Anatomy of “Anti-Racism”

typewriter-1215868_1280Mainstream journalists and mainstream politicians need to resume the essential tasks of opposing enemies of open society, facilitating informed multicultural debate as well as reforming immigration policy so that the focus is once more on receiving deserving pro-democratic asylum seekers.

Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) was a prominent member of the Frankfurt school group of Marxist Jewish-born intellectuals who escaped Nazi Germany for the United States. Marcuse advocated that political conservatives should be branded as “Fascists”. The Frankfurt school as partly rooted in the thought of culture-critical Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci became tremendously influential in American intellectual life. Their hundreds of millions of mostly non-Marxist intellectual descendants still are extremely influential in open society in the sense that the many intellectual offshoots within Critical Theory (sometimes misnamed as so called “cultural Marxism”) has fundamentally socially transformed and continues to radically transform so called Western (i.e. Para-Christian) civilization. This includes continually in so many ways continuing to challenge the very structural self-conceptualization in so many structural aspects of society. The death of economic Marxism with the dissolution of the Soviet Union heralded indeed the beginning of the political ascent of the wider Critical Theory (which is usually not Marxist and therefore not “cultural Marxism”) within the left as the contemporary wider Critical Theory (including e.g. Deconstruction, Queer Theory and feminist theory) is usually either post-Marxist or non-Marxist.

During most of the 19th and 20th centuries were there three main forms of pro-democratic political expression within open societies. These were socialists (i.e. iconoclasts), liberals (i.e. dogmatists) and conservatives (i.e. preservers). This political triangle provided checks and balances with regard to legislative change in the sense that political change was slowed down and preceded by extensive public debate. However, the flipside of this was that the political change was often far too slow and especially so with regard to emancipation.

Fascism in Europe always had two main branches, one virulently and Judeocentrically obsessively Anti-Semitic (such as Nazism) and the other not being Anti-Semitic at all or at least not obsessively so. Fascism in Western Europe has been fundamentally transformed and developed into post-fascism which although retaining certain identifiably Fascist rhetorical traits no longer seeks a Fascist economic system or a Fascist political system but rather advocates and supports political conservatism and what is known as liberal democracy. The problem however is that post-fascist political parties are not given given due credit for implementing internal zero tolerance against inter-human racism, Nazism and anti-democratic expression. A Para-Christian theory of barely secularized “original sin” is advocated according to which it does not matter how thoroughly a formerly fascist political party has left its anti-democratic past, as they will still be judged as if nothing changed in recent decades and as if the continuing deradicalization in post-fascism has somehow never taken place.

What then is the difference between a democrat and an anti-democrat? A democrat is a person who advocates a current or envisioned evolved form of the political system that is known as liberal democracy; meaning open society with free and regular elections. Just as there are socialists who are democrats and socialists who are anti-democrats are there likewise conservatives who are democrats and conservatives who are anti-democrats. Just as there are intellectual currents with historical origins in the Marxian tradition that are clearly pro-democratic and those that are anti-democratic, so are there contemporary intellectual currents with historical origin in Fascism that are now clearly pro-democratic and those that remain virulently anti-democratic. Furthermore, just as there are religious Christians who are democrats and religious Christians who anti-democrats so are there also Muslims who are democrats and Muslims who are anti-democrats.

The distinction between a democrat and an anti-democrat is not the degree to which they cling to and express prejudice but rather indeed whether they support and believe in open society and free and regular elections. Indeed, prejudice is part of the human condition and so humans generally hold prejudice to varying degree. Persons referring to themselves as “anti-racists” often adhere to a subconscious hierarchy of prejudice according to which they reject some forms of prejudice while uncritically embracing yet other forms of prejudice. For example, most self-described “anti-racists” are clearly explicitly racist in that they not only consume meat and other animal products derived from Humanist mass crimes against non-human Persons but they also typically condone those practices which effectively constitute Nazism against non-human persons. Indeed, Humanism is to its victims precisely what Nazism was to its victims. Similarly will such smug persons typically condemn some forms of prejudice against so called “sexual minorities” while condoning and even embracing other forms of prejudice against so called “sexual minorities”.

Creating an imaginary dichotomy between advocates and opponents of prejudice is an impossible venture since this precludes being critical about the structural prejudice that oneself may still hold. Indeed, a person who is not continually critical about her own structural prejudice cannot be said to be sincerely and genuinely opposed to prejudice. It has therefore been noted that the greatest prejudice is the belief that prejudice is something that only exists in the other and not in oneself. Anyone thus seeking a “class war” between prejudiced and purportedly non-prejudiced is thus himself precisely prejudiced in this most vital regard.

Humanists believe that humans are zoologically a subspecies (i.e. a race) known as homo sapiens sapiens and that humans due to ostensibly being “morally superior” are entitled to enslave, to mass murder, to torture, to mass rape and to otherwise abuse non-human persons for medical and/or economic gain. Considering that Humanism fits any neutral definition of racism are there really very few genuine anti-racists among self-defined “anti-racists” who are typically (as indeed this very author) intellectually descended from the Frankfurt school. Even ethical vegans tend to espouse modified, yet still clearly racist forms of Humanism involving less aggressive notions of Humanist racial supremacism.

The notion of turning the political struggle against post-fascist political expression into a class struggle between the prejudiced and the purportedly yet not actually non-prejudiced is however precisely playing into the hands of the post-fascist movement which is taking over the political space on the democratic spectrum as evacuated by former and actual conservatives.

Rather than fighting Islamism (which is a totalitarian movement/ideology seeking the abolition of liberal democracy) have smug intellectual elites taken on the Marcusean task of branding pro-democratic conservatives as “Fascists”. This is reminiscent of Nazi Germany where the right-of-center political parties wrongly considered Communism a greater domestic threat than Nazism and therefore chose collaboration with the German Nazi party rather than with the German Communist party which was controlled by Moscow. The German right-of-center political parties had to choose between two evils simply because these two evils together had won a majority of mandates in the 1933 German parliamentary elections to the Reichstag. However, the German Communist party was much smaller in terms of the number of seats that they had won in the Reichstag and so the right-of-center German political parties should have chosen to form a minority government with the left-of-center Social Democrats with some kind of economic or social concessions to the German Communist party. However, the German right-of-center political parties apparently argued that German Nazis were at least “patriots” while the German Communists were not as they followed direct orders from Soviet totalitarian dictator Joseph Stalin.

Today is the situation the opposite whereby hundreds of millions of meat-eating intellectual descendants of the Frankfurt school worldwide falsely styling themselves as purported “anti-racists” consider almost any form of expression of patriotism as racist, xenophobic or fascist. At the same time are they and what is known as “the left” generally oblivious and indifferent to the threat that the totalitarian ideology/movement of Islamism poses to liberal democracy and open society worldwide. While intellectual descendants of the Frankfurt school have often become collaborators with Islamism (particularly with the global Muslim Brotherhood) and its nefarious agenda of silencing any critique of Muslim society and Muslim civilization by non-Islamists is it typically now the post-fascist movements that have become daring defenders of open society and liberal democracy against totalitarianism.

There is indeed a “conspiracy of silence” among journalists in open societies whereby daring to publicly oppose Islamism has become toxic for individual careers of journalists. While many journalists will privately admit to opposing Islamism generally has it become dangerous career-wise for journalists to critically cover Islamism and its Gramscian-style and Trotskyite-style strategies for infiltrating civil society with the purpose of ending both “blasphemous” open society and “worldly” liberal democracy.

However, this self-imposed “conspiracy of silence” does not prevent concerned citizens from accurately identifying the totalitarian ideology/movement of Islamism (i.e. nativist political Islam as heavily influenced by Nazism and Communism) as the greatest threat of our time to liberal democracy and open society. The notion that Muslim cultures must not be subject to critique of civilization is at the core of the Islamization agenda as pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s largest, most globalized and therefore most dangerous Islamist movement. From this springs the bizarre notion that misogyny/sexism/masculinism, homophobia/heterosexism, anti-Jewish expression and anti-democratic expression by members of Muslim minorities should peculiarly be exempt from otherwise normal political criticism.

Non-Muslim collaborators with the Islamization agenda of the Islamist/Jihadist worldwide Muslim Brotherhood therefore seek to silence virtually all critique of civilization with regard Muslim cultures (including as present as minorities in otherwise non-Muslim countries) which is peculiar to say the least as Islamism itself is premised on a certain brand of critique of civilization with regard to both Muslim civilization and Para-Christian civilization. While there are other aspects of early Islamization in otherwise non-Muslim countries such as seeking more sex segregation – is the project of silencing dissent central to the current operations of the global Muslim Brotherhood in liberal-democratic open societies.

As mainstream journalists and mainstream politicians have not been doing their job with regard to fighting nefarious Islamist agendas antithetical to open society and liberal democracy are others certainly filling their space. Make no mistake, the American people voted for the Trump-Pence ticket in the 2016 US presidential elections primarily due to the correct assessment that Islamism is incomparably the by far greatest contemporary threat to liberty and democracy. The self-imposed unfortunate silence of the mainstream media with regard to the specific profile of social problems in Muslim minority cultures in open societies is creating space for alternative conservative media taking on the task of multicultural public debate as bizarrely abandoned by smug, cowardly and opportunistic mainstream journalism.

The phenomenon of alternative conservative media has long become increasingly prominent in the United States but is also increasingly spreading to Europe as well. However, owners of so called mainstream media should take notice as they are likely to lose out economically unless they instruct their employees to return to fulfilling the critical and civic tasks intrinsic to responsible journalism, including defending liberal democracy from enemies of open society and facilitating open and unprejudiced public debate with regard to every controversial issue.

As the political space historically filled by more reactionary brands of conservatism has largely been evacuated is it now instead increasingly filled by post-fascist media, movements, politicians and political parties. Post-fascism is however certainly not only not reducible to fascism, it is not fascism at all as contemporary post-fascists are usually passionate conservative defenders of open society and liberal democracy. The presence of post-fascism on the pan-liberal political spectrum of liberal democracy ought instead be welcomed as this political space could otherwise easily as seen as in some countries of Eastern Europe instead be filled by unreformed Fascists. The unfortunately popular Marcusean notion of branding conservatives as purported “fascists” is thus similarly dangerous as was the Communist practice in the Weimar republic of branding social democrats as purported “social fascists”. German Communists were thus instructed by Moscow to focus on fighting social democrats instead of fighting the NSDAP.

Post-fascist media, media personalities, movements, politicians and political parties are virtually bound to become increasingly popular until mainstream journalists and mainstream politicians take notice and once more resume the essential journalistic and democratic tasks of multicultural debate and marginalization of enemies of open society. The media should always distinguish between democrats and anti-democrats and not try to create some illusory dichotomy between themselves and everyone who disagrees with elements of their smug and narrow journalistic consensus. Responsible journalism should indeed provide space for varied expressions by genuine advocates/supporters of liberal democracy yet should not as journalists themselves favor certain parts of the pan-liberal political spectrum over others.

For example, this author being transgender and lesbian obviously does not appreciate reactionary conservatives telling her to become heterocultural and cisgender, yet she is capable of respecting persons on the pan-liberal spectrum as citizens and as legitimate political actors on the liberal democratic political spectrum. She does not have to respect their prejudiced opinions, yet she certainly respects their legitimate participation in liberal democracy in the sense as advocates/supporters of liberal democracy.

However, being conservative does not need to be about being reactionary and promoting prejudice, but conservatism is rather an essential part in liberal democracy and open society in provoking extensive public debate and delaying otherwise hurried legislative change. E.g. what is known as ‘neoconservatism’ is focused on identifying and disseminating valuable elements of the present and certainly proactively preserving those valuable elements into the future. Let’s be very clear, intellectually responsible conservatism is really needed in liberal democracy and conservative advocates of open society & free/regular elections are certainly legitimate parts of the pan-liberal (i.e. liberal democratic) political spectrum. Prejudice is found among socialists, liberals and among literally everyone else and not just among conservatives. Rather, conservatives (whether post-fascist or otherwise) like everyone else need to be encouraged to repudiate prejudice and distance themselves from tainted political past.

If mainstream journalists will not defend open society against its enemies, then who will? If mainstream politicians will not defend liberal democracy against its enemies, then who will? If the culturally hegemonic intellectual mainstream will not defend against contemporary totalitarianism, then who will? The answer should be obvious, the post-fascist new conservatives certainly will if others won’t. The so called mainstream will find itself increasingly outcompeted in every way by the new conservatism if the “mainstream” does not resume its essential tasks of fighting totalitarianism, engaging in informed multicultural public debate as well as reforming immigration policy so that the focus once more is primarily on receiving genuinely pro-democratic, indeed deserving political asylum seekers.