Preston vs. Bolton Reply

I bash John Bolton on Iranian television.

US National Security Adviser, John Bolton has tough words for China: adjust your behavior in trade, international, military and political arenas or else! Bolton says President Donald Trump has pledged to ramp up his administration’s pressure on China. He says the president believes China is the major issue of the century and that Beijing has long taken advantage of the international order without objections from the US. Washington and Beijing are currently engaged in a bitter trade war. The Trump administration has also accused China of trying to undermine the president ahead of next month’s congressional elections, something Beijing has denied. The US also accuses China of reckless military actions in the South China Sea.

 

Left/Post-Left Anarchism vs. Keith Preston, Part 2 8

The second part of The Brilliant’s discussion of yours truly. Listen here.

The host’s comments:

“I have been wanting to talk about the line between tribalism and nationalism for years but it is a challenge. All sides take the conversation very seriously ON THE INTERNET whereas my experience IRL isn’t quite the same. I’ve found people willing to joke and tease each other about the categories that do and don’t exist and our participation in them. I’ve found the hyperbole of tough guys, banning, gatekeeping, and racist bullshit to be quite rare in the corporal world. Not as much in the ether.

Right-anarchist Keith Preston sent me a copy of a very interesting (and disturbing) magazine called Tribes that points straight at the issue calling itself a “National Anarchist magazine.” I did a conversation with KP where I tried to tease out the issue of how you can discuss nation in any meaningful way without discussing race (or the nation state tbh) and here is what he had to say about it.

I simply described myself as a “racial atheist,” meaning I have no racial beliefs. And then he was like “But these folks do….” and I simply said that there are many people who do not have racial/ethnic beliefs in the N-A milieu, and those who do are very diverse in terms of their perspective on those issues, and that people of color were among the N-A milieu as well.

To which I’d respond, why call yourself a national anarchist at all? How is a nation defined (especially if you use it in the sense that the Tribes editorial does as in nation = tribes)? I’d then laugh at the use of the term atheist in the same breath as race. You can claim all humans are of the same biological race (and I’d agree) but to say that “Race does not exist” is laughably stupid.

But let’s not get distracted. If the post-modern definition of a nation, or a tribe, is possible, which I’m not sure it is, the place where it was articulated best was in the 80’s by the (not)anarchist, (not)utopian book bolo’bolo. Filled with a world where alco-bolos and les-bolos live together in perfect harmony. Let’s talk about this body of ideas in a context we share… which obviously doesn’t involve KP.

In this two episode block we discuss our discomfort with KP’s approach (the first two episodes focus on the nationalism question in the context of bolo’bolo, the third on the context of bolo’bolo itself) and ask how to discuss nationalism at all in a modern (ie dramaful) context.”

 

Left/Post-Left Anarchism vs. Keith Preston, Part 1 Reply

Listen to the podcast from The Brilliant here.

The host’s comments:

“I have been wanting to talk about the line between tribalism and nationalism for years but it is a challenge. All sides take the conversation very seriously ON THE INTERNET whereas my experience IRL isn’t quite the same. I’ve found people willing to joke and tease each other about the categories that do and don’t exist and our participation in them. I’ve found the hyperbole of tough guys, banning, gatekeeping, and racist bullshit to be quite rare in the corporal world. Not as much in the ether.

Right-anarchist Keith Preston sent me a copy of a very interesting (and disturbing) magazine called Tribes that points straight at the issue calling itself a “National Anarchist magazine.” I did a conversation with KP where I tried to tease out the issue of how you can discuss nation in any meaningful way without discussing race (or the nation state tbh) and here is what he had to say about it.

I simply described myself as a “racial atheist,” meaning I have no racial beliefs. And then he was like “But these folks do….” and I simply said that there are many people who do not have racial/ethnic beliefs in the N-A milieu, and those who do are very diverse in terms of their perspective on those issues, and that people of color were among the N-A milieu as well.

To which I’d respond, why call yourself a national anarchist at all? How is a nation defined (especially if you use it in the sense that the Tribes editorial does as in nation = tribes)? I’d then laugh at the use of the term atheist in the same breath as race. You can claim all humans are of the same biological race (and I’d agree) but to say that “Race does not exist” is laughably stupid.

But let’s not get distracted. If the post-modern definition of a nation, or a tribe, is possible, which I’m not sure it is, the place where it was articulated best was in the 80’s by the (not)anarchist, (not)utopian book bolo’bolo. Filled with a world where alco-bolos and les-bolos live together in perfect harmony. Let’s talk about this body of ideas in a context we share… which obviously doesn’t involve KP.

In this two episode block we discuss our discomfort with KP’s approach (the first two episodes focus on the nationalism question in the context of bolo’bolo, the third on the context of bolo’bolo itself) and ask how to discuss nationalism at all in a modern (ie dramaful) context.”

Unraveling Political Theory – How Would You Design The Government? 1

In episode 11 of Unraveling Political Theory, Tim and Keith are joined by founder and editor of The Last American Vagabond, Ryan Cristian, to discuss solutions; how they would each rebuild the government if given the chance, or at least how they image it would operate in a truly free society. To understand the world of politics and change it for the better, it’s paramount that people begin to study political theory and the ways in which it has manifest throughout history up into the present day. By bringing light to the origins of political and philosophical thought, the present day becomes all the more explainable because one is now able to see the logical progression of such manifestations.

Political Correctness Is Apparently Widely Unpopular Among All Americans Reply

The recently released study indicating the deep unpopularity of political correctness, as well as the marginal nature of both PC partisans and the hard right, carries certain implications for the ATS strategy and program. First, there is no need whatsoever to capitulate or kowtow to PC, and that the strategy that I have been pursing for years now of bashing PC to the max is a winning strategy (in fact, it’s probably brought me a larger audience than anything else I have ever done). However, a second implication is that the far left and far right are only peripheral and unpopular elements that are soundly rejected by most Americans. But the catch is that the rival ruling class factions attempt to build a loyal base for themselves by pandering to far left and far right extremists. Therefore, those of use who are committed to an authentically revolutionary perspective must necessarily position ourselves as a radical center that not only rejects the ruling class in its entirety, but also rejects the marginal right and marginal left with equal fervor. When it comes to the Antifa, “anarcho”-Marxists, neo-Commies, PC progressives, Alt-Right/Lite, WN/NS,  neo-fascists, or religious theocrats, our attitude should simply be, “Fuck ’em. We don’t ’em.” Instead, our target audience should be the “exhausted majority” who are tired of both ruling class malfeasance, and the crap on the margins.

Study: 80% of Americans Believe Political Correctness Is a Problem Reply

Read the study here. It’s excellent.

The study confirms two things I had previously thought. One is that PCers are a small minority that is largely concentrated among mostly white, affluent, educated professionals (the left-wing of the upper middle class). The reason they’re so loud is because they tend to be concentrated in areas where they have a platform (media, education, entertainment, left-wing of the professional class, the public sector bureaucracy, corporate PR offices, left-wing clergy, etc.) The second is that hardcore partisans in the other direction are a small minority as well (notice that while “progressive activists” are 8%, the “devoted conservatives” are only 6%). The “culture wars” represent a rivalry among the elite (“old money,” Sunbelt industries, and right-wing Zionists vs the techno-oligarch/new clerisy alliance), with each faction reaching out to far right and far left extremists in order to build a constituency for themselves. This is why for 20 years I have been saying that anarchists, libertarians, and other radicals need to abandon “culture war” politics which merely feeds the objectives of different ruling class factions. The Left has been almost completely bought off by the techno-oligarchs/new clerisy (with the exception of some far left anti-imperialists). And the Right has been almost completely bought off by the right-wing of the ruling class (with the exception of some extreme rightists who reject the current system).

By Robby Soave

Reason

Except among a tiny minority of far-left Americans, political correctness (P.C.) is deeply unpopular. Some 80 percent of people said they viewed P.C. excess as a problem.

More…

For a Less Divided America, Let People Pick Their Own Laws Reply

By J.D. Tuccille

Reason

After last week’s hearings on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it became pretty obvious that the questions, answers, tears, and grandstanding had changed few, if any, minds. “Today felt very much like an update of the 1850s: 2 very distinct parts of US that no longer care to even fake that they respect or value the other,” tweeted Ronald Brownstein of CNN and The Atlantic.

The 1850s? We know how that ended: badly. Why not head off continued conflict by letting these “very distinct parts” of the U.S. be even more distinct—so much so that there’s less for them to battle over. We could even break with the past and try political solutions that let people live side by side without submitting to the authority of opponents they neither respect not value.

Brownstein wasn’t the only observer to notice the political breach—a breach that appears to be growing.

“It is hard to believe that Democrats and Republicans were watching the same hearings,” the YouGov polling firm marveled while reporting that Democrats disbelieved Kavanaugh and believed Ford, his accuser, in almost exactly the same numbers that Republicans disbelieved Ford and believed Kavanaugh.

READ MORE

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia 1

By Yascha Mounk

The Atlantic

James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian, the scholars behind the hoaxJames A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian, the scholars behind the hoax.

Over the past 12 months, three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.

We’ve been here before.

READ MORE

Tucker Carlson Pretends To Be Against Elites On Fox & Friends Reply

Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk has a pretty good critique of Tucker Carlson, and Trumpism generally, that I think is largely accurate, although I disagree with Kulinski’s embrace of Bernie Sanders’ neo-Rooseveltian perspective as the fallback position, and Kulinski clearly does not criticize the Left strongly enough, and is too dismissive of immigration critics, which involves issues that are far more complicated than what he recognizes.

National-Anarchism as anarchism Reply

An interesting discussion of N-A on reddit. Not sure if others here have seen it. It’s interesting in places, along with a lot of the usual stuff. Read it here.

The key issue in these debate is should anarchist be limited to leftists only, or does anarchism transcend the usual left/right/center categorizations? I think everyone knows my position.  Some of the comments in that thread remind me of this skit from SNL: