypocrites in this regard. State capitalism is fine as long as it serves THEIR interests. The biggest aspect of out of control government spending is the military, but they are not for cutting that. The biggest form of government interference on the populace has to do with the War For Drugs, they are not for abolishing this and ceasing to treat addiction as a crime. The contrary here in Canada, they wish to do away with the previous government’s baby steps toward a rational policy re drugs.

This is certainly true of the mainstream neocon-led, Republican-oriented Right. I’ve written a substantial amount of material over the years attacking all of this. But these criticisms do not necessarily apply to all factions of the Right. There are plenty of dissident rightists-libertarians, palecons, alternative rightists-who oppose some or all of these.

The left does not wish to force people to have an abortion, or to make everyone smoke pot, nor does it try to stuff religion down everyones throat – but the right does.

I’ve encountered plenty of liberals and leftists, at least in the U.S., who support drug prohibition, though I agree such sentiments are more prevalent among “conservatives.” But it’s also true that liberals and leftists have plenty of statist preferences of their own. They may favor legal abortion, but they want to ban private firearms. Many of them wish to ban smoking in pubs and other forms of statist intrusiveness. In areas of the US that are the most leftward leaning, there have been efforts to ban foods not conforming to the therapeutic values of the Left. San Francisco tried to enact a ban on giving away toys with fast food. There are plenty of feminists who wish to censor pornography and criminalize sex workers or their clients. There are plenty of leftists who wish to ban literature or other forms of media deemed racist or sexist. In areas of the US where secularism is the strongest, children can be punished in school for saying a prayer before a meal or possessing a Bible, crucifix or other religious artifacts.

Jemmy Hope said: And they have Fox News and the rest of Murdoch’s propaganda machine to do it. What have we got? Money talks, spouts lies.

Neocon mouthpieces like FOX and talk radio are a minority  among the mainstream US media. The bulk of the American media reflects the standard corporate liberal outlook, e.g. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.

Take the economic effects of immigration – they are minimal and if people were really interested in having people stay home rather than immigrate they would be front and centre in helping to overcome the problems that cause the immigration in the first place.

If the economic effects of mass immigration are minimal, why do neoliberal mouthpieces like the Wall Street Journal push open borders so fervently? Mass immigration is about creating a helot class in North America that replaces the traditional working class in the emerging Brasillianized/McDonaldized economy. The Left goes along with this because they see immigrants as prospective political constituents and  allies in the culture/race war.

Where are the right-wingers fighting against NAFTA or the US meddling in the affairs of Mexico and Central America? No, they blame and attack the immigrants instead.

Again, that’s true of the mainstream Right, not necessarily the dissident Right. I’ve been attacking corporate imperialism and US military interventionism for twenty-five years.

As for abortion, the anti-abortion types cry copiously over a match-head size fetus, but 20,000,000 REAL children dying every year of malnutrition and lack of potable water?

That’s true of some pro-lifers, but not all. You find a greater interest in “social justice,” for lack of a better term, among younger pro-lifers and evangelical Christians, for instance.

And it IS sexism to deny a woman’s right to chose. If anti-abortionists were only against abortions for themselves, no one would complain, yet they wish to impose their views on other women. Also the anti-abortionist ideology stems from patriarchal religion, which by its very nature is misogynist.

The problem with this is that there are plenty of women, probably as many as there are men, in the pro-life movement. And conservative religious denominations, at least in the US, typically have more female participants than male ones.

In other words, even though some leftists might be a bit extreme with these claims from time to time, in general the analysis bears up, and thus the left is rational and the right based upon prejudice and fear.

That’s a fairly presumptuous statement. What about the lengthy history of bloody terrorism and repression sponsored by leftist movements and regimes?

The left has been successful in changing the language, but not necessarily the underlying feelings. At one time people were proud to declare themselves racists and spiced their conversation with racial and ethnic slurs. Same goes with women or gays. Few men would declare that women are inferior or that gays are criminal and should be persecuted.

Well, nowadays people can be criminally prosecuted for criticizing Islam or homosexuality. So things have come full circle. In a nation where only 13% of the population is black, a black man was elected head of state. That would have been unthinkable back in the 1950s. The bottom line is that the culture war is over, and the Left has scored a knock out victory.

One attempts to cover ones prejudices with seeming rational or moral claims. Code words are used, such as “crime”, which refers to Blacks. It now becomes the task of the critical thinker to extricate the prejudice from within the mass of polite verbiage and supposed economic and moral reasons.

In some instances, but violent street crime among minority groups is a genuinely serious problem in US society. It’s not just racist whites who are concerned about this. Blacks and other racial minorities are among the primary victims of this kind of crime. For instance, many blacks who wish to live in a white neighborhood will cite fear of crime in black neighborhoods as their motivation.

A standard principle of conflict theory is that former outgroups become just as abusive and oppressive as whatever they replaced upon gaining power. We’re seeing that now with the Left that has gained power since the 60s, 70s, and 80s.