To jump into your discussion of ‘ideological drift,’ I really want to start with a question: do you feel like what is labeled harmful to say is changing faster and faster?
It feels to me like any label for describing a particular group (you mentioned homosexual now being considered pejorative term) can become negative very suddenly.
My gut intuition (very limited to no research) says,
1. Social media and the pace at which we can access data is a factor.
2. Youth is idolized in our culture which gives the youth an over-represented voice (I feel) - and every couple of years the youth change which terms they like because the ones from two years ago are now outdated.
I don't have any definite knowledge of this and would like to hear from others about their experiences with ideological drift and its pace of change.
Through my work as editor and publisher at Gods&Radicals Press I wasted a lot of time making sure we were using the current words for things, because the blowback for using an outdated term was really severe on social media. One example was a massive boycott attempt of our works because a trans writer on our site had used the term transwoman instead of trans woman. That is, this writer had omitted the required space between the two words, which is how it was written when the writer became trans but no longer acceptable.
The problem there was that by putting the two words together, the writer (again, a trans person) was making it sound as if "transwoman" was a third kind of category, rather than being merely a sort of woman. That, incidentally, is how many older trans people see the matter anyway, but to make that very subtle "mistake" was to cause all the writers, the editors, and also our donors (most of them small--like 20 dollars a year) to become collectively smeared as "transphobic."
This subtle shift happened very quick, and literally it all came down to whether or not a space separated the two words or if they were written as one word.
is funny how history works and all of its unpredictable (and often noxious) unforeseen consequences...
when the New Left began its long march to supplant the Old Left (bc the working class were all icky Christian patriots a la Archie Bunker) they moved the battlefield from factory floors and shops etc into the university and more specifically into the realm of language/the symbolic.
this explains the popularity of people like Foucault and Derrida (Power can be fought anywhere, even the library! Oppression is embedded into every text, even a fortune cookie can be contributing to hegemonic binaries! etc), which allowed leftist profs to keep their careers and paychecks, attend MLA conferences to hobnob etc, while still imagining themselves as noble and brave radicals fighting the eternal Socialist revolution.
And voila! a generation or 2 later you have things like angry boycotts over small-press books because of where to put a space in a word! (And I do not mean to make light of what you or your associates had to deal with.)
I don't know whether to call this infantile Leftism or the narcissism of small differences, but it seems either way that Twitter has enabled the most mentally disturbed and emotionally brittle members of society to have veto power over our entire culture.
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Rhyd Wildermuth
Ideological drift is a good term. I've experienced this endlessly since the Great Awokening began. I have pretty much the same views on globalisation, for example, that I had in 1999 during the Batle of Seattle - I am against it, I don't like big business, I am a localist. The 'left' agreed back then. Now it turns out that globalisation is good because borders are bad, and localism is the same thing as nativism, which is the same thing as 'white supremacy.'
Back in 2008 I wrote a book called 'Real England', which was about how, again, big business was destroying local communities and how they were fighting back. It got nice reviews in mainstream papers of both right and left (the Daily Mail and Guardian both gave it good write-ups.) Someone high up in publishing recently suggested to me that if I wrote it now I'd be denounced as a fascist.
Luckily, I have got used to being denounced as a fascist. I know you understand that, Rhyd. ;-)
More significant though is the fact that half of of the population of most Western countries are now also deemed fascists, nativists and bigots by the new ruling class for holding views that [a] most of the world still holds and [b] were considered unremarkable even a decade ago. Views like: I quite like my country; Immigration should be controlled at resonable levels; Marriage is important; Family is good; I respect my ancestors. Simple stuff, which people wake up one day and suddenly find is now a phobia, according to people they didn't elect and don't know. This, more than anything, is building up the massive tensions we're seeing, I feel.
I'm glad to see you in this discussion, Paul! Your experience strikes me as very ironic. You were what many conservatives in America would have called an environmentalist wacko 20 years ago. Now your same views feel remarkably conservative (and, you are actually conserving things) - though they don't align with a particular conservative political party. Crazy drift!
On the point you make: this process is definitely acclerating. your two points seem right, especially the first. I would add another: the power of NGOs. The infiltration of 'civil society' into all sectors, from government to schools to business, has happened with no consultation at all. This has enabled these bodies - overwhelmingly of the 'woke' left - to get this agenda moving with no discussion, at least until they are hauled over the coals by an angry public.
In the UK, for example, Stonewall, which started off as a gay rights group and is now at the forefront of the transgender movement, has been pushing radical ideas onto everything from primary schools to the police, and receiving large amounts of public money to do it. Only recently has this been brought to light, and pushed back on. It seems to me this is a fundamental issue of democracy. Who are these people, and who voted for them? Given that they are working on overturning all social norms, the lack of transparency is a huge issue.
I have a friend who "works" as an advocate for people with physical or mental disabilities (which is an evil label amount left woke) and struggles with her our physical issues, but finds that the NGO's that are suppose to help are more of the problem because they need to keep getting their funding. Groups that started by actually helping people are now just another self sustaining business.
Both sides of the woke spectrum are going crazy, as it seems that they try to out do the "other side" in their wokeness. Witness the right-wing running around with their FUCK BIDEN red shirts and being upset with books that their teenage children can check out from the High School or public libraries. I do not think I need to go into the issues of the left as Rhyd has covered that quite well.
There was a time when being a leftist Mennonite was a good thing, now I am just a deluded individual that believes fairy tales. Just to clarify, I am Mennonite by choice, I joined the Mennonites after I left the Marine Corps as a Consciencious Objector in 1991, and during the buildup to the forever war counselled active-duty Americans about Consciencious Objector status and how to obtain it. Depending on how you look at it, of the 10 people I helped, 7 chose to go to prison and take a bad discharge, 2 accepted transfers to noncombat positions and 1 received an honorable discharge as a C.O.
I worked as a social worker for homeless people with severe addiction and mental disabilities. I can absolutely attest that the non-profit I worked for was, despite being lauded as one of the most progressive in the US, really was more interested in getting funding than they were solving the problems they existed to address.
I start to feel a little crazy, Paul, each time I am doing research and find yet another woke policy organisation or information site funded by the same massive foundation as all the others.
In America, anarchists (including me) used to joke that we were still waiting for our "Soros checks," as our way of belittling those who believed we were all being funded by Soros's foundation.
Now I'm kind of angry realising that there actually were Soros checks to be had, and I just never knew how to get them...
There was once a very strong and compassionate argument made from the communist left about immigration, which goes as follows:
Capitalists require massive reserves of unrooted workers to keep wages lows (high labor supply means low wages always). So, they support and even advocate for the destabilization of other countries to create new supply of cheap labor. Those cheap laborers, who were victims of foreign policy, then get used to weaken organised labor and are victimized yet again when the new country's workers turn their anger at their own lost labor power onto the immigrant workers.
This doesn't fit in a slogan or on a meme. And anyway it points to something Marxists were always on about: racial, sexual, geographical, national, or religious conflict between workers is how the capitalists are protected from mass workers' uprisings. Wokeness, from a Marxist perspective, is really the perfect implementation of those divisions.
Feb 8, 2022·edited Feb 8, 2022Liked by Rhyd Wildermuth
To quote the man himself:
‘Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.’ He added, ‘This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.’ … '
That's Marx, explaining how mass migration is a tool of bourgeois capitalism, back in 1870. Did you ever read Angela Nagle's essay 'The left case against open borders'? It got her crucified by her former 'friends', naturally, but it was excellent on this. It seems to me that the whole open border agenda is funded by capital and pushed by the beneficiary class of globalisation (the 10% of the middle classes who run the show), and then also taken up enthusiastically by people who may believe it is compassionate and humane, but are being played. Maybe I'll write about this soon. It's been a few months since anyone called me a Nazi.
How on earth would the socially-progressive Professional Managerial Class afford their house cleaners, childcare, and organic meal kits without a subservient and terrified immigrant labor class producing those things for shockingly low wages?
And yes, I remember the explosion about Nagle's essay. That was when I first really encountered the unfortunately popular idea that there is a "red-brown" alliance occurring--believed to be funded by Putin--in which leftists are merging with fascist groups. I encountered the idea again when I was accused of being 'red-brown' myself.
There is definitely foundation money in it, yes. One of the primary ideologues of this idea within Antifa is Alexander Reid Ross, who works alongside ex-CIA heads and Department of Homeland Security officials for a research group funded both by the Charles Koch foundation (that should definitely be of interest to a former environmentalist...) and Open Society Foundation. His book, "Against the Fascist Creep," is the primary handbook for antifascists who dedicate themselves to rooting out that 'creep' in leftist spaces, and it's probably no surprise to you that the many accusations that my work is fascist or red-brown cite his book.
The place this narrative particularly appears is regarding leftists who oppose war with Russia or further invasions of Syria. They're all being duped by Putin, according to this narrative, despite anti-imperialism previously being one of the few things the left could historically agree upon as a foundational position...
I am reminded here of an old publication sitting on my shelf. I inherited a copy of "Ideologies in Conflict" by Clanton W. Williams, Professor of History, University of Alabama, revised 1951. This was distributed to American officers by Air University, Air Command and Staff School out of Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, USA. Although probably outdated as to developments since its printing, the manuscript is designed to brief the students regarding the world ideological stage, the players involved, and how things developed to make the world appear as it does.
Opposite the opening title page is a circular chart which is labeled along several concentric rings, the outermost showing "The Center" at the 12 o'clock position and "Totalitarianism" at the 6 o'clock position. At 2 o'clock is "Conservatives", at 4 o'clock is Extreme Rightists, at 8 o'clock is Extreme Leftists, and at 10 o'clock is "Liberals". The inside rings submit historic examples of same.
Basically as soon as one leaves "The Center" one is ultimately heading towards 'Totalitarianism" either way you go whether it be towards liberal to extreme leftist or towards conservative to extreme rightist. Push any ideology to the extreme and we have totalitarianism regardless whether it manifests as "Facist, Nazi, Communist or Bolshevik", etc. They all end up being the same thing... bad news except for the power elite. The Left vs. Right becomes an illusion where they meet.
Any thoughts on all this extreme humanity at work being little more than a ego/power trip for the respective leaders?
An image that always comes to my mind when I think of the way these political tendencies meet is that of the center of Rome, with "barbarians" at the gates. From inside the city, all the barbarians look the same and are imagined in some sort of solidarity with each other, united in their hatred of the Empire.
From the outside, though, there is the Empire and also all the other groups. Some of those groups have common interests and histories (for instance, the way many Gaulish tribes all hated Rome) and sometimes even collaborate with each other (again, some of those Gaulish tribes), while other tribes urging the downfall of Rome were also enemies of other tribes as well.
From the center, it all looks extreme, but of course the center itself is considered innocent. Antifa sorts see themselves as the center, defending civilization from barbarian tribes. But then also so do the Proud Boys.
From another perspective, though, they're just warring street gangs within the capitol of the Empire fighting for the right to "save" everyone from the barbarians, while outside those walls the rest of the world is just hoping the Empire will go away.
I came across an article on the Ancient Faith website. Ancient Faith Ministries is sponsored by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America.
They pretty much smacked the woke on both ends of the spectrum. While I do not agree with all the statements, it is good to see a church actually saying both sides are wrong, even when they share common ideas.
There is an element of the ever shifting language that feels like one is being gaslighted by a narcissistic partner. Words that you thought meant one thing now mean something else; words that you thought were ok are now pejorative. And then you top off the other mind fucks of ideological shift: someone like Steve Bannon will talk about class conflict (though not sincerely with the intent to do anything about power & exploitation), while NPR reminds us all that the United States is a nation of white supremacy every 15 minutes.
The question of staying sane is a difficult one. In one of Adolph Reed's latest articles, he quipped about a publication he wasn't familiar with, "I assume it’s nominally left, but who can tell what that means anymore?" I often resort to the same thing I did to discover new music in the 90s: see which bands play together, who they thank in their liner notes, and whose songs they cover.
As to the problem of cumulative extremism, it's tough because not only are the two extremes magnifying each other but the media generally is pouring gasoline on the fire. The way out is probably for more people to talk to other people who aren't in their political, social, and media bubbles. Of course, pandemic restrictions on activity, social media, and other issues in the US make those conversations less and less likely.
At some point I intend to write about my own experience in an abusive marriage with just such a narcissistic partner. Fleeing that situation was also crucial to my understanding of how woke ideology works, particularly through its constant claims of victimization as justification for violence. Whenever he hit me, he later justified it by saying I had 'pushed' him into doing so because of the way I had hurt him emotionally or psychologically (to be clear, going to the gym or hanging out with a female friend were both examples of 'hurting him').
That same kind of justification gets used both by Antifa sorts and also by trans activists justifying things like rape threats against women who are gender critical. The perception of feeling harmed is sufficient excuse to enact any degree of violence, because that person was "asking for it."
One thing that comes to mind for me in relation to Antifa and the Proud Boys is the memories of when Neo-Nazi's or other far right groups would march there would be little to no police presence and if there was it would be to keep the counter protesters away from the far right group. If the far right group became violent there would be little to no physical counter attack against them. The argument being made that the left should not "stoop to their level."
Then the events in August 2017 in Charlottesville, from my perspective, was the turning point in which the left clearly understood that law enforcement would not protect them and that the only effective way to counter the far right would be to use the same tactics.
As in any conflict when one side escalates the other side either has to take it up even further or stand down, which the far right clearly will not do. That creates an ever evolving escalation akin to any guerilla, rebellion, revolutionary, or other time of violent movement.
That leads me to the next question which is how to counter the increasing violence of the far right when the structures of society (local, state, federal government, various branches of law enforcement) do not do anything to counter the violence of one side? These issues are exacerbated by the fact that "free" social media assists in people celebrating conflict, either verbal or physical. This leads to people on both sides getting wrapped up more and more on the conflict on the internet which leads them to be more likely to want to join in on the in-person/physical side.
As you say this leads to each side needing each other to justify their existence. History tells us that unless one side says enough is enough or some neutral party intervenes the violence will only continue to escalate.
It also doesn't help that both the Republican and Democratic parties, while in theory denouncing these groups, also use them. How often does one hear about Trump allied with the Oath Keepers or Kamala Harris supporting Antifa? With the horseshoe theory of ideology showing the far right and far left getting closer in extremism they are pushed that way from those closer to the center as they can draw power and money from the continuing conflict.
One of the fascinating things to me about the Unite The Right rally was how many of the initial supporters of that movement completely separated themselves from the right after those events. There was almost no media coverage of this, but for instance Jack Donovan publicly cut off ties to Richard Spencer after it, as did other similar figures. Joe Rogan also moved more towards the Bernie Sanders side of populism after that event.
I think those shifts were not covered specifically because the media and politicians have a huge interest, as you note, in keeping the fires going. It's good for viewership, and also for governance, because as long as half the population is certain the other half wants to kill them, they'll accept all kinds of ridiculous policies that go against their economic interests as long as they feel that the politicians are protecting them from the other side. And this is happening in both directions.
Rhyd, I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a few days. Have you ever read any Soren Kierkegaard or Frederick Nietzsche? It ties into the broader spectrum of what you write on. Thanks
Yes! Kierkegaard's observation about leveling is particularly a part of my manuscript, as well as his noticing that political movements were also religious (echoed also by Carl Schmidt and later Agamben). My favorite quote, which Bataille used, is:
"What looks like politics, and imagines itself to be political, will one day unmask itself as a religious movement."
I'm also using a lot of Nietzsche's work on ressentiment, especially via Deleuze. It's an incredibly long read, but this essay from last year was my initial attempt to use ressentiment as a framework for understanding woke politics:
Sorry for the delay in response. Been under the weather. Well, I had been reading through your essays and was certain you had read them but wanted to verify. Thanks for the link to another great essay too.
Ever since around 2004, I've apparently been a TERF because I don't believe in surgically removing an adolescent's genitals based on his or her addiction to an internet fad. I was a communist back then, but my insistence that human beings are a sexually dimorphic species put me in the ranks of reaction. Then I watched fellow 'communists' dive right into this lunacy.
To jump into your discussion of ‘ideological drift,’ I really want to start with a question: do you feel like what is labeled harmful to say is changing faster and faster?
It feels to me like any label for describing a particular group (you mentioned homosexual now being considered pejorative term) can become negative very suddenly.
My gut intuition (very limited to no research) says,
1. Social media and the pace at which we can access data is a factor.
2. Youth is idolized in our culture which gives the youth an over-represented voice (I feel) - and every couple of years the youth change which terms they like because the ones from two years ago are now outdated.
I don't have any definite knowledge of this and would like to hear from others about their experiences with ideological drift and its pace of change.
It's absolutely accelerating, yes.
Through my work as editor and publisher at Gods&Radicals Press I wasted a lot of time making sure we were using the current words for things, because the blowback for using an outdated term was really severe on social media. One example was a massive boycott attempt of our works because a trans writer on our site had used the term transwoman instead of trans woman. That is, this writer had omitted the required space between the two words, which is how it was written when the writer became trans but no longer acceptable.
The problem there was that by putting the two words together, the writer (again, a trans person) was making it sound as if "transwoman" was a third kind of category, rather than being merely a sort of woman. That, incidentally, is how many older trans people see the matter anyway, but to make that very subtle "mistake" was to cause all the writers, the editors, and also our donors (most of them small--like 20 dollars a year) to become collectively smeared as "transphobic."
This subtle shift happened very quick, and literally it all came down to whether or not a space separated the two words or if they were written as one word.
is funny how history works and all of its unpredictable (and often noxious) unforeseen consequences...
when the New Left began its long march to supplant the Old Left (bc the working class were all icky Christian patriots a la Archie Bunker) they moved the battlefield from factory floors and shops etc into the university and more specifically into the realm of language/the symbolic.
this explains the popularity of people like Foucault and Derrida (Power can be fought anywhere, even the library! Oppression is embedded into every text, even a fortune cookie can be contributing to hegemonic binaries! etc), which allowed leftist profs to keep their careers and paychecks, attend MLA conferences to hobnob etc, while still imagining themselves as noble and brave radicals fighting the eternal Socialist revolution.
And voila! a generation or 2 later you have things like angry boycotts over small-press books because of where to put a space in a word! (And I do not mean to make light of what you or your associates had to deal with.)
I don't know whether to call this infantile Leftism or the narcissism of small differences, but it seems either way that Twitter has enabled the most mentally disturbed and emotionally brittle members of society to have veto power over our entire culture.
Now we battle over the spaces between the words.
Ideological drift is a good term. I've experienced this endlessly since the Great Awokening began. I have pretty much the same views on globalisation, for example, that I had in 1999 during the Batle of Seattle - I am against it, I don't like big business, I am a localist. The 'left' agreed back then. Now it turns out that globalisation is good because borders are bad, and localism is the same thing as nativism, which is the same thing as 'white supremacy.'
Back in 2008 I wrote a book called 'Real England', which was about how, again, big business was destroying local communities and how they were fighting back. It got nice reviews in mainstream papers of both right and left (the Daily Mail and Guardian both gave it good write-ups.) Someone high up in publishing recently suggested to me that if I wrote it now I'd be denounced as a fascist.
Luckily, I have got used to being denounced as a fascist. I know you understand that, Rhyd. ;-)
More significant though is the fact that half of of the population of most Western countries are now also deemed fascists, nativists and bigots by the new ruling class for holding views that [a] most of the world still holds and [b] were considered unremarkable even a decade ago. Views like: I quite like my country; Immigration should be controlled at resonable levels; Marriage is important; Family is good; I respect my ancestors. Simple stuff, which people wake up one day and suddenly find is now a phobia, according to people they didn't elect and don't know. This, more than anything, is building up the massive tensions we're seeing, I feel.
I'm glad to see you in this discussion, Paul! Your experience strikes me as very ironic. You were what many conservatives in America would have called an environmentalist wacko 20 years ago. Now your same views feel remarkably conservative (and, you are actually conserving things) - though they don't align with a particular conservative political party. Crazy drift!
Crazy indeed!
On the point you make: this process is definitely acclerating. your two points seem right, especially the first. I would add another: the power of NGOs. The infiltration of 'civil society' into all sectors, from government to schools to business, has happened with no consultation at all. This has enabled these bodies - overwhelmingly of the 'woke' left - to get this agenda moving with no discussion, at least until they are hauled over the coals by an angry public.
In the UK, for example, Stonewall, which started off as a gay rights group and is now at the forefront of the transgender movement, has been pushing radical ideas onto everything from primary schools to the police, and receiving large amounts of public money to do it. Only recently has this been brought to light, and pushed back on. It seems to me this is a fundamental issue of democracy. Who are these people, and who voted for them? Given that they are working on overturning all social norms, the lack of transparency is a huge issue.
I have a friend who "works" as an advocate for people with physical or mental disabilities (which is an evil label amount left woke) and struggles with her our physical issues, but finds that the NGO's that are suppose to help are more of the problem because they need to keep getting their funding. Groups that started by actually helping people are now just another self sustaining business.
Both sides of the woke spectrum are going crazy, as it seems that they try to out do the "other side" in their wokeness. Witness the right-wing running around with their FUCK BIDEN red shirts and being upset with books that their teenage children can check out from the High School or public libraries. I do not think I need to go into the issues of the left as Rhyd has covered that quite well.
There was a time when being a leftist Mennonite was a good thing, now I am just a deluded individual that believes fairy tales. Just to clarify, I am Mennonite by choice, I joined the Mennonites after I left the Marine Corps as a Consciencious Objector in 1991, and during the buildup to the forever war counselled active-duty Americans about Consciencious Objector status and how to obtain it. Depending on how you look at it, of the 10 people I helped, 7 chose to go to prison and take a bad discharge, 2 accepted transfers to noncombat positions and 1 received an honorable discharge as a C.O.
I worked as a social worker for homeless people with severe addiction and mental disabilities. I can absolutely attest that the non-profit I worked for was, despite being lauded as one of the most progressive in the US, really was more interested in getting funding than they were solving the problems they existed to address.
I start to feel a little crazy, Paul, each time I am doing research and find yet another woke policy organisation or information site funded by the same massive foundation as all the others.
In America, anarchists (including me) used to joke that we were still waiting for our "Soros checks," as our way of belittling those who believed we were all being funded by Soros's foundation.
Now I'm kind of angry realising that there actually were Soros checks to be had, and I just never knew how to get them...
There was once a very strong and compassionate argument made from the communist left about immigration, which goes as follows:
Capitalists require massive reserves of unrooted workers to keep wages lows (high labor supply means low wages always). So, they support and even advocate for the destabilization of other countries to create new supply of cheap labor. Those cheap laborers, who were victims of foreign policy, then get used to weaken organised labor and are victimized yet again when the new country's workers turn their anger at their own lost labor power onto the immigrant workers.
This doesn't fit in a slogan or on a meme. And anyway it points to something Marxists were always on about: racial, sexual, geographical, national, or religious conflict between workers is how the capitalists are protected from mass workers' uprisings. Wokeness, from a Marxist perspective, is really the perfect implementation of those divisions.
Of course to say that makes me a "fascist."
Neat trick they've played on us all...
To quote the man himself:
‘Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.’ He added, ‘This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.’ … '
That's Marx, explaining how mass migration is a tool of bourgeois capitalism, back in 1870. Did you ever read Angela Nagle's essay 'The left case against open borders'? It got her crucified by her former 'friends', naturally, but it was excellent on this. It seems to me that the whole open border agenda is funded by capital and pushed by the beneficiary class of globalisation (the 10% of the middle classes who run the show), and then also taken up enthusiastically by people who may believe it is compassionate and humane, but are being played. Maybe I'll write about this soon. It's been a few months since anyone called me a Nazi.
How on earth would the socially-progressive Professional Managerial Class afford their house cleaners, childcare, and organic meal kits without a subservient and terrified immigrant labor class producing those things for shockingly low wages?
And yes, I remember the explosion about Nagle's essay. That was when I first really encountered the unfortunately popular idea that there is a "red-brown" alliance occurring--believed to be funded by Putin--in which leftists are merging with fascist groups. I encountered the idea again when I was accused of being 'red-brown' myself.
Well, someone has to look after little Jocasta while mummy is out at the diversity training workshop.
I do wonder if there is corporate funding behind some of this stuff: the 'red brown' smear especially. It just seems all too convenient.
There is definitely foundation money in it, yes. One of the primary ideologues of this idea within Antifa is Alexander Reid Ross, who works alongside ex-CIA heads and Department of Homeland Security officials for a research group funded both by the Charles Koch foundation (that should definitely be of interest to a former environmentalist...) and Open Society Foundation. His book, "Against the Fascist Creep," is the primary handbook for antifascists who dedicate themselves to rooting out that 'creep' in leftist spaces, and it's probably no surprise to you that the many accusations that my work is fascist or red-brown cite his book.
The place this narrative particularly appears is regarding leftists who oppose war with Russia or further invasions of Syria. They're all being duped by Putin, according to this narrative, despite anti-imperialism previously being one of the few things the left could historically agree upon as a foundational position...
This is fascinating. Thanks for the pointers. If you have any more, I'd love to hear.
Meanwhile, you might like Russell Brand's little video today on being called 'right wing' and what it means:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4e8lSQy64c
I am reminded here of an old publication sitting on my shelf. I inherited a copy of "Ideologies in Conflict" by Clanton W. Williams, Professor of History, University of Alabama, revised 1951. This was distributed to American officers by Air University, Air Command and Staff School out of Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, USA. Although probably outdated as to developments since its printing, the manuscript is designed to brief the students regarding the world ideological stage, the players involved, and how things developed to make the world appear as it does.
Opposite the opening title page is a circular chart which is labeled along several concentric rings, the outermost showing "The Center" at the 12 o'clock position and "Totalitarianism" at the 6 o'clock position. At 2 o'clock is "Conservatives", at 4 o'clock is Extreme Rightists, at 8 o'clock is Extreme Leftists, and at 10 o'clock is "Liberals". The inside rings submit historic examples of same.
Basically as soon as one leaves "The Center" one is ultimately heading towards 'Totalitarianism" either way you go whether it be towards liberal to extreme leftist or towards conservative to extreme rightist. Push any ideology to the extreme and we have totalitarianism regardless whether it manifests as "Facist, Nazi, Communist or Bolshevik", etc. They all end up being the same thing... bad news except for the power elite. The Left vs. Right becomes an illusion where they meet.
Any thoughts on all this extreme humanity at work being little more than a ego/power trip for the respective leaders?
An image that always comes to my mind when I think of the way these political tendencies meet is that of the center of Rome, with "barbarians" at the gates. From inside the city, all the barbarians look the same and are imagined in some sort of solidarity with each other, united in their hatred of the Empire.
From the outside, though, there is the Empire and also all the other groups. Some of those groups have common interests and histories (for instance, the way many Gaulish tribes all hated Rome) and sometimes even collaborate with each other (again, some of those Gaulish tribes), while other tribes urging the downfall of Rome were also enemies of other tribes as well.
From the center, it all looks extreme, but of course the center itself is considered innocent. Antifa sorts see themselves as the center, defending civilization from barbarian tribes. But then also so do the Proud Boys.
From another perspective, though, they're just warring street gangs within the capitol of the Empire fighting for the right to "save" everyone from the barbarians, while outside those walls the rest of the world is just hoping the Empire will go away.
I came across an article on the Ancient Faith website. Ancient Faith Ministries is sponsored by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America.
They pretty much smacked the woke on both ends of the spectrum. While I do not agree with all the statements, it is good to see a church actually saying both sides are wrong, even when they share common ideas.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2022/01/25/the-false-virtue-of-woke-puritanism/
There is an element of the ever shifting language that feels like one is being gaslighted by a narcissistic partner. Words that you thought meant one thing now mean something else; words that you thought were ok are now pejorative. And then you top off the other mind fucks of ideological shift: someone like Steve Bannon will talk about class conflict (though not sincerely with the intent to do anything about power & exploitation), while NPR reminds us all that the United States is a nation of white supremacy every 15 minutes.
The question of staying sane is a difficult one. In one of Adolph Reed's latest articles, he quipped about a publication he wasn't familiar with, "I assume it’s nominally left, but who can tell what that means anymore?" I often resort to the same thing I did to discover new music in the 90s: see which bands play together, who they thank in their liner notes, and whose songs they cover.
As to the problem of cumulative extremism, it's tough because not only are the two extremes magnifying each other but the media generally is pouring gasoline on the fire. The way out is probably for more people to talk to other people who aren't in their political, social, and media bubbles. Of course, pandemic restrictions on activity, social media, and other issues in the US make those conversations less and less likely.
At some point I intend to write about my own experience in an abusive marriage with just such a narcissistic partner. Fleeing that situation was also crucial to my understanding of how woke ideology works, particularly through its constant claims of victimization as justification for violence. Whenever he hit me, he later justified it by saying I had 'pushed' him into doing so because of the way I had hurt him emotionally or psychologically (to be clear, going to the gym or hanging out with a female friend were both examples of 'hurting him').
That same kind of justification gets used both by Antifa sorts and also by trans activists justifying things like rape threats against women who are gender critical. The perception of feeling harmed is sufficient excuse to enact any degree of violence, because that person was "asking for it."
One thing that comes to mind for me in relation to Antifa and the Proud Boys is the memories of when Neo-Nazi's or other far right groups would march there would be little to no police presence and if there was it would be to keep the counter protesters away from the far right group. If the far right group became violent there would be little to no physical counter attack against them. The argument being made that the left should not "stoop to their level."
Then the events in August 2017 in Charlottesville, from my perspective, was the turning point in which the left clearly understood that law enforcement would not protect them and that the only effective way to counter the far right would be to use the same tactics.
As in any conflict when one side escalates the other side either has to take it up even further or stand down, which the far right clearly will not do. That creates an ever evolving escalation akin to any guerilla, rebellion, revolutionary, or other time of violent movement.
That leads me to the next question which is how to counter the increasing violence of the far right when the structures of society (local, state, federal government, various branches of law enforcement) do not do anything to counter the violence of one side? These issues are exacerbated by the fact that "free" social media assists in people celebrating conflict, either verbal or physical. This leads to people on both sides getting wrapped up more and more on the conflict on the internet which leads them to be more likely to want to join in on the in-person/physical side.
As you say this leads to each side needing each other to justify their existence. History tells us that unless one side says enough is enough or some neutral party intervenes the violence will only continue to escalate.
It also doesn't help that both the Republican and Democratic parties, while in theory denouncing these groups, also use them. How often does one hear about Trump allied with the Oath Keepers or Kamala Harris supporting Antifa? With the horseshoe theory of ideology showing the far right and far left getting closer in extremism they are pushed that way from those closer to the center as they can draw power and money from the continuing conflict.
One of the fascinating things to me about the Unite The Right rally was how many of the initial supporters of that movement completely separated themselves from the right after those events. There was almost no media coverage of this, but for instance Jack Donovan publicly cut off ties to Richard Spencer after it, as did other similar figures. Joe Rogan also moved more towards the Bernie Sanders side of populism after that event.
I think those shifts were not covered specifically because the media and politicians have a huge interest, as you note, in keeping the fires going. It's good for viewership, and also for governance, because as long as half the population is certain the other half wants to kill them, they'll accept all kinds of ridiculous policies that go against their economic interests as long as they feel that the politicians are protecting them from the other side. And this is happening in both directions.
Rhyd, I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a few days. Have you ever read any Soren Kierkegaard or Frederick Nietzsche? It ties into the broader spectrum of what you write on. Thanks
Yes! Kierkegaard's observation about leveling is particularly a part of my manuscript, as well as his noticing that political movements were also religious (echoed also by Carl Schmidt and later Agamben). My favorite quote, which Bataille used, is:
"What looks like politics, and imagines itself to be political, will one day unmask itself as a religious movement."
I'm also using a lot of Nietzsche's work on ressentiment, especially via Deleuze. It's an incredibly long read, but this essay from last year was my initial attempt to use ressentiment as a framework for understanding woke politics:
https://abeautifulresistance.org/site/2020/12/9/the-vampiric-gaze-from-rhyd-wildermuth
Sorry for the delay in response. Been under the weather. Well, I had been reading through your essays and was certain you had read them but wanted to verify. Thanks for the link to another great essay too.
divide and conquer. same as it ever was
Ever since around 2004, I've apparently been a TERF because I don't believe in surgically removing an adolescent's genitals based on his or her addiction to an internet fad. I was a communist back then, but my insistence that human beings are a sexually dimorphic species put me in the ranks of reaction. Then I watched fellow 'communists' dive right into this lunacy.
https://stanleyabner1951gmailcom.substack.com/p/a-place-between-the-poles?utm_source=url