On rejecting Keith Preston
Written by Dixie Flatline
I have been wanting to catch up on so many things I intended to blog, and only now find myself with the time to do so.
One such item is the excommunication from the anarchist blogosphere (yeah, think about that) of a fella named Keith Preston. Seems Keith wrote some things that upset some people, namely Charles Johnson, Brad Spangler and Kevin Carson, amongst others.
I had never heard of Keith Preston until I saw this post on No State, and it intrigued me, because I have recently been cutting ties with paleos who are more conservative than libertarian.
So yesterday, I finally got around to giving the offending post by Preston a rigorous examination with a clear mind and a critical eye.
The article is approx. 7700 words, excluding the three quotations that lead it off but including quote blocks in the post proper.
NoState points out a 68 (give or take) word section as offensive.
Do we really attract more people into our ranks by having so many self-hating whites, bearded ladies, cock-ringed queers, or persons of one or another surgically altered “gender identity” in our midst? Is this really something the average rebellious young person wants to be associated with? Could we not actually attract more young rebels into our ranks if all of this stuff was absent? I believe we could.
Ironically, most of the post indicates out how Keith could care less about people’s personal preferences, but when he singles out specific stereotypes (admittedly, in an inflammatory manner) it’s implied to be hate speech, when it clearly is nothing of the sort. I don’t know if being gay or bisexual is a choice or not, I assume some people could choose to have those sexual perspectives, but Keith makes a fantastic point about the conflation of gay rights with racism, and I can see that in how the PC crowd begins to extend discrimination so widely, it is nearly impossible to remark without self-censorship.
Keith seemed to be making clear that he wasn’t comfortable with alternative agendas and preferences leading because he doesn’t think that is good for big tent anarchism. And it probably is not, because fringe anarchists and cultural preferences don’t have a mainstream appeal, and in the blogosphere in particular, there seems to be a drowning out of alternatives to alternative ideas and preferences.
It’s interesting to read the responses to Keith’s post, overlooking all of the good, for a paragraph or two of inflammatory rhetoric. I don’t think he could have done much more to qualify his statement in advance, dedicating what seemed like half of the very long post to laying out his own ideas, experiences and preferences. He could have toned down his rhetoric, but if he is as frustrated as I am with certain parts of the libertarian and anarchist left, then I can understand his questionable judgment.
The first thing that came to mind for myself was that Preston’s colorful call to purge the queers reeks of the influence of the sort of strutting leather-boys with way to much Fallschirmjäger memorabilia who think that they’re not gay as long as they’re always the top.
Seems Spangler didn’t notice the comment (mid-post) about gays that Preston respects
For instance, I’ve gone out of my way to promote the work of Justin Raimondo, not because Raimondo is gay (who cares?), but because Raimondo is one of the very best critics of U.S. imperialism to be found. One of the very best critics of the police state is Glenn Greenwald, a gay man. One of my favorite political writers is Gore Vidal, who is a homosexual.
and (emphasis mine)
As for homosexuals, let them be evaluated according to what they actually contribute to our movement rather than simply for their status as homosexuals. We need the likes of Justin Raimondo or the late Alisdair Clarke. I’m not so sure we need some of these others.
So taking the previous comments into account with other statements in the post, Preston has no issue with gays (ie. “who cares?) and states that he appreciates and respects several gays, but wants anarchists to be evaluated on their merit, not their social preferences. That is significantly different than what has been criticized by Spangler.
RadGeek in response to another commenter at NoState;
I dunno, dude, when someone starts complaining about “cock-ringed queers,” “bearded ladies,” “pissed-off, man-hating, dykes with an excess of body hair,” and “persons of one or another surgically altered ‘gender identity,’” quote-unquote, and states, without any qualification, that fewer such people ought to be “in our midst,” in order to make the kind of person he thinks of as the “average young rebel” (who, we can glean from the textual evidence, is supposed to be white, male, straight, and not an immigrant) more comfortable joining up — well, I get the impression that he does care, and moreover that he expects other people to care. Not so much about the fact of sexuality per se, but more about how far one is open about sex and gender in a way that makes things uncomfortable for those who believe in a very rigid set of gender norms.
If RadGeek has read the entire article (he may have) then I don’t know how he can draw some of the conclusions he stated in the above. Keith makes clear he cares about what gays contibute, not what sort of sex they participate in, because it is irrelevant.
Textual evidence is nonsense, in that Preston infers that what is desirable and missing from anarchism is more racial and sexual diversity. The textual evidence is RadGeek’s hangup about Preston’s views on immigration, which are a testy second-best issue for many libertarians, present company included. No need to shift the goalposts.
And the last sentence is a strawman, in that Preston makes clear that sexual preference is not the issue at several points in the post.
But while I could respect your willingness to tolerate loathsome people on pragmatic grounds, I can’t remain neutral when you advocate purging the anti-state movement in order to appease those loathsome people.
He’s not talking about appeasing anyone. Note to readers, anytime someone uses the word appeasement, they are trying to portray another party in a weakened or submissive state. Cheap rhetorical trick.
You have “evolved,” if you can call it that, from a willingness to share a tent with racists and homophobes for the sake of defeating Empire as the primary enemy, to promoting an active purge of anti-racists and gays from the anti-Empire movement because the majority of your anti-state coalition might find them offensive.
I bolded the two strawmen. Nowhere did Keith call for a purge of gays and I’m not sure he called for a purge of anti-racists either. I also don’t recall that any purge was necessary to appease the current coalition, but that the elements he thinks should be purged, are hindering the growth of anarchism from the outside. And if the various left anarchist groups, coalitions and think tanks are any indication, I would have to agree. The cultural-leftism is a big turnoff to massive swathes of libertarians, almost all minarchists, conservatives and anarcho-capitalists.
The “cultural left” as Carson goes on to talk about, is ridiculous anyway. Cultural norms, personal preferences, and value are all subjective. I don’t care about the preferences of others as a matter of justice, as long as they conform to the NAP.
Now all of that said, I don’t know the body of Keith Preston’s work, so maybe this post was dishonest, and he really hates gays and loves Nazis. But with regards to the comments on this particular post by prominent market anarchists [sic], I don’t see where he crossed a moral line.
Anyway, that’s my 3 cents on the matter.
Related Blogs
- Blogs Related to anarchism
- Events – Rudolf Rocker and East End anarchism
- Blogs Related to libertarianism
- Another example of why Liberal Libertarianism is flawed …
- Conservatism, Libertarianism and the Liberal Party « The musings …
Josh Rhodes
Nice to see a reasonable take on this silly little blowup. As someone who has read quite a bit of Keith’s work and corresponded with him extensively, I can assure you that he is not by any stretch of the imagination some kind of queer-bashing neo-nazi.
That many people consider him to be so is more indicative of the sorry intellectual state of much of contemporary anarchism and libertarianism than anything Keith’s actually written. It’s hardly the whole body of his work, but probably the best synthesis of Keith’s ACTUAL views is this:
http://attackthesystem.com/liberty-and-populism-building-an-effective-resistance-movement-for-north-america/
Comment — June 21, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Nitroadict
I pretty much agree with ya, DF.
It wasn’t even a matter of mis-interpreting; they read his post (I assume they didn’t just skim), & proceeded to strawman him into a Heretic that didn’t tow the line with their preferred marketing.
I had been reading occasionally entries @ ATS for the past week, figuring I’d get around to the entry in question (I didn’t until I saw your post here), & from what I’ve read, nothing else seems to indicate racism, etc.
Ya know what, maybe they’re right: RL’s do exist. The Left Libertarians should change their name to the Reactionary Libertarians, it sounds more “radical” anyway. The logo could be a child with a bullhorn (furnished with an ‘(A)’ symbol of course) yelling at people who disagree with them.
*(I take back my annoyances & jests if & when any of these bloggers address the issue in the future & possibly admit they not only over-reacted, but lied to over-react, but in the meantime, some of them need a reality check)
Comment — June 21, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
smally
You write “Nowhere did Keith call for a purge of gays and I’m not sure he called for a purge of anti-racists either.”
So just what is Preston calling for when he writes:
“As for the rest of us in the anarchist milieu, I say it’s time for a purge, if not an outright pogrom … Do we really attract more people into our ranks by having so many self-hating whites, bearded ladies, cock-ringed queers, or persons of one or another surgically altered “gender identity” in our midst? Is this really something the average rebellious young person wants to be associated with?”
Comment — June 22, 2009 @ 4:15 am
Dixie Flatline
smally,
Unless you think most (or all) gays and anti-racists are
then I can’t see where the connection can be made, particularly given the other statements (which are very clear) in the post by Keith.
That said, I would love to be disassociated from anti-racists. I think their cultural leftism is a turnoff. And I say this as a non-white. I can’t speak for all people of diverse or non-caucasian racial makeup, but I for one am tired of some people (predominantly white) telling me to be indignant about racism, ostensibly to satisfy some sense of guilt they may have.
I’ll have a follow up post this week on anti-racism.
Comment — June 22, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Attack the System » Blog Archive » Program for a fictional ARV-ATS Scholars Conference
[...] at the No Treason site, Josh Rhodes made the following point concerning the recent rhetorical warfare between myself and some in the “left-libertarian” [...]
Pingback — June 24, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
Keith Preston
Dixie, Josh, and Nitroadict,
Thanks for the good words.
My actual politics are those of a classical left-wing anarchist (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin,Malatesta, etc.). Where I differ from the modern anarchist movement is that I take a good old fashioned paleocon “isolationist” approach to foreign policy rather than some kind of abstract universalism or internationalism. Such a policy has been pursued by the Swiss and Swedes for quite some time, and it’s worked well for them, even keeping them out of the two world wars. The “human rights internationalism” of the modern left inevitably leads to imperialism, and serves as a smokescreen for imperialism (see Chomsky on “military humanism”).
I also reject the left/right “culture war” psychology that many anarchists adhere to. Instead, I favor “peace through separatism”, i.e., a decentralized pluralism where different kinds of rival cultures are political sovereign within the context of the local communities where they are dominant.
I take a much harder line against political correctness as well, as I regard this as the Communism of the 21st century.
Strategically, I’m for a greater emphasis on combating the state itself, the ruling class and imperialism, and less emphasis on attacking social prejudices opposed by leftists and liberals, e.g., all of the various “isms”, “archies”, and “phobias.” This in part means building strategic alliances with enemies of the ruling class from various ideological viewpoints, including some with a socially conservative outlook.
For these reasons, I have been subject to repeated personal attacks, slander of the most extreme sort, and threats of violence for years. The root of the problem is that my enemies are totalitarians who wish to impose their own cultural values on everyone else, e.g., imposing “women’s liberation” whether the individual women want it or not, or pushing “anti-racism” of the most reductionist sort, whether individual racial minorities want anything to do with them or not.
Ultimately, however, I’m going to win. The forces of anarchism and the forces of political correctness will eventually diverge, and the latter will become so status quo, authoritarian, stifling and boring that no professed “revolutionary” can uphold it without getting roars of laughter.
Comment — June 26, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Marja Erwin
Keith Preston deliberately choose not to focus on the arguments against him, but on the personal attributes of some of his critics. (I stayed out of the debate until *after* he first did so). We did not choose these attributes, and we have faced irrational hatred and physical violence for these attributes. Queer folk face systemic discrimination in America, and trans folk face the very real risk of murder for being trans. And the passage slurs, and calls for the “purge” if not “pogrom” of us.
Comment — June 28, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Keith Preston
Marja,
“Keith Preston deliberately choose not to focus on the arguments against him,”
My critics from the Left rarely if ever offer arguments against my own positions. Nor do they even make any attempt to understand my views correctly. What they do is engage in lies, obscurantism, misrepresentations, personal attacks, slander, and “cyberstalking” as others have termed it.
“but on the personal attributes of some of his critics. (I stayed out of the debate until *after* he first did so).”
Sounds like special pleading to me. Others have demanded the right to engage in the behavior described above towards me, and then declare their personal sensitivities to be off-limits so far as rhetorical retalitation goes. It’s not going to be that easy.
“We did not choose these attributes, and we have faced irrational hatred and physical violence for these attributes. Queer folk face systemic discrimination in America, and trans folk face the very real risk of murder for being trans.”
I’ve actually written about issues that overlap with this in the past:
http://attackthesystem.com/the-last-minority/
“And the passage slurs, and calls for the “purge” if not “pogrom” of us.”
I was speaking metaphorically. What needs to be “purged” is the ideology of political correctness and the grip it has on the minds of many liberals, leftists, libertarians and anarchists.
Comment — June 29, 2009 @ 3:06 am
Roderick T. Long
Keith was not “excommunicated from the anarchist blogosphere.” Most of us in ALL were on more-or-less friendly terms with him until he called for his purge/pogrom against cultural leftists. We didn’t kick him out. He attacked us out and then stalked off with his toys to go build a “non-leftoidal anarchist movement.”
Comment — July 9, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Roderick T. Long
Keith,
My critics from the Left rarely if ever offer arguments against my own positions. Nor do they even make any attempt to understand my views correctly. What they do is engage in lies, obscurantism, misrepresentations, personal attacks, slander, and “cyberstalking” as others have termed it.
Who, other than Aster, is this supposed to apply to? I seem to recall quite a few arguments offered against your positions in the various discussions in ALL.
Comment — July 9, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Rodney
It would seem as though what Keith is advocating is a purge of non-anarchists from the movement. And the calls for him the “repent” and “get with it” and the like, from his detractors read like an affirming appendix to his article.
Comment — July 14, 2009 @ 4:39 am
Roderick T. Long
It would seem as though what Keith is advocating is a purge of non-anarchists from the movement.
There are non-anarchists in the anarchist movement? That’s news to me.
I think it’s pretty clear from his article what Keith is advocating is the purge of cultural leftists — meaning, in this context, those who oppose racism, sexism, and (apparently especially) homophobia/transphobia — from the anarchist movement. Hence his call for a “non-leftoidal anarchist movement.”
Comment — July 15, 2009 @ 12:37 am