“Ars longa, vita brevis”

Archive for the category “Analysis”

The Value of Everything: Rivers of Blood

VoE 119

Populism and the divide between fascist and communist radicalism.

In this episode of The Value of Everything, Charles Owen and I discuss the potential consequences of Brexit, the ascent of Jeremy Corbyn and revival of Old Labour, British populism, and the extensive history of the communist and fascist movements’ mutual hostility.

Download the episode here or stream it on YouTube.

(The entire series of dialogues between Charles and I can be accessed here.)

Council Communism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism Debate: Property and Exploitation


Is private property defensible? Can stateless capitalism be exploitative?

The first part of my debate with Charles Owen was recently released on The Value of Everything podcast, and has since been edited by my comrades at the Friedrich Engels Institute for Scientific Socialist Research. Before beginning this episode, however, I recommend listening to our preliminary discussion, wherein Charles and I briefly outline our respective political philosophies.

In this part of the series, we debate the legitimacy of private property and discuss whether or not wage labor is an exploitative practice. The second part of our series will be recorded in the coming weeks and released sometime thereafter.

If this exchange should elicit any questions you’d like to put forward, please feel free to comment below and I’ll do my utmost to provide a swift reply.

Click here to download or stream the recording via SoundCloud.

The Value of Everything: Post-Election Analysis


Discussing the meaning of Donald Trump.

Trump’s electoral victory shocked the liberal establishment and even slightly surprised me (I lost a $25 bet to someone over it, in fact). In episode 113 of The Value of Everything, Charles Owen and I discuss themes from my essay “America’s Populist Moment” and speculate on what might come of Trump’s presidency. We also touch on religion and the “new atheists,” and critique intersectionality and the ever so trendy theory of “structural racism.”

Download the episode here, or stream it on YouTube.

The Value of Everything: Forecasting Trumpism


What might we expect from a Trump or Clinton presidency?

In the latest episode of The Value of Everything, I join my friend Charles Owen to discuss Donald Trump and the future of the United States’ polity.

As Charles explains in the introduction, some of the content is going to sound dated, as a consequence of our exchange having been recorded in October. Nevertheless, the preponderance of our talk remains relevant, and we touch on a number of other topics as well (e.g., “cultural Marxism,” anarchism, and contending theories of capitalist crises).

Those awaiting our debate will, unfortunately, have to wait a little longer. The first half has been recorded, but my increasingly demanding schedule has interfered with my ability to set aside adequate time to finish the episode. But rest assured, it shall happen.

I encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast’s YouTube channel, if you enjoy Charles’s material.

Extinguishing Popular Support for Political Racialism via Immanent Critique


Manufacturing race is feasible in the 21st century.

Those who follow my work realize I’m a critic of identity politics, not because I’m of the opinion self-identifications (be they racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, or cultural) are somehow illegitimate, but rather due to the fact they impede the struggle for proletarian emancipation.[1] One form of identity politics, however, makes little sense even on its own terms and can thus be countered by those presented with propaganda featuring it with relative ease.

If cleverly communicated, ethnonationalism—a linchpin of the increasingly trendy “alt-right” movement—is still capable of garnering public sympathy due to the fact homo sapiens regularly employ phenotypes as a means by which to form alliances. As inherently neutral mediums, identifications on an ethnic or racial basis can be either pernicious or benign, contingent upon how they’re instrumentalized. Among those of Caucasian descent who are involved in racial politics, in particular, paranoia regarding a precipitous decline in European and North American birthrates has, in recent decades, led to utter hysteria about a “white genocide” claimed to be transpiring. It is precisely this notion I wish to briefly challenge in this entry.

Now, setting aside the obvious hyperbole of framing sub-replacement fertility as a “genocide,” and the contentious matter of whether or not the statistical figures cited by exponents of this view are accurate, there is a rather elementary solution to the predicament these individuals allege: artificial insemination.

One could conceivably stipulate all of the dubious claims white nationalists regularly advance, e.g., that northwestern European genes alone are the source of epochal ingenuity and, indeed, civilization itself, and nevertheless experience no great impetus to join their class collaborationist crusade. Why? Because contained within the scrotal sac of nearly every Caucasian male throughout the course of his life are literally billions of potentially viable offspring. Hence, even absent fertile European females to reproduce with, the Caucasian race could, in principle, be scientifically engineered back into existence on a large scale within approximately four generations of repeated reproduction with any genotypically disparate human population. Consequently, should the hereditarians’ disputable theories on intelligence and behavior one day be empirically vindicated, illiberal governmental measures and (currently nonexistent) methods of gene therapy will remain unnecessary for humanity to continue to progress; that’s how far-reaching the implications behind this technology are. It’s a scandal sensationalizing, fear-mongering philistines like David Duke and Jared Taylor maintain an audience.

Many of the Marxists of yesteryear who were proponents of positive eugenics referred to this practice as ‘eutelegenesis.’ In short, these theoreticians recommended that socialist societies establish sperm banks consisting of samples from eminent men, who females could then choose to be artificially inseminated by, if they so desired, therewith contributing to a gradual increase in the population’s mean intelligence.[2] To be clear, I do not subscribe to the hereditarian hypotheses communists of this orientation espoused, but that’s besides the point—recall that this is an immanent critique.

At any rate, the next time you’re admonished by a white nationalist, alt-rightist, or neoreactionary (they’re ubiquitous online, I assure you) as being a “race traitor” for either not expressing grave concern with the “white genocide” they bemoan, or for failing to accept the methodologically flawed IQ studies and police reports they routinely cite, instruct the insecure little man berating you to pay a visit to his local sperm bank and submit a donation in your name.

[1] This is the theme of a forthcoming paper I’m writing on intersectionality.
[2] The history and logic of this concept is explored in another of my forthcoming papers.

Post Navigation