A feminist guide to surveillance and rightwing militancy

I’m a feminist, an environmentalist arrested for civil disobedience, and my still unassessed Dr Philos thesis is about taking money from billionaires and giving it to the poor in developing countries. Have also studied far-right groups since 1994. Therefore relatively qualified to write about the conflict between rightwing militant activists and Western surveillance agencies, in a manner that might help feminists to avoid getting tricked by those who are manipulative on both sides in this violent conflict.

If you are a feminist it may be tempting to accept the arguments of corporate media and NSA, FBI etc when they claim that surveillance is necessary to stop “angry white men”. The situation is not that simple however. Have written this article to show all the nuances which make it reasonable to reject much of the neoliberal pro-surveillance narrative.

Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who helped Edward Snowden, risked his life exposing authoritarian rightwing politicians in Brazil, and defended AOC in 2018, is now being branded as a “misogynist”. This alone proves that corporate media such as The New York Times hire “journalists” who are fake socialists (or faux liberals) using identity politics to falsely discredit real critics of Big Business and Big Government. I call them “corporate woke agents”, as Greenwald documents here:

The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows

Economic conservatism vs cultural conservativism

Cultural conservatives are not the same as economic conservatives or (post-9/11) neocons. The latter two are often conservatives in name only, usually representing the interests of Big Business. They only pay lip-service to genuine cultural conservatism in order to get votes during elections. Neocons are former liberals. Trump was also primarily a cultural liberal or a libertarian. Many real cultural conservatives don’t trust him at all, though some voted for him in lack of a better alternative, to avoid neoliberal fascistoid Biden (who basically wrote the Patriot Act). The “creative destruction” of greedy and unrestrained corporate “capitalism” has almost per definition always been one of the main enemies of cultural conservatism. Economic “conservatives” and cynical ultra-“liberals” have in common that both don’t mind exploiting women.

Spooks in the surveillance industry are not worried about economic “conservatives” as long as they play ball with other super-rich globalists.

Cultural conservatives view Nature, the land and territory they live on, as part of their cultural heritage, worth dying for, so they naturally want to protect their own environment. Industrialists, who opportunistically pretend to be conservative, just want money, so they don’t care about the environment. But they want to stamp down real conservatives who stand in their way. Who do you call if having a problem with leftwing or rightwing rebels? NSA, CIA, MI5 etc. Well, that’s not exactly true. First you buy a newspaper.

Corporate media, the nationalist and the Straw Man

Mass media today is owned by a handful of corporations which support globalism, cf Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. It’s therefore not surprising that Establishment media is almost constantly focusing on the most angry, violent and uneducated nationalists, in order to discredit this ideology, because nationalism is in reality the most anti-imperialistic and anti-globalist ideology, cf The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt:

Regarding the relation between nationalism and the growing expansion of imperialism, she wrote that “Of all forms of government and organizations of people, the nation-state is least suited for unlimited growth because the genuine consent at its base cannot be stretched indefinitely, and is only rarely, and with difficulty, won from conquered peoples. No nation-state could with a clear conscience ever try to conquer foreign peoples, since such a conscience comes only from the conviction of the conquering nation that it is imposing a superior law upon barbarians. The nation, however, conceived of its law as an outgrowth of a unique national substance which was not valid beyond its own people and the boundaries of its own territory.”

Arendt said that “… modern antisemitism grew in proportion as traditional nationalism declined…” She also refers to the “founder” of nationalism: ” … Herder, an outspoken friend of the Jews …”

Imperialistic nationalism is an oxymoron. Ethno-imperialism is a reality however, but that’s the ideology which drove large Western corporations until after the Cold War when they had so much global power that billionaires lost all allegiance to their own countries of origin.

Global capitalists are materialists who love to cooperate with international socialists who also believe in the philosophy of materialism.

National borders limit the imperialistic ambitions of globalists, so corporate media are happy to help modern “woke” socialists who spend their time attacking not only ethno-imperialists but also genuine nationalists, instead of using all their energy on fighting globalized Big Business. This is different from earlier decades when socialists supported nationalist liberation movements in developing countries. Ho Chi Minh was originally a nationalist, who sought help from the US, but liberal Democrats went to war in Vietnam instead. Check the name of liberation movements after WW2 and you will notice that the word “national” is very common, such as the “Zapatista Army of National Liberation”.

There is nothing wrong with moderate versions of nationalism. The latter can even be “anarchistic”:

“Herder was a populist who believed that a people can and should determine its own cultural path, but he steadfastly refused to draw any political implications from this commitment. [Isaiah] Berlin attributes this refusal to Herder’s denunciation of every form of centralization, coercion and conquest, and to his almost anarchistic dislike of the state.”

Prof. Alan Patten: “The Most Natural State”: Herder and Nationalism. Princeton University, 2010.

Isaiah Berlin writes in The Roots of Romanticism that: “If there is anything which Herder dislikes it is the elimination of one culture by another. He does not like Julius Caesar because Julius Caesar trampled on a lot of Asiatic cultures …”

Real socialists focus on fighting economic injustice. They seldom waste time and energy on culture wars in rich countries. If anyone claims otherwise they are either misguided or fake socialists = “corporate woke agents”.

There is no contradiction between supporting international economic justice and defending your own national culture. If the global economy is fair, it will reduce mass immigration, so it’s in the self-interest of Western nationalists to fight imperialistic exploitation of developing countries.

It’s a straw man argument to present true nationalists as being angry male “white supremacists” who must be put under surveillance to save democracy and humanity.

The indy-right is not authoritarian

Especially in the US, and in individualistic countries like Norway, there is an essential difference between the authoritarian right and the indy-right. The latter has always supported the freedom of the “little man”, in opposition to both Big Business and Big Government.

Indy-right farmers have much in common with leftwing eco-farmers. Self-sufficiency and independence are the two main ideals next to conservative family values and moderate religion, which typically is Christianity in Western countries. The indy-right is different from libertarians, since the latter often accepts libertinism and is attached to high-tech.

The indy-right can also be called the yeoman-right: supporters of Jeffersonian democracy. Their motto is “Don’t tread on me”, the coiled and down-to-earth viper on the Gadsden flag. They believe that the Second Amendment is necessary in case the First Amendment fails, because of corrupt elites.

It is being said that the Wild West was first civilized when also women settled down there. But this was different from today’s CorpState top-down “feminization” of society. This Gucci feminism is also different from the strong feminist movement we had in Norway in the 1970s and early 1980s, before neoliberalism.

The main difference between feminism and the Christian chivalry ideal is that cultural conservatives focus on respecting the ideal of womanhood but feminists rightly say that each woman must be respected as an individual. I’m a “rightwing” Christian and “leftwing” feminist, and therefore see no contradiction between chivalry and defending the autonomy of all individuals regardless of their group identities.

In the wild, on a farm, men have to be strong, unlike scholars, the category I belong to naturally. With more testosterone it can sometimes be a higher risk of aggression and violence. If a woman wants to know whether an indy-conservative is safe to be around, double-check that he actually likes Narnia and The Lord of the Rings.

It’s a saying: don’t give a sword to a man who can’t dance. Not claiming that all cowboys must learn to dance, far from it. But if a man is willing to learn it, then that’s another sign that a woman can safely trust him.

Rightwing authoritarianism is a well-known phenomenon. Corporate media loves to write about it, because it makes globalized Big Business look good in comparison to the extreme violence of the most evil rightwing regimes. These zealots can be everything from Nazis and reactionary Catholics to royalists and Social Darwinists. Ultra-“liberal” corporate media and the intelligence services of the neoliberal CorpState usually give average citizens the impression that every rightwing radical or “extremist” is an authoritarian, an enemy of liberty, that we must … put under surveillance.

It’s true that militant indy-right activists are a threat to centralized government institutions. One out of ten million will (perhaps) become a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh. But the conflict is only between them and the centralized state, except in (very rare) cases when innocent civilians become “collateral damage” if an evil and reckless terrorist decides to be as inhumane as Timothy McVeigh.

The indie-right is not a political threat to feminists, anarchists or lefty supporters of decentralized socialism if none of them uses (top-down) power to change the values of these freeborn and self-sufficient farmers and hunters.

If you are a feminist, like me, you have reason to be skeptical of all cultural traditionalists, since many of them defend male dominance over women, but traditionalism is not the same as conservatism. The latter says: change in order to preserve. A conservative yeoman will therefore treat all women with a kind of chivalry that is basically equivalent to how liberals respect women.

To check whether a man is an indy-conservative or an authoritarian traditionalist, ask if he supports the independence that women had in the Viking age. Nobody actually knows (with scientific certainty) how free women were back then, but here in Norway I’ve several times heard from conservatives that women had much freedom in the age of the Vikings.

Only weak men are afraid of naturally strong women. Conservatives just don’t like it when leftwing feminists use the state and corporations to influence society in a direction which contradicts religion, the “binary” nuclear family, and national cultures.

Keep in mind that women constitute half of humanity. They are not a minority. So it’s just an undeniable fact that defending the rights of women is in reality not the same as the conflict about minority rights, though many leftie culture warriors will try to put both in the same category.

The 2nd Amendment is feminism in practice

If you happen to be a woman in an indy-conservative society you may not initially feel as safe as when living in an ultra-liberal CorpState like Norway or California, but the felt safety of the latter is often a false sense of security because there is seldom police around, in any type of state, when a man decides to attack a woman.

Abuse and violence against women is (relatively) high even in “feminized” ultra-liberal states in today’s Scandinavia. Though this “Nordic paradox” is questionable, like all complex phenomena, the statistics for or against it can be unreliable because of politicization.

For women to feel secure in an indy-conservative society, girls should learn to safely handle guns from an early age. It’s surprising how everybody treats you with respect when you have a 44 Magnum or a Glock 26.

Liberals will say it’s unsafe for women to carry guns, but if that is the case why is it okay for female police officers to carry weapons? Because they have proper training? Then let it be part of the school curriculum to teach girls how to safely draw a gun. Very few men will dare to attack a woman in a society where everyone knows that all females are highly trained tactical shooters.

My favorite feminist movie is Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Unlike a broadsword that requires muscle strength a gun is actually a feminine weapon. You only have to pull a trigger to defend yourself. Guns are equalizers. Even a child can stop a killer, a large man, if having a gun. That is true equality, when it really matters.

God created men and women, and Samuel Colt made them equal.

Many pacified women today will reject the above, unless they are born in Israel, or happen to be as independent as Lauren Boebert and Lyudmila Pavlichenko. But if a woman wants to have the same equal freedom and true independence as a man, then she can’t rely on the nanny-state to hold her hand. What if there is a major crisis that destroys the centralized government of Western CorpStates? How will females secure their own safety then?

The comforts and conveniences provided by a CorpState is not the same as independence and equality.

For the record, I support the kind of moderate welfare states that Norway had in the 1970s. I have narcolepsy, so I’m on welfare myself. Nationalism is about protecting everybody in your own tribe, also the weak. Nationalism is not fascism. Read Tribe by Sebastian Junger to understand what real nationalists stand for.

Cultural conservatives belong to the Romanticist tradition. Women are often romanticists and religious/spiritual. In a way one can therefore say that conservatives have always been sensitive “feminists”. Rightwing Christians and leftwing feminists in Norway have occasionally cooperated, in a common fight against neoliberal capitalists.

I’m not trying to convince women that an indy-conservative society is the best system. The point is that even though an extremely tiny minority of the radical indy-right may perhaps become evil terrorists killing civilians, when feeling threatened by a centralized government, this ideological movement is not seeking power. It just wants to be left alone. It is therefore far from being on the same political threat level as authoritarian conservatives.

When corporate media and surveillance agencies lump all rightwing radicals together in an attempt to convince average citizens that all of them must be closely monitored to protect a free society, then it’s prejudice to assume that all of them are supporters of authoritarian states. Relatively many are actually closer to anarchism. But that fact doesn’t fit the surveillance narrative of “white supremacists” and “hateful misogynists”.

The New York Times fired antiracist journalist

Glenn Greenwald writes about how even antiracist journalists can lose their jobs in “liberal” newspapers like The New York Times when being accused of unintentionally contributing to “racism”:

“The same stunted [censorship] mentality just resulted in the destruction of the career and reputation of Lorenz’s far more accomplished colleague, science reporter Donald McNeil. On a 2019 field trip for rich high school kids to Peru, he used the “n-word” after a student asked him whether he thought it was fair that one of her classmates was punished for having used it in a video. McNeil used it not with malice or as a racist insult but to inquire about the facts of the video so he could answer the student’s question.”

“After New York Times senior editors — including African-American editor-in-chief Dean Baquet — investigated and concluded that “only” a reprimand was appropriate — “it did not appear to me that his intentions were hateful or malicious,” said Baquet — dozens of McNeil’s colleagues wrote a furious letter demanding far more severe punishment. “Our community is outraged and in pain,” said the 150 Times employee-signatories, adding: “intent is irrelevant.” Intent is irrelevant when judging how harshly to punish this storied journalist for uttering this word.”

“They got what they wanted. McNeil wrote a grovelling, abject apology, and then the Times announced he was gone from his job after forty-five years with the paper, including for COVID reporting over the last year that the paper had submitted for a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. Just think about that: New York Times employees, who are unionized, demanded that management punish a fellow union member more harshly than management wanted to. In 2002, McNeil won the 1st place prize from the National Association of Black Journalists for excellence in his reporting on how the AIDS crisis was affecting Africa. Now his forty-five-year career and reputation are destroyed — at the hands of his own colleagues — because “intent is irrelevant” when using off-limit words.”

The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows

Greenwald has included many links to sources in the original text.

Oppression is all about power, not ideology alone

All ideologies and religions have at one point or another been corrupted by individuals who only want power. One can find decent men within almost any ideology, both on the far left and the far right. In any type of society or subculture the first rule is to simply stay away from psychopaths, narcissists and Machiavellians. It’s this dark triad which corrupt all societies, more or less. They seek power and fame, so you often find them in Big Business and Big Government … and Big Surveillance.

An idea without any power at all is harmless.

But don’t interpret this article as being an ideological defense of far-right movements today. The surveillance states in the West are now so “omniscient” that NSA knows much more about the current members of these movements than I do. But even if only 1 out 10 rightwing radicals are genuine indy-conservatives, then that’s enough to not just blindly condemn them all as evil fascists.

Nor am I claiming that leftwing activists should stop being opposed to real white supremacists, including those who only pretend to be indy-conservatives (or non-authoritarian “national anarchists”). But the real threat now is Big Tech surveillance. That’s the new totalitarianism, a system that will oppress everybody, left and right. If a real fascist gets power in a Western country he (or she) will use Big Tech surveillance to create a regime nobody can resist, a Third Reich or a Year Zero that will actually last thousand years, and beyond. This kind of tech power will also corrupt liberals, cf The Lord of the Rings, leading to a Brave New World if nobody stops it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s