Monday, August 31, 2015

Faggot Balls: Once again on JMP, First-World "Maoism," and Faggotry.

JMP is at it again. JMP has devoted three posts so far to reviewing the academic work of Jasbir Puar, specifically her book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Several days before the first part of JMP's review came out, one of my numerous banned accounts was messaged on /r/communism by the account calling itself “marxism-feminism.” The account “marxism-feminism” presents itself as a Maoist, possibly a female, that is also interested in the old MIM lines. Allow me to present the exchange, with some commentary of my own:

Comrade, why the homophobia? I always appreciate the posts you make on Third Worldism and other subjects... but then you suddenly start throwing "faggot" around. It's upsetting. Don't you know that the word is a dehumynising slur?

At this point I had not actually commented with that banned account on anything regarding sexual topics. I assume that the user “marxism-feminism” can tell when I am posting simply because of the lines I take on the Western Labor Aristocracy (or maybe Tor doesn't exactly guarantee one of anonymity online). The idea “marxism-feminism” is presenting to me is that I have a correct position on the Labor Aristocracy, so why do I say the things I do about faggots?

Deciding to be initially polite, I recommend some literature to read:

Homophobia is a loaded term.
I used to have the same sort of views on the gay-question as your standard "Leftist" in the West. While I had been exposed to some critical Queer Theory years ago, I never took it more seriously than investigating whether or not homosexuality is biological in origin, and then only as a critique of the claims that it is, not as an investigation into the social-constructivist position. 
It all began to change when I was attending a conference of a self-proclaimed anti-war youth organization during the bombing of Libya, and we never once talked about the bombing of Libya, yet spent days explaining terminology like "cis-gendered" for hours on end. That's when I started developing a hostility to this crap that I couldn't put into a theoretical context. 
Then a comrade on Facebook who I deeply admire sent me a copy of Joseph Massad's Desiring Arabs, and I was finally able to articulate what I had experienced in a theoretical way grounded in some of the most advanced Queer Theory available. I suggest reading this interview of Joseph Massad for a condensed version of what he talks about in the book: 
The Empire of Sexuality
Then I suggest reading the work of Queer Theorist Jasbir Puar, who Joseph Massad largely copies anyway, except in a more negative fashion. If you can master this material, then you'll understand my feelings on the topic.
And to push it further, you can go back to the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, to realize they all had similar, perhaps even more viciously negative conclusions about male homosexuality. From what I can gather, the Albanians even went as far as to suggest that male homosexuality is actually an extreme form of misogyny. I have yet to investigate this claim, as I myself am trying to explore the available research into the psychological origins of male homosexuality, without much success. I have a working hypothesis not based in Freudian nonsense, but have no way to confirm or disconfirm it. My theory is male homosexuality and autogynephilia have similar psychological origins, but begin at different points in the life of the male. Male homosexuality is what happens when the process begins before puberty, and autogynephilia is what happens when it begins after. Just a hunch that I can neither confirm or disconfirm, and contacting the alleged experts on homo-psychology yields nothing of any value whatsoever either. Guess I'll have to wait for someone else to explain the psychological origins of male homosexuality, and see if my guess comes close to theirs or not.

There was some more back and forth exchange, but it isn't as interesting.

A few days later, the Klanadian “Maoist” JMP is a busy beaver, blogging away about his own reading of Jasbir Puar's book. That this conversation with the person calling themselves “marxism-feminism” and JMP's blog is linked is beyond question in my mind, given as how JMP himself directly references me in his opening post about the book. To quote him:

And since, months and months ago, there was this internet eclectic-revisionist-chauvinist-tanky-pseudoTWist marxist who cited Puar in a meandering attack on some post I wrote in order to justify his homophobia (which I could tell, from the 50% of Puar's book I had read, but only foggily remembered, was an insulting appropriation of her intellectual labour), it's all the more appropriate that I try my first (and hopefully not last) "Let's Read" series with her.

No link back to my attack on his post is given, of course. In any case, it appears JMP has been assigned the task by whatever handlers he has of declawing the work of Jasbir Puar. The implications of Jasbir Puar's work are very, very profound, and represent a clear and present ideological danger to much of First-Worldism, particularly organized “Maoism” in North Amerika.

For JMP to accuse me of writing a  “meandering attack” on one of his posts is a bit hysterical, considering how long-winded and full of shit his three posts have been so far. JMP's hatchet-job of Jasbir Puar is so wandering and aimless than even the most ardent boosters of Puar could find something to agree with in JMP's 'critique'. JMP's first point to the reader says all most people will care about:

My first impression of Puar's Terrorist Assemblages is that it is going to be a frustrating read. Although it seems to excavate important territory (i.e. the way that queerness has been, one the one hand, appropriated by the imperialist camp for the war on terror and, on the other hand, displaced to terrorist bodies), and promises important theoretical concepts, so far it seems to be entrenched in the kind of smorgasbord approach to theory I've complained about before.  That is, instead of providing a rigorous interrogation of the concrete and material factors of a social phenomenon upon which to build a theoretical development (which is, at least to my mind, the very strength of the historical materialist approach), it instead becomes waylaid in academic eclecticism.

JMP makes it clear to his readers: Puar is difficult reading. Expect academic language similar to the likes of Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, or Louis Althusser. Expect to read something that looks like the output of The Postmodern Essay Generator. JMP doesn't have to himself imply all of this is nonsense, akin to the critiques aimed at postmodernists by the likes of Noam Chomsky and Jean Bricmont (not just a theoretical physicist critic of postmodernism, but a staunch anti-imperialist as well), as this conclusion will come naturally to certain readers of his. Perhaps even the whole book is just an academic fraud of sorts, like the infamous Sokal Affair. Better trust JMP's judgment, as he is trained to read this sort of academic mumbo-jumbo lingo. JMP got a PhD in Philosophy somewhere, after all.

JMP continues this theme later in the essay, this time taking a potshot at “queer theory” itself: Puar's 'method' (if we can call it that) lacks formal 'rigor' and is akin to throwing around random conjectures wildly.

Which brings me to Puar's defense of her theoretical eclecticism by simply deeming it queer theory: "a queer philosophical methodology… challenges a linear mode of conduction and transmission: there is no exact recipe for a queer endeavor, no a priori system that taxonomizes the linkages, disruptions, and contradictions into a tiny vessel." (xv) As a philosopher this bothers me immediately, particularly since it claims that there can be a philosophical methodology that lacks rigour (and celebrates this lack of rigour) justified as queer––this seems like a complete rejection of what philosophy means, a discipline that was always intended to provide clarity, and conflate it with random theorizing.  More to the point it reads as an excuse for eclecticism and an excuse to not be coherent: I'm not going to try to provide a concrete analysis of a concrete situation because that would be not-queer.

JMP lets the reader know, Puar is a representative of something called “queer theory.” While not definitively implying all “queer theory” is like this, it is suggested to the reader it may well be. And perhaps without fully realizing (or maybe he does), JMP gives a tell to his real thoughts:

JMP doesn't like the idea of sexuality itself not being contained in a “tiny vessel.” This “tiny vessel,” in reality, is the Western sexual epistemology itself.

Allow me to introduce a concept I've been thinking of for awhile now. I like to call it the Faggot Ball. People who subscribe to an origin of homosexuality as essentially a biology based phenomenon (the “essentialist” understanding, as opposed to the Queer or “social constructivist” position) are believers in the Faggot Ball. The Faggot Ball is the cause of homosexuality. It could be in your genes, or caused by hormones in fetal development, but it is basically a ball inside you, that has been with you since you were a small collection of cells, making you a faggot. The Faggot Ball is always there. It can not be gotten rid of. You might not even know you're a faggot, until you look deep inside yourself and find the Faggot Ball somewhere. The Faggot Ball defines essentially everything about you, and you know others have the Faggot Ball inside them too, hence their shared life experience must be very similar to your own (the basis of Homo Nationalism).

Queer Theory is essentially the denial of the existence of the Faggot Ball. It is the denial of the idea that allows faggots to treat themselves as if they were a real Nation. Whatever turns men into faggots has nothing to do with biology. The ultimate origins of male homosexuality are psychological and ideological. The understanding itself of who and what a faggot even is bullshit: there are no Faggot Balls. There can not be a Faggot Nation, as the common identity is built on a false understanding of reality itself.

Allow me to reference something from Zionist Hollywood, ala Zizek. There is an episode of the show American Dad where the show's main character is presented as trying to become a homosexual. The character eventually reaches a point where he is with a homosexual in bed, and he goes to kiss him. After the kiss, the character just immediately gets up and declares himself not a homosexual. Then the character proceeds to go the GOP convention and to tell them homosexuality is not a “choice.” The obvious thought to any critical reviewer would be that in real life, the main character would have probably been coaxed to getting his dick sucked on before declaring himself not a homosexual. People undoubtedly would think a bit differently about a protagonist who closed his eyes and let himself be sucked off by another man declaring he is not a homosexual than merely engaging in a kiss.

In a very real way, JMP's objection to the rejection of a narrative where everything fits in a “tiny vessel” is an objection to Queery Theory itself. JMP believes in the Faggot Balls.

Enter Rictor Norton, stage right. Norton is a critic of Queery Theory, the “social-constructivist” view of homosexuality, and is a proponent of the essentialist understanding of the origins of male homosexuality. In other words, he believes in Faggot Balls. And strongly too. Norton has made an academic career of sorts attacking Queer Theory. Norton has wrote a book called Myth of the Modern Homosexual: Queer History and the Search for Cultural Unity, the objective of which is to refute the “social-constructivist” view of the origins of homosexuality and thus Queery Theory itself (as there is no Queer Theory without this proposition).

For those not willing to buy the book, his provocatively titled essay F*ck Foucault: How Eighteenth - Century Homosexual History Validates the Essentialist Model is free to read, and basically covers the same points. Here we have an attempted rehabilitation of the essentialist understanding of faggots, complete with the typical projection of modern understandings of faggots onto the fairly recent past. Foucault is wrong! Faggots are a species (and a Nation, Puar might add)!

Once it is clear JMP and Norton share essentially identical views, the nature of JMP's review of Puar can be understood. JMP is trying to steer the reader away from Queery Theory. Puar represents a dangerous sort of theorizing, that if taken up by certain people, could lead to violence. No one is born a faggot. Faggots are created in some fashion, and the modern homosexual identity is totally the product of capitalism and imperialism itself. Cecil Rhodes was a faggot, after all.

But JMP is trying to do this without bringing up the defining proposition of Queery Theory itself: there are no Faggot Balls! Nowhere in his three articles published so far does JMP directly address the issue of the origins of male homosexuality. JMP wants to leave himself room to straddle the fence here, just like he did in the previous essay of his I attacked (which still seems to have him fuming all these months later). Perhaps JMP is aware on a philosophical level just how hallow the essentialist understanding of male homosexuality is, but is too much of an opportunist to state so outright. It pays better to be a faggot-enabler, after all.

The Hetero-Homo binary upheld by faggots and people like Rictor Norton shouldn't take very long to dismiss as simplistic nonsense, given how varied human sexual practices are. There was a recent article in Vice talking about why some women fuck their dogs. The author Mish Way talks about why some women have relationships with animals. It immediately reminded me of the film Zoo, which is a documentary about the zoophile Kenneth Pinyan, who died from internal injuries caused by letting horses fuck him up the ass. Where does fucking animals fit into the Hetero-Homo binary? It doesn't. Zoophilia is mental illness to such thinkers. There is no ball inside someone that makes them want to fuck their dogs, or to get giant horse cock forcibly rammed in their ass. There are no Zoo Balls, cries the essentialist in this instance. This is outside the bounds of discussion.

Pedophilia is also outside the bounds of discussion, despite the long-standing “Left” critique that attacking pedophilia was a round-about way of attacking faggots. “There are no Pedophile Balls either!” cries the essentialist. It is outside the bounds of discussion as well, as many posters on RevLeft have discovered for years now. BDSM sits somewhere on the dividing line of this boundary of acceptability, this ideological barrier separating bad sex from good sex. It is being negotiated between the imperialist Oppressor Man and his Oppressor Woman (see MIM's ideas on the Gender Aristocracy), and the Homo Nationalist has rightly understood the need to butt out of that conversation.

The Homo Nationalist, the supporter of the essentialist narrative of male homosexuality, says there are no Zoo Balls or Pedo Balls inside you. These are not hard-wired sexual orientations, but inexplicable mental disorders that need to be controlled. To make such claims about Zoo Balls and Pedo Balls would only hurt the Homo Nationalist project itself. In this instance, the Homo Nationalist is turned into the sex police of sorts, or rather, the Homo Nationalist is in charge of policing sexual narratives in the Western imperialist nations.

But the imperialist bourgeoisie and its loyal Labor Aristocracy has put the Homo Nationalists into a bind. While the term LGBTQ is continually being eroded to merely LGBT (minus the Q), the Homo Nationalists also are forced to integrate the transwoman, even though it has been known for some time the Homo Nationalist views the transwoman as a faggot with a mental disorder. I first discovered this was a common view held by homosexuals from my previous student activism, plus various conversations with homosexuals online. I recall being part of a Facebook conversation where this was extensively argued by faggots.

There is a reddit post worth quoting at some length on the topic of Homo Nationalist non-acceptance of the transwoman identity. It is titled “I do not think trans-sexuality should be part of the gay rights movement.” Here is the thrust of it:

This is a bit of a frightening thing to post because people get very, very defensive about this sort of topic, and understandably so.

I would like to start by saying that I am a gay rights activist. I have participated in protests, days of silence, and voted on all the pro-gay legislation I could. I have plastered my town in signs to vote "Yes" on gay marriage, and even defaced anti-gay displays (not that this in any way legitimizes me. The anecdote is provided for understanding of my views.) But I've never really accepted the "T" in the LGBT community.

I am proud that a community could band together to support a group which faces discrimination and ostracization from the world at large. I'm not condemning the decision to defend a group of people who need defending. But I don't think trans-sexuality should be encouraged.

From my point of view, the entire idea of the gay rights movement, and by larger extension the LGBT community, is to accept who you are. It asks you to accept yourself and to accept others as they were made, and to end judgement based on arbitrary terms like sexual preference or gender roles. That is why I want to fight for this community, to see more people happy and accepting themselves. Gay or not.

But I don't feel like trans-sexuality is self acceptance. I think it is self denial in the most extreme form. We cannot, scientifically, turn a man into a woman, or the reverse. We can remove organs. We can alter the shape and appearance of genitals. We can provide hormones which impart characteristics of a gender. But none of this truly changes a sex. Your given sex affects the development of your brain, which is something you couldn't change with all the surgeries in the world. So shelling out huge money and undergoing major biological changes just to chase the idea of the other side, it doesn't seem healthy to me. It seems like the ultimate denial. And I don't think we should be acting like it's an alternative to loving yourself for who and how you are naturally.

I don't hate trans-gendered people and I don't want them to be treated unequally. They deserve love and compassion as much as anyone else. But I think we're doing a grave disservice by promoting it as a regular sort of thing. It is, undeniably, very unnatural. And it far overextends the boundaries of sexuality which LGB is literally named for.

The Homo-Nationalist understanding here is clear: the transwoman is a faggot in denial of their faggotry. The Faggot Ball is bursting forth out of them, regardless of their willingness to accept it or not. They cannot accept the existence of the Faggot Ball, so instead they imagine themselves as women, when they are really just faggots. They should just accept the Faggot Ball, stop pretending to be women, and just be faggots. Like the rest of the Faggot Nation.

JMP is in agreement with the poster here, even if he doesn't realize it himself yet. The transwoman doesn't fit into the “tiny vessel” that is the Faggot Ball theory of male homosexuality. Trannies don't make sense to the Faggot Ball understanding of reality. Neither, for that matter, does male bisexuality. This prejudice of the Homo Nationalist is perhaps probably more familiar to ordinary people who have had any extensive conversations with faggots. To the Homo Nationalist, the bisexual male is just a faggot in denial. There is no Bisexual Ball inside a male (maybe they might admit this is possible for the female, but never the male). It's either a Faggot Ball or a Straight Ball (or more Homo Chauvininistically, mere emptiness). The bisexual male is just a faggot who refuses to acknowledge what having a Faggot Ball inside them means. Having the Faggot Ball means you're a faggot and nothing else, period.

On the website of Kersplebedeb, which also publishes stuff by JMP, there is another interesting critique of the work of Jasbir Puar. It reads sort of like a much better and less meandering and long-winded version of what JMP has written so far, but there is one part in particular I'd like to focus on:

While there were a lot of esoteric catchphrases summing up the whys and hows of this, there was nothing – nada, zilch – in the way of actual historical or political explanations. It seems this judgment on a terrain of struggle was the product of a lot of mental energy and pure logic, no actual practical experience necessary. That would just get in the way.

The phrase “a lot of mental energy and pure logic” I think is key. The edifice which Puar has built is indeed the work of a lot of mental energy and pure logic. Pure logic building upon the very foundations of Queer Theory itself. If there are no Faggot Balls, as Queer Theory assumes, then it is hard to deny what Jasbir Puar is saying to people. Homo Nationalism is real, except calling it Homo Nationalism is just being nice. It is actually Homo Fascism and Homo Imperialism. Faggots are not a species, they are not a nation, they are agents of US imperialism. Gay Rights is the Gay International. The Gay International and Zionism are joined at the hip. Zionism, imperialism, and faggotry are inextricably all linked and bound up together, just like Joseph Massad says.

Or you can believe like Rictor Norton, the anonymous LGB(T?) reddit activist, and JMP do: there are such things as Faggot Balls inside people, and the work of people like Jasbir Puar and Joseph Massad is only contributing to the oppression of those with Faggot Balls inside them. And Israel is a champion of Human Rights, aka Faggot Nationalism.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Book Review: A History of Quebec Nationalism.

MIM once suggested that you could tell First-World 'Marxists' were pulling your leg by asking them why they think Canadians are a separate nation, but black people aren't (even though this was a Comintern line forced on the American communist party). I have considered this a very astute observation. It immediately reveals many things to anyone who is paying attention, the chief of which is that the National Question has almost no bearing on the political consciousness of White Nation "Leftists." It is as if to even consider black people belong to a separate nation is some sort of political sin, while White Nation "Leftists" just take it for granted that English-speaking Canadians belong to a different nation than themselves. It is as if they think there is such a thing as an 'American Nation', a delusion they share with the Democratic and Republican Parties alike.

MIM didn't write too much on the question, and it is evident they weren't terribly familiar with Canadian politics. But this one observation can and should be used as a jumping off point, to seriously explore the National Question in the North American context. MIM took the position that the Québécois are an Oppressor Nation, but freely admitted this was not a serious investigation into the issue. They even hint that whether or not they would support Quebec Nationalism was simply a strategic question when they say "If MIM thought separation could cause true disaster, we might support it." Clearly, MIM did not want to support the Nationalism of a European nation, even the Irish, but they were conflicted, as their position is clearly not a Marxist-Leninist one. The Right of Nations to Self-Determination applies to all nations, even Oppressor Nations.

While it is perfectly clear Lenin himself considered blacks a separate nation inside the United States (page 275), there are also hints that Lenin didn't think English-speaking Canadians formed a separate nation from white Americans. Both hints come from his Notebooks on Imperialism. Probably the most important hint is that Lenin read a book titled The Americanization of Canada, which was the PhD thesis of Samuel Erasmus Moffett, the nephew of Mark Twain. Moffett declares at the end of the book:

"The English-Speaking Canadians protest that they will never become Americans--they are already Americans without knowing it."
The first chapter of the book, where Moffett goes over the moving of Anglo-Canadians back and forth over the border, should be enough to convince any serious reader that his thesis is quite correct. If Lenin even read the first 20 pages of this academic diamond in the rough, then Lenin could not possible have believed Anglo-Canadians and white Americans belonged to two different nations.

The second hint from the Notebooks comes from Notebook Omicron. Lenin writes "The labour movement in Canada ("bourgeoisified")" (bold in the original) beside this passage from Die Neue Zeit:

"The skilled, and especially the English-speaking, part of the working class is completely bourgeoisified. It's conception of trade unionism is still wholly that of the old, narrow-minded English trade unions."
Here Lenin is not only quoting approvingly of the separation of English and French Canadians into two different groups, he also notes that the English-speaking 'workers' were already bourgeoisified at the beginning of the 20th century!

All this, I think, is a good Marxist-Leninist introduction to the book under review, A History of Quebec Nationalism by the journalist Gilles Gougeon. Gougeon himself introduces the book by referencing the breakup of the Soviet Union, possibly forshadowing to the reader what might be in Canada's own future due to Quebec Nationalism:

September 1991. I have to go to Samarkland, in Uzbekistan. After the failed coup against Gorbachev, the producers of Le Point are dispatching me to the Soviet Union to put together a series of televised reports on the emergence of democracy in the old empire of the Czars.

On September 5, I land in Uzbekistan, 3,500 kilometers southeast of Moscow, to determine whether or not the new Soviet revolution has spread beyond Russia. Far from Moscow, I have heard, the wellspring of democracy is being drowned out by nationalism. On my arrival in Samarkland, I secretly make contact with a colleague on whom I'm counting for an explanation of the local sociopolitical dynamic. "He'll be able to give you a sense of the situation," I'm told. "It's a fight for power among the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, and the Russians within an Asian culture and in an Islamic context."

First meeting. Alexander is waiting for me on a park bench. He gets up, shakes my hand, introduced himself and says something that I take to be a formality. The interpreter, taken aback, translates it for me: "So, is Quebec going to separate?"

More than 10,000 kilometers from Quebec, in a city that was on the legendary silk route and has known Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great, this man brought me back home with a jolt. In Samarkand I was being asked the same question that hundreds of people have asked me over the course of my reporting in Africa, Latin America, central Europe, Scandinavia, the Persian Gulf, western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Quebec."

Certainly a very pointed introduction!

While not being an expert on Canadian history, this books seems to do a splendid job of highlighting the National Question in Canada. At a mere 115 pages (including the bibliography), it reads like something out of Oxford's Very Short Introductions series of books. Probably the most disappointing aspect of the book for me was realizing it is just Gougeon interviewing various historians, some of whom are more interesting than others. I would have preferred a book written by a single author presenting their point of view, and I'm sure there would have been more footnotes to follow up on, as this slender volume contains very few references to outside material.

While all the interviews are informative for various aspects of the history of Quebec and the various nationalist thinkers throughout its history, the most interesting interview for me was with the historian Robert Comeau. Nearing the end of the book, I was already hungry for meater material to read, and only Comeau seemed to be pointing me in the right direction. Gougeon asks Comeau in the interview about the importance of the historian Maurice Séguin:

"I think that Maurice Séguin was the most controversial, the most misunderstood, and yet the most important historian of modern Quebec. I think that through his students, Maurice Séguin has been more influential than you can imagine...

He was getting ready for the separatist struggle and he went back to the essential point, which for him was the defeat of the Quebec people in 1760. He was obsessed by the problem of his nation. The way he experienced the tragedy of Quebec was absolute and excessive. He spoke passionately to us about what he saw as the main problem: that the Quebec people had been put in a minority position in a federal system. That, for him, was the essential form that oppression took.

What was striking in his thought was the emphasis he placed on the interdependence among political, economic and cultural factors. A people couldn't be culturally sovereign if it didn't have mastery of its political life. So he always drew out the links among economic, political and cultural factors and spoke of a people's need not ot be "displaced." He saw oppression as displacement. He believed that for individuals and peoples alike, acting on one's own, being autonomous, was a source of enrichment and experience."

There is more worth quoting from Comeau on the importance of Maurice Séguin, but I will leave it to anyone interested in obtaining a copy for themselves of the book. For me, this was the most important chapter on pointing the way forward in my own continued studies of the Quebec Nation, Quebec Nationalism, and the National Question in North America.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

The Turner Diaries: A Marxist Review.

I just recently finished a rather notorious book known as the Turner Diaries, written by William Luther Pierce using the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald. To those who don't know, this is the book that has inspired various home-grown white terrorists to attack the US government, most famously Timothy McVeigh's attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City.

In one of J. Sakai's more powerful writings, "The Shock of Recognition: Looking at Hamerquist's Fascism & Anti-Fascism," Sakai makes many interesting remarks about who the real internal security threat to the US government is. It isn't communists, anarchists, liberals, black nationalists, Muslim extremists or Mexican immigrants. It is a type of white man, probably in his 20s or 30s, who might be attracted to books like the Turner Diaries. To quote Sakai at length:

The truth here is startling and it isn't in the least bit vague. The new fascism is, in effect, "anti-imperialist" right now. It is opposed to the big imperialist bourgeoisie (unlike Mussolini and Hitler earlier, who wanted even stronger, bigger Western imperialism), to the transnational corporations and banks, and their world-spanning "multicultural" bourgeois culture. Fascism really wants to bring down the World Bank, WTO and NATO, and even America the Superpower. As in destroy. That is, it is anti-bourgeois but not anti-capitalist. Because it is based on fundamentally pro-capitalist classes.

Obviously, rightist political views that touch on fascism are held by many white Americans. They're conditionally loyal to the government (and in the government) only because their level of prosperity and privilege is so high that why should they lift their faces from the trough? But if the u.s. capitalist class left it to a "democratic" vote of its white citizens, known fascists like David Duke would be in the u.s. senate, there would be no W.T.O. but also no Civil Rights Act, and much of America would proudly fly the Confederate flag of the slavemasters. The imperialist State's largest domestic security priority is not terrorism, the ghetto or the border as they pretend, but restraining and defusing white settler rebellion to the right.

When I read this piece a few years ago, it was these passages that stuck with me more than anything else Sakai wrote in his book review. While not everything Sakai writes is golden (Sakai admits in another article that he once believed AIDS was created by the US government to exterminate blacks in America), Sakai is generally a cut above anything you will find coming out of traditional "Left" circles of the White Nation.

As I hinted at in my first post on this blog, for anyone wanting to really screw with the US government, it would be men like Timothy McVeigh, who are attracted to material like the Turner Diaries, who form a base of people capable of engaging in terrorist attacks on the US government. While the first inclination no doubt would be for a hostile foreign power to reach out to Black Nationalists or communists, it is in my view, and the view of Sakai, that this would be an error. It is an understandable error, given the history of the United States, to assume that the US government ultimately represents the White Nation and its most fascistic elements. But this is not true, which is why there are thousands of white men like Timothy McVeigh in the United States, who have a deep, deep hatred of the US government.

How this radioactive element of the US population is contained is a story that is not told very often. Reading works like the Turner Diaries could give you a clue, but let me spell it out for the reader: the job of the mainstream 'Right' is to fool these people into thinking they have their interests at heart. This is why the term Cuckservative has gained some traction recently, even making it into the mainstream press. The mainstream 'Right' press openly discusses this problem, because they know the spreading of this particular meme speaks of the radioactive element of the US population leaking out of its container.

Just as it is the job of the Democratic Party and the Labor Bureaucreacy to keep the "Left" minded 'workers in line, so it is the job of the Republican Party and various 'Right'-wing organizations to contain this element of the White Nation. It is my hunch that a lot of Marxist-Leninist discourse on the National Question realizes the ultimate conclusions of a thorough-going Nationalist leads them to a type of socialism: a socialism for their nation. The Nationalist could only want the best for their People. That this type of thinking inevitably leads to a volkish socialism, except possibly in the advanced capitalist countries where imperialism yields enormous benefits to the entire population, seems obvious to me.

It is also why all the thoroughly Nationalist-minded revolutionaries of the undeveloped world turned to the Marxist-Leninist ideology in the first place. One of the architects of the Vietnam War, Dean Acheson, once remarked that "All Stalinists in colonial areas are nationalists." The authentic-Nationalists of the Oppressed Nations are ultimately forced to become Marxist-Leninists, if they truely give a damn about their People.

Skipping ahead in the Turner Diaries to the point where the Organization has taken over southern California, the operation was only possible because the Organization had infiltrated the military enough in the area to cause extreme confusion. One of the generals in Northern California also defected from the US government (called the "System" by Pierce/Turner). The figure of General Harding is a perfect representative of the type of 'Right' thinking man who tries to keep a lid on the radioactive element of the US population. The Organization sends some representatives to General Harding, in a bid to get him on their side:

"Revolutionary Command made the strictly practical decision to let General Harding carry the ball in his area, and our people were instructed not to oppose him. This had the effect of substantially reducing our own losses, although the military has actually suffered many more casualties in northern California than in the south. This is because Harding has failed to take sufficiently radical measures to consolidate his authority and to deal with Black military personnel.

When a delegation of Organization people went to Harding last month and suggested a joint Organization-military rule for northern California, with Harding’s forces handling defense matters and the Organization handling civilian matters—including police functions— Harding arrested them and has refused to release them. Since then he has been issuing idiotic proclamations about “restoring the Constitution,” stamping out “communism and pornography,” and holding new elections to “re-establish the republican form of government intended by the Founding Fathers,” whatever that means.

And he has denounced our radical measures in the south as “communism.” He is appalled that we didn’t hold some sort of public referendum before expelling the non-Whites and that we didn’t give individual trials to the Jews and race-criminals we dealt with summarily. Doesn’t the old fool understand that the American people voted themselves into the mess they’re in now? Doesn’t he understand that the Jews have taken over the country fair and square, according to the Constitution? Doesn’t he understand that the common people have already had their fling at self-government, and they blew it?"

Here ostensibly 'Right'-wing General Harding, who has just himself mutinied from the "Left"-wing US government, is calling the Organization a bunch of communists for utilizing "radical measures." The "radical measures" here is referring to the forced expulsion of blacks, Chicanos, and the murder of Jews and "race-traitor" whites. Pierce's mouthpiece Earl Turner no doubt sees the US government ("the System") as representing communism, but Harding turns the charge against them. Who is right, General Harding or the Organization?

Turner has much more to say about 'Right'-wingers in general. General Harding would fit into the mold Turner describes for them early in the book:

"Our present inability to recruit is a source of great worry to everyone. Rumor has it that there has not been a single new recruit in the Washington area in the last two months. During that time we’ve lost approximately 15 per cent of our strength. I hope conditions aren’t as bad elsewhere.
Of all the segments of the population from which we had hoped to draw new members, the “conservatives” and “right wingers” have been the biggest disappointment. They are the world’s worst conspiracy-mongers—and also the world’s greatest cowards. In fact, their cowardice is exceeded only by their stupidity.

The current conspiracy theory being circulated among conservatives is that the Organization is actually in the pay of the System. We are hired provocateurs whose job is to raise enough hell to justify the repressive counterrevolutionary and anti-racist measures the System is taking. If we would just stop rocking the boat, things would be easier on everyone. Whether they believe that theory or not, it gives them an excuse for not joining us."

General Harding becomes the ultimate coward, refusing to unite with the Organization to fight "the System," and using a 'conspiracy theory,' that the Organization is an expression of communism, as the excuse.

In another article I wrote for this blog, I point out that the 'Right' in the US is essentially split between pro-Israel and anti-Israel factions. There are fundamentally ideological issues here, such as whether or not Ashkenazi Jews are "white" people, and certainly religion plays a role here. Some of the most influential men in the American 'Right' act as go-betweens for the two factions. They seek to contain the radioactive element, even fooling it, into accepting the leadership of the mainstream pro-Israel faction. They will tell the minority faction whatever they want to hear about 'the Jews' behind closed doors, and get them to go along with whatever the larger faction, and ultimately the Republican Party, want. The Turner Diaries, in a sense, could be seen as a breakdown of this entire political process.

When playing on these national questions, the Turner Diaries is at its most powerful and explosive. An updated, 21st century version of the Turner Diaries would no doubt want to give greater attention to this aspect of American 'Right' politics. The people that become White Nationalists are usually too stupid to figure it out, and if they do, what they can even do about it.

The Turner Diaries is at its weakest when discussing international questions. The views of Earl Turner and General Harding are basically identical when it comes to the Soviet Union. The Organization, seemingly having lost all real concern for the immediate welfare of the 'white race,' decides to send nukes to the Soviet Union, simply to provoke a nuclear exchange between "the System" and the USSR for tactical purposes.

This weakness at analysing international questions is a reflection of the race-ideology of the White Nation. In the mind of American White Nationalists, 'nation' just becomes another word for 'race', or at best, a 'nation' is just a small subgroup within a 'race'. This is clearly reflected in Earl Turner, who laments that an "unknown number of millions of racial kinsmen in the Soviet Union" had to die for the plans of the Organization to succeed. From other passages in the book, it is clear Earl Turner sees the Soviet Union as another version of "the System." Earl Turner and General Harding both share the same disgust for communism. That the Soviet Union is nuked at the same time as Israel hints to the reader that Pierce ultimately sees the Soviet Union as essentially being another Jewish controlled "System." But then how would Pierce attempt to explain the extreme hostility of the Bolsheviks to Zionism, and the opposition of the USSR to the state of Israel? Pierce obviously wouldn't want to bog down his white readers with discussion of such questions, least it show his view of the international situation to be not much different from the General Harding types of the world.

Probably the most hilarious aspect of the book is its almost pornographic depictions of "System" support for miscegenation continually scattered throughout it. White Nation feminism, dominated in the mind of Earl Turner by Jewish women, has resulted in a situation where rape is basically not a crime anymore:

"Consider rape, for example, which has become such an omnipresent pestilence these days. It had already been increasing at a rate of 20 to 25 per cent per year since the early 1970’s until last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that all laws making rape a crime are unconstitutional, because they presume a legal difference between the sexes. Rape, the judges ruled, can only be prosecuted under the statutes covering nonsexual assaults.

In other words, rape has been reduced to the status of a punch in the nose. In cases where no physical injury can be proved, it is now virtually impossible to obtain a prosecution or even an arrest. The result of this judicial mischief has been that the incidence of rape has zoomed to the point that the legal statisticians have recently estimated that one out of every two American women can expect to be raped at least once in her lifetime. In many of our big cities, of course, the statistics are much worse.

The women’s-lib groups have greeted this development with dismay. It isn’t exactly what they had in mind when they began agitating for “equality” two decades ago. At least, there’s dismay among the rank and file of such groups; I have a suspicion that their leaders, most of whom are Jewesses, had this outcome in mind from the beginning."

This passage sets up the basis for the continuous theme of black men raping white women found all throughout the Turner Diaries. One could only laugh at it today, when it has become obvious to most that White Nation "feminism" is just as racist-minded as it ever was. One need only ponder over the hoopla surrounding the Hollaback catcalling video to see clearly White Nation "feminism" hates black men as much, if not more, than White Nationalists do.

That Pierce could actually imagine something like this being the case leaves one to question just how serious of a work the Turner Diaries is. One gets the impression it serves the function of leaders of the Confederacy telling Southern white men that their daughters will be marrying black men if the North wins. Perhaps Pierce thought such a thing would be necessary to motivate white men to violence with this book. Personally, I can't drop the suspicion that it only serves to mock the intelligence of his own readers who could believe such a thing would become possible.

One last aspect I want to touch upon is Earl Turner's praise for Black Nationalism. Despite Earl Turner ultimately being committed to a project of extermination all non-white people from the Earth, Turner still has respect for Black Nationalism:

"Besides the political vandals and the loonies, two other segments of the population have been playing an important role in recent events: the Black separatists and the organized criminals. Until a few weeks ago everyone assumed that the System had finally bought off the last of the nationalist-minded Blacks back in the ‘70’s. Apparently they’ve just been lying low and minding their own business, and now they see a chance to get a few licks in. Mostly they seem to have been blowing up the offices of Tom groups and shooting each other, but they organized a pretty good riot in New Orleans last week, in which there was a lot of window-breaking and looting. More power to them!"

Here Turner surprisingly expresses support for Black Nationalism. As the old saying goes, like is attracted to like, at least in this instance. While the passage is ambiguous enough to be interpreted simply as support for their disruptive activities, it seems clear to me Pierce/Turner is expressing support for Black Nationalism much the way the leaders of the KKK supported the efforts of Marcus Garvey back in the early 20th century. Seemingly, an authentic Black Nationalism would have prevented the situation Turner and white America finds itself in. A triumphant Black Nationalism would have created a separate Nation-State in North America, and blacks would be responsible for themselves, policing themselves, feeding themselves, etc. An authentic Black Nationalist ideology would create in the minds of black men (and women) a bond between themselves, leaving no thoughts of miscegenation in the black man or the black woman. This hints to the reader another vision of a war against "the System" could be imagined, one in where the White Nationalist and the Black Nationalist team up to destroy "the System" together, to live in peace in separate Nation-States, rather than the gory vision of the Organization necessitating the extermination of all non-white people.

There are some other things worth briefly mentioning. Mirroring the ideological fanaticism of Islamist Takfiris on the payroll of the US and Israel in Syria, Turner is converted into a quasi-religious group known as the Order by reading 'the Book,' the contents of which are never revealed to the reader. Pierce here is consciously suggesting what is needed is a White Man version of ISIS, complete with a religious ideology that will drive them to do things like commit suicide for the cause, which Earl Turner ultimately does by flying a plane over the Pentagon and dropping a nuclear weapon from low altitude. This ultimately reveals Pierce's own dismissal of White Nationalism as being enough to get the job done, which further lends credence to the idea Pierce does not take his readers seriously, much like Pierce's own tax-exempt Cosmotheism church scam.

The impact this book has had on the radioactive element of the White Nation should be consciously pondered over by all enemies of the US government. That Pierce himself doesn't take his readers seriously should encourage other enemies of the US government to consider writing their own version of the Turner Diaries, perhaps with a less objectionable ending. Poking the beast of White Nationalism will undoubtedly become a necessary strategy in order to bring down the US government, and implanting in these radioactive minds a vision of a White Nation-State living in harmony with the rest of the world would be a prudent thing to do.