by Keith Preston
Someone showed me these comments about myself on the “Stormfront” white nationalist site. Read them here.
Now why is it that even fascists, Nazis, and “white supremacists” can discuss my perspective with some level of honesty, accuracy, and intelligence, but anarcho-leftoids can’t? What is it about contemporary anarchism that it seems to attract such dregs? Are such elements simply a manifestation of the decay of our civilization in its most extreme form? How did an ideological movement that is supposedly so visionary and far-sighted degenerate to its present level? Perhaps Ortega y Gasset had the answer to this perplexing question.
Most anarcho-leftoids are the products of the very institutions that have contributed to the general reigning idiocracy: public schools, universities, the mass media, the therapeutic-welfare state, and the prevailing PC ideology that dominates all of these. Plus, a lot of them have gotten this stuff from their parents.
In other words, they think of themselves as “rebelling” against society by espousing PC platitudes and trendy causes because the System has indoctrinated them to think this is what being a “rebel” really means. Keep in mind that the prevaling ideology of the present ruling class is: “Permanent Revolution Against American Society as It Was in 1950″ until we were liberated from the dark ages of racism, sexism, homophobia, ablism, looksism, speciesism, fuel-inefficient automobiles, sexual repression and all that. For this ideology to have any legitimacy, the ruling class has to perpetually put out the claim that a coup by the neo-fascist, Christian-Right, global warming denialist, yadda, yadda, yadda, lurks just around the corner and will bring us back to the days of segregated lunch counters, masturbation taboos, and DDT. This is why shysters like the ADL and the SPLC are so wealthy. This is the ideology that is disseminated by schools, the media, university humanities departments, the entertainment industry, and other usual suspects. It’s also more common in institutions like the military, the corporate world, the police and other supposed “conservative” institutions than many people realize.
The so-called “conservatives” that are demonized so vociferously by the Left are really just a manifestation of the hawkish, less internationalist, more America-centric and pro-Likud wing of the ruling class, who are usually just as culturally cosmopolitan as anything on the Left, at least at the elite level. The neocons and their allies in the corporate and military sectors play to the social conservatism of the yahoos who listen to talk radio, but it’s just a ruse. The ironic thing is that the Left believes the neocons’ propaganda just as fervently as the talk radio fans.
I’m not being facetious here. I know college students who thought that John Roberts’ appointment to the Supreme Court really did mean a return to “whites only” water fountains. I know thirtysomethings with graduate educations who teach history in public schools and think that the present-day religious right and the eugenics movement from the early 20th c are the same thing. They think some nut like Fred Phelps really does represent the values of Middle America. The level of ignorance I have found among so-called “educated” people is really rather astounding. In fact, I don’t think so-called “educated” people are the primary constituency for the kind of radical movement I envision at all. For instance, the Zogby poll that Kirk Sale commissioned a few years ago showed that the more formal education someone has, the less likely they are to favor secession.
As far as reversing this, I think the first thing is to get the state out of the educational system and the media altogether. This means total separation of education and state, and it means dismantling the broadcast licensing system that contributes to centralized control over the media. The opposite of the present system would be localized educational systems, local media, or decentralized media outlets representing a plurality of value systems (the internet is becoming this to some degree). Universities would be independent institutions like churches are at present.
Beyond that, attacking economic policies and institutions that contribute to dependency and infantilism are especially important. This includes the institutions of the therapeutic-welfare state obviously, but it also includes economic policies that create barriers to self-sufficiency and make the public more dependent on corporate sources of employment and consumption.