Two gay Jewish guys bashing totalitarian humanism. Excellent!
Milo Yiannopoulos (journalist) joins Dave Rubin, discussing Milo’s support for Donald Trump, the terror attacks in Brussels, censorship on social media (including Milo’s blue check being taken away on Twitter), free speech, and more.
Over at the Inferno: my latest love letter to the kind of “peacekeepers” nobody needs.
Ostensibly formed as a global peacekeeping organisation in the wake of World War II, the United Nations, or U.N., has, over time, made it clear that the peace it means to impose on the world resembles the pax Romana (or pax Islama), mandated and managed by way of a top-down global hegemon.
For all the criticisms levelled at desert pirates Daesh, their M.O. seems to resemble the U.N.’s in several key ways, with its fatwa-friendliness, universalist aspredations*, and a heralded, hypocritical hard-on for pious prohibition and penile predation. If one didn’t know any better, it’d be easy to suspect the Muslim Männerbund of taking more than a few notes.
Bill Lind on why the GOP is merely the right-wing of totalitarian humanism.
By William S. Lind
From Washington a panicked Republican Establishment is denouncing Donald Trump as “not a conservative”. The Establishment claims custody of the word “conservative” and with it the right to pronounce who is one and who isn’t. But in fact, it is the Establishment’s definition of “conservatism” that is not conservative.
The Republican Establishment’s platform has three main elements: Jacobinism, globalism, and cultural Marxism. Not one of the three is conservative, in terms of what the word “conservatism” has traditionally meant. On the contrary, all three, seen historically, are anti-conservative. They represent forces conservatism has struggled against.
Jacobinism originated in the French Revolution, one of the two great catastrophes the West has suffered in modern times (the other is World War I, which saw Jacobinism re-emerge as Wilsonianism). The Jacobins were the most radical element in Revolutionary France, the origin of the Terror. They believed in democracy and equality, both to be forced down everyone’s throat at home and abroad. France murdered thousands of her own people and brought war to much of Europe in that quest. In the end, even Robespierre, perhaps the best-known Jacobin, admitted that missionaries with bayonets are seldom welcome.
By Aleksey Bashtavenko
“And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew, 18:13
“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor
In the aftermath of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, America was in for a drastic change. In stark contrast to the 1940s and 50s that were characterized by order and respect for authority, the cultural revolution raged on through the 1960s. Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded Kennedy and energetically responded to the public demand for social change by legislating the Civil Rights of 1964, effectively de-legalizing segregation. Galvanized by Martin Luther King’s fiery oratory, the Black community aggressively challenged institutions they viewed as racist and oppressive. College students rallied against the Vietnam war and the authoritarian formalism of campus administrators.
Echoing the tumultuous spirit of the times, student activist Mario Savio urged his peers to put their bodies upon “the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus” and “to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”. Contemporaneously, the seditious spirit reigned in Eastern Europe as Soviet forces quelled the Prague Spring and less than a decade ago, the Warsaw Pact subdued the Hungarian uprising. Even the USSR underwent a period of “De-Stalinization” under Kruschev’s leadership.
It has probably never occurred to quite a few anarchists that racial persecution is a bad idea, regardless of the skin colors involved, or that oppression by reactionary Communists is just as bad as oppression by reactionary Fascists.
The full transcript of my recent interview with the C-Realm podcast.
KMO: You are listening to the CRealm podcast. I’m your host, KMO. And I’m speaking with Keith Preston of Attack the System. Keith, welcome to the CRealm podcast.
Keith Preston: Thank you for having me.
KMO: I have been listening to your podcasts. I live in New York city. My children live near Baltimore, and I drive there every now and again to visit them. And so, I have a lot of time to listen to big chunks of people’s podcast archives. So, just recently I listened to probably 3 or 4 of your shows over the course of a couple of days. And they’re pretty dense, I have to say, and erudite. Very impressive. And I feel like I have been enriched by those drives.
Preston: Oh. Well, thank you.
KMO: You have a great turn of phrase that I want to get around to, and that is “totalitarian humanism.” But rather than dive right into that, I would like to invite you to just say more about your general project of the work that you do with podcasting and writing.
“I just read the most extraordinary paper by two sociologists — Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning — explaining why concerns about microaggressions have erupted on many American college campuses in just the past few years. In brief: We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They foreswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.
Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized.”
KMO talks to Keith Preston of Attack the System about the historical trajectory of the Neocons and why they’re likely to be moving back to the Democratic party if and when the current Republican coalition fractures. Keith also describes the roll of “useful idiots” on both the left and the right and how they empower elites who only pretend to share the values and interests of their constituents.
This article from World Nut Daily raises an interesting question.
It would appear that in regions of the U.S. where the Blue Tribe is especially dominant, there is an effort to fully eradicate references to the traditional American past. Even in the conservative South, there have efforts to remove references to the Confederacy, which is somewhat understandable from a “pro-American” perspective given that, after all, the Confederacy was a separatist revolutionary movement (and good for them), and from a civil rights perspective given that the Confederacy was a slavocracy. However, there have also been efforts to remove references to Christopher Columbus (for obvious anti-racist or anti-colonial reasons), and increasingly I come across reports on attacks against the “founding fathers” of the United States as well (which also makes sense from a leftist perspective given their rather un-PC views on many things). However, the sum total of this is to essentially delegitimize the traditional American nationalism. If you dismiss America’s “founding fathers” as racist, sexist, classist, homophobic whatevers, then obviously there’s not much case for the traditional American patriotism.
A good discussion of how totalitarian humanism has become the ideological superstructure of the ruling class and the state.
Lecture by Jeff Deist
Because gender equality means that everyone must be obligated to serve the empire. The latest in totalitarian humanism.
By Dan Lamonthe
The top officers in the Army and Marine Corps testified on Tuesday that they believe it is time for women to register for future military drafts, following the Pentagon’s recent decision to open all jobs in combat units to female service members.
Gen. Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army, and Gen. Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, both said they were in favor of the change during an occasionally contentious Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the full integration of women in the military. The generals, both infantry officers, offered their opinions in response to a question from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who said that she also is in favor of the change.
“Senator, I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft,” said Milley, echoing the remarks of Neller.
[Why the Pentagon opening all combat roles to women could subject them to a military draft]
Here’s the transcript.
To the People of Europe,
Fate lays upon me the task of writing you from distant shores. My name is Augustus Invictus, and I am a candidate for the United States Senate. Though I am an American, I am by blood a son of Europe. My ancestry is British, my name Roman, my religion pan-European. I am trained in Anglo-American law, educated in continental philosophy and politics, steeped in Western aesthetic. Though Florida may be a great distance from my ancestral land of Scotland, I am in blood and in soul your brother.
And though I am an American politician, the issues I raise in my campaign for the Senate here affect every man, woman, and child of the West. I write to you today not to condescend or to advertise my American arrogance, but to call for the unity of all Westerners against the powers that would destroy our people.
From New Zealand & Australia to the United States & Canada, and even to South Africa, we share a common civilization, born of Europe. This is impolitic to say in any country, and it is now evidence of “hate speech” in several. We must ask ourselves why the self-described elites in our respective countries would keep us divided, why they would insist that we have no common culture, why they would insist that we take literally countless immigrants into countries callously neglecting their rightful sons and daughters.
I hope that we may come to see each other as fellows. I pray that we may come to cherish what we share more than we might lament the differences between us. Though we have warred, though we have viewed each other with great suspicion, these misfortunes are, I hope, passed. We share a common bond that the millions of immigrants recently recruited to our ancestral land will never share. We, as Westerners, are brothers, though long-separated; they are foreigners being imported by your own governments to destroy the proud heritage and people of Europe.
Your officials have betrayed you.
An interesting interview from Red Ice Radio. Listen here.
Vox Day is a writer, a professional game designer and a three-time Billboard top 40 recording artist. He is the author of “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police.”
We’ll discuss how Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing. Vox explains how the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality. We also anticipate the new frontier for SJW’s and talk about Salon’s piece by a self-confessed pedophile to explain his urges in sympathetic terms, “I’m a Pedophile, But Not A Monster.”
Later, Vox gives the 3 laws of a SJW and lays out their operating system: always lie, always double down and always project. He gives advice on what to do when SJW’s attack, usually hoping it will result in social ostracism and the loss of employment for the attackee. Vox provides the keys to counterattack.
Great interview with Augustus by Lana Lokteff. Listen here.
Augustus Invictus is an attorney and community leader in Orlando, Florida who is a candidate in the 2016 US Senate election. Best known as a radical philosopher and infamous social critic, he is Managing Partner of Imperium, P.A., the law firm he founded in 2013. As an attorney, Augustus has worked to defend those who have become collateral damage of America’s two longest-running wars: the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
Augustus begins with an explanation of the name he has chosen to identify with, along with the mystical path that led him to study law and eventually pursue politics. He talks about his affiliation with the Libertarian Party (LP) and the problems he sees with its watered down, mainstream message. Augustus describes the main issues he aspires to tackle as Senator: the drug war, foreign policy, and the financial crisis. We get into the customary LP stances on open borders, immigration and equality, and we look at how these key concerns have been muddled with leftist contention. Augustus shares his view on the problems that will ensue for Libertarian ideals if non-Westerners continue to flood into America, and he also speaks to the Marxist degeneracy that has infected pop culture and the educational system. Then, we discuss the absence of natural law and hierarchy in the current US government system, along with the tyrannical forces pushing oppressive mandatory regulations, censorship and hate speech laws. At the end, Augustus sums up the actions he is taking to tackle the looney left’s war on White men and inspire a resurrection of the American front.
Slavoj Žižek doesn’t buy into political correctness. In fact, it frightens him. The famed philosopher and social critic describes political correctness as a tacit form of totalitarianism, an act of coercion built upon the premise that “I know better than you what you really want.”
This isn’t to say that people should be allowed to go around treating others poorly, but Žižek argues that employing coercion and scare tactics to instill a state of forced behavior completely missed the point. To Žižek, the kinds of obscenity targeted by political correctness are much more effective at breeding a sense of shared solidarity than most alternatives.
Read more at BigThink.com: http://goo.gl/X1zzcJ
Follow Big Think here:
Transcript: Of course I have nothing against the fact that your boss treats you in a nice way and so on. The problem is if this not only covers up the actual relationship of power but makes it even more impenetrable. You know, if you have a boss who is up there, the old fashioned boss shouting at you, exerting full brutal authority. In a way it’s much easier to rebel than to have a friendly boss who embraces you or how was the last night with your girlfriend, blah, blah, all that buddy stuff. Well then it almost appears impolite to protest. But I will give you an example, an old story that I often use to make it clear what do I mean by this. Imagine you or me, I’m a small boy. It’s Sunday afternoon. My father wants me to visit our grandmother. Let’s say my father is a traditional authority. What would he be doing? He would probably tell me something like I don’t care how you feel, it’s your duty to visit your grandmother. Be polite to her and so on. Nothing bad about this I claim because I can still rebel and so on. It’s a clear order.
But what would the so called post-modern non-authoritarian father do? I know because I experienced it. He would have said something like this. You know how much your grandmother loves you but nonetheless I’m not forcing you to visit her. You should only visit her if you freely decide to do it. Now every child knows that beneath the appearance of free choice there is a much stronger pressure in this second message.
This blogger from The Divided Line explains why. I generally agree with what is being said here. Although I think the Left’s concept of “repressive tolerance” clearly has its roots in Marcuse, it’s overly simplistic to explain totalitarian humanism merely as an inversion of Marxism.
At around 50:00, Mr. Spencer says “the left is the establishment,” and he’s right, but it’s only the cultural establishment. The economic and defense establishment is very much hard right. It has been since Reagan and Thatcher, since the mainstream bourgeois left opposition which followed them pulled their parties to the right in the 1990s on economic and foreign policy.
The people in power care about money and American military hegemony, not race or culture, and American military hegemony means Western European military hegemony since it is largely still under the American pax that was established after WWII. The establishment uses meaningless left wing identity politics to sell people on right wing neoliberal economic policy. That’s why they keep trying to use “humanitarian intervention” as an excuse to start this or that war. More…
It’s interesting to compare this critique of the Left with this article on the alleged fascist threat by David Neiwert.
By Paul Gottfried
A recent incident in Wallingford, Connecticut, not far from where I grew up, caused VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow to comment: “Cultural Marxist totalitarianism is coming to an America near you.” A complaint was lodged with the local police that “hate” merchandise— Nazi and Confederate memorabilia—was being publicly exhibited and sold at a popular flea market. Following a police investigation, an Anti-Defamation League official named Joshua Sayles expressed the view that “It’s unfortunate that under the law people have the right to sell these things; but it doesn’t mean they should sell these things. It’s not a crime but I would call it hate…”[Wallingford police look into complaint about Nazi, Confederate items sold at flea market, by Mary Ellen Godin, Record-Journal, July 10, 2015].
Sean Gabb describes the transformation of the Left from civil libertarians to totalitarian humanists.
By Dr. Sean Gabb
Any system of criminal justice worth the name needs to reconcile humanity with certainty. On the one hand, part of the function of the criminal law is deterrent. When you know that you will go to prison for six months if you smash someone’s window, you may be less inclined to pick up the stone than if you believe you may get an absolute discharge or a whipping. Another part of the system’s function is to match severity of sentencing to the perceived gravity of offences. We need to see that breaking a window is less of a crime than breaking someone’s nose, and that murder is much more of a crime than either.
by Keir Martland
Another year is over and as exactly one year ago to this day I wrote a review of 2014, I shall do the same today for 2015.
The General Election
The first political event to spring to mind is of course the May 2015 General Election. A longer campaign than usual, it was perhaps more overtly leftist in its tone than any of the twenty first century. UKIP, itself having veered to the left to accommodate new Old Labour members, proved no counter-weight to the leftism of the other parties.