What does lefty pol think of keith preston

amazon.com/Tyranny-Politically-Correct-Totalitarianism-Postmodern/dp/1910881163

He is an anarcist
His book the the tyranty of the political left is specifically the thread theme.

Some exerts
Often one will even find alleged humanists who insist that the views, aspirations and basic happiness of indigenous Europeans are of no importance. Instead, these Humanists say, indigenous Europeans should bow down and forget about their own wants and desires for the greater good of Humanity. The greater good of Humanity usually seems to take no interest in Europe’s cultural heritage and its integration into a grey, world-wide, uniform “globalization” . . . . Totalitarian humanism . . . loves an abstract and universal “humanity” so much that its proponents don’t care what has to be done to individual human beings or particular human cultures in order to advance their ideals. [pp.13-14]

the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed [emphasis added], at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. [p. 24]

. . . from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of social services, social security, medical care, etc. [p. 26]

The bottom line is that the task of revolutionary struggle against the state, the global plutocratic super class, and the Empire is far too important and too challenging to be placed in the hands of recycled Commies and over muh privileged undergraduates hiding away in their “safe spaces” with their crayons and coloring books, desperately seeking to avoid being “triggered,” and crying over this or that “microaggression.” [p. 148]

No other form of identity is acceptable within the context of this particular paradigm. Not ethnicity, not nationality, not race, not culture, not religion, not history, not tradition, not community, not ancestry, not family, and apparently not even gender. Instead the ambition is to create masses of helots that function merely as deracinated, working, consuming, tax-paying, obedient drones without any connection to the past, no regard for the future, no folklore, no distinctiveness, and no serious aspirations. [p. 80]

The ideology of totalitarian humanism insists that profound human differences regarding matters of culture, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, or language are simply of no significance. Differences of these kinds that have been generated by thousands of years of human social evolution and have produced many magnificent variations of human culture that have existed since ancient times are dismissed by the proponents of totalitarian humanism as mere surface-level social constructs that contain no essence or intrinsic value. Some proponents of this worldview have gone even further and insisted that the variations to be found among human populations are merely interchangeable commodities. [p. 68]

But mass immigration is the one policy that, once it reaches a certain tipping point, cannot be undone. If mass immigration continues and even expands, eventually our civilization will reach the point of no return, and thousands of years of cultural evolution will be lost as a result of demographic overrun. [pp. 73-74]

we will soon have in the United States . . . a multiethnic, multicultural, secular, feminized and gayized political class presiding over a crumbling imperialist empire and decaying corporatist economy. This ruling class will have at its disposal a massive police state apparatus that has been built up in recent decades under the guise of the wars on drugs, crime and terrorism. [p. 40]

The state may not murder you or put you in prison for decades without trial, but you may lose your job, have your professional licenses revoked or the social service authorities threaten to remove your children from your home or be subject to significant but brief harassment by legal authorities . . . . [T]he state will increasingly look the other way as the use of extra-legal violence by leftist and other pro-system thugs is employed against dissenters. [p. 53]

el bumpo

[muffled Holla Forums autistic screeching and stirnerface picket signs approaching from the distance]

I never understood why destroying the identity of the working class even when they dont want it was ever considered desirable

Identities are allowed so long as they sustain the system, for example identities of political beliefs, thereby allowing people to collectively prohibit fascism etc.

All other identities act disruptive towards the system, and therefore have to be eliminated.
Basically, the borderless free movement global communist utopia requires humans to behave in a certain "despooked" way, otherwise it cannot exist.

For example, just think how some of those identities would immediately contradict the free movement part by encouraging tribalism for non-economic reasons.

I think the biggest issue of the book (at least the text excerpts here) is that the author assumes the destruction of culture is merely "collateral damage" and thus people simply need to wake up to their worth, when in reality their destruction is fully intentional and they are seen as having negative worth by communists.

Identities based around political beliefs is not identity people trying to shoe horn in things like "workers of the world unite" is just as awful and unbearable as a US system trying to unite people through a materialists McDonalds identity. Both ideas limit the scope of who people are allowed to be to what a state apparatus wants them to be to say I and some random african tribesmen have a similar identity because we are both steel workers is absurd. I have no doubt local identities would destroy a global communist identity. Why is a global communist identity more desirable then a local identity? Why is economic motivation the primary factor? Why cant one take into account economic cultural and ethnic concerns when discussing the welfare of the nation. Why is freedom of movement desirable if the working class in your nation does not want it?

...

not sure what this comment is trying to express.

Because they last two things don't actually have to be political. Economic motivation is about being objective and considering things that affect everyone regardless of their personal feelings on the matter.

If you let personal biases clout politics, you will never get anything done and end up being manipulated.

Every person in the world is subject to personal bias your bias. Having any sort of culture makes you bias. Why is the end goal always a massive state that spans the world in a communist apparatus? Why cant you just have one state in one country with that countries culture?

I am saying that the book is concern trolling. The author has long since been outed as a lolbert with zero concern for anarchist philosophical tradition.


Just because you are too stupid to have a self-critical opinion doesn't mean everyone else is.
Because you are a retarded burger that believes in pop culture imagery created by Cold War propaganda.
Why should we?

your to stupid to realize your own biases m8.
We should have one state with one culture because thats what the real working class actually wants.

...

I didnt even mention the USSR or past communism but you rushed to defend it. I was talking about the other poster in the thread who was making the case that a multinational communist state is desirable.

No I always take my own bias into account. I cannot escape who I am similar in scope to how you are incapable of not being a cunt.

Dam thats a good joke

elaborate further pls good sir

I am fully aware that my views are unpopular. The difference is that I do not pretend otherwise.

It's obvious how a sentiment like "people are too stupid to know what they want" will lead to disaster, but a coherent society cannot be built if ideas are not even discussed at all and gut feelings are simply assumed to be shared by all.

Im all for ideas being discussed. In fact one of the requirements for a truly civil society is true freedom of speech. I agree we shouldn't just go off of our gut feeling that may or may not be shared by all, it doesn't mean we all dont have gut feelings.

So why is it that every single thing a person is concerned with individually has to have political bearing? In case liberal identity politics haven't made it obvious for you, this only causes problems without fixing any of them.

Causing problems is simply part of human nature. You cant end this endless stream of problems without fundamentally changing human nature. These things have to have political bearing because simply ignoring them leads to ruin and trying to make them not exist leads to a bleak nightmare world. Its important to represent the working class in all its aspects and it is going to be very important for the left to dare to be human and take some sort of stance on identity politics in the days a years to come. Not doing so is what lost the working class to populist candidates who are willing to talk about issues the left deem irrelevant.

memes.

AYY LMAO