[Ombrageux]

Current writers and intellectuals against whom the politico-media Establishment has proclaimed non-negotiable fatwas:
* Steven Sailer
* Alain Soral
* heartiste
* RooshV
Anybody else?

I have to say I really enjoy Sailer's very insightful and funny method of asking-the-awkward questions.

I say:
* In the West (or, at least in France and the U.S.), I have solidarity with all people being oppressed for their political beliefs or being deprived, de jure or de facto, of their right to free speech.
* I refuse to condemn an argument before I have had the chance to hear that argument. For this reason I happily read forbidden authors and I despise the self-appointed thought police of political correctness.
* Knowing which political ideas and individuals are demonized, and which are not, gives you highly interesting information about a country's politico-media system.
* If you don't like a person or an idea, actually logically argue against it, rather than constant usage of guilt-by-associations with a priori taboo people and ideas.

In general, the fundamental religious principles of the age appear to be plutocracy and equalism, for structural reasons which are pretty clear if one thinks about it. (Plutocracy because of elites' self-reinforcing wealth/power accumulation, equalism because of the need to appeal in "media-democratic" societies to each individual's irreducible narcissism.) The methods for achieving plutocracy and equalism are borderlessness and multiculturalism. I note that many of these renegades come to their broader political critique via "game," because the reality-based practice of game contradicts the a priori dogmas of equalism, that men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc, etc, are absolutely equivalent and interchangeable. I also think there seems to be a relationship between the courage required for game and that for rebelling against the regime itself. (Similar in some ways to the courage needed to come out young as a gay person, which makes for the fearless rebellion of a Glenn Greenwald against an Establishment's orthodoxies, although I wouldn't put him in the same category, in fact he may even be somewhat compromised at this point.)

Re: the thought police of political correctness: Pious, pseudo-rebellious leftists tend to be far, far more guilty of this than others. It's very, very difficult to have a balanced discussion on sensitive issues with a leftist, they tend to be extraordinarily sectarian and will refuse to debate certain issues and certain people (even talking about/with those ideas/people can be enough for them to decide you are enemy), it's interesting that those claiming to be most rebellious tend to be most attached to official taboos. Liberals (liberal-cosmopolitans who are openly attached to the ruling ideology) tend to be a bit better, they're typically more conformist at first, but they actually will listen and won't reflexively excommunicate you, the liberal doesn't have the arrogant self-proclaimed moral superiority of the leftist. Certain cultivated Marxists are very good. The best (the least sectarian and most free-minded), in terms of accepted pundits and ideologies, tend to be paleoconservatives (nationalists). You will be a lot less stupid if you read La Croix (Christian newspaper) or the Figaro (conservative paper owned by French industrialists (arms manufacturers)) than if you read Le Monde and Libération (supposedly "leftist" or "center-left" publications owned by plutocrats, and so naturally promoting plutocratic interests, among weak-minded leftists, no less, which is really quite perverse or elegant depending on how you look at it).

[Potemkin]

The best (the least sectarian and most free-minded), in terms of accepted pundits and ideologies, tend to be paleoconservatives (nationalists). You will be a lot less stupid if you read La Croix (Christian newspaper) or the Figaro (conservative paper owned by French industrialists (arms manufacturers)) than if you read Le Monde and Libération (supposedly "leftist" or "center-left" publications owned by plutocrats, and so naturally promoting plutocratic interests, among weak-minded leftists, no less, which is really quite perverse or elegant depending on how you look at it).

Interestingly enough, the exact opposite is true in Britain.

[The Immortal Goon]

And the United States. The UT out of San Diego is littl more than a rag used by its owners (who are land barons) to cut their taxes and put they openly admit to not covering some stories and giving extra emphasis to others because preconceived ideas they're pushing with a strong political bias.

The New York Post is a tabloid little better regarded, journalistically, than the National Inquirer-this latter paper being notorious for making up stories about celebrities.

[Potemkin]

I think the difference is down to the '68ers in France. The left-wing was politically successful in France in the late 1960s and 1970s, and those same student activists went on to become the next generation of the political elite. This didn't happen in Britain or America, where there was no equivalent of May '68, and where there was a triumphant centre-right reaction in the 1980s. The political elite in the Anglosphere is centre-right, whereas in France the political elite is centre-left. This means that in the Anglosphere, it's the centre-right media which peddles the pious lies, whereas in France it's the centre-left media which peddles the pious lies. I wouldn't wipe my arse with most paleo-conservative rags in Britain, and I suspect that TIG could say the same for American centre-right publications.

[Ombrageux]

Actually I find the American paleos (Buchanan, Sailer) to often be better than the best American liberals. On a par with your Perry Anderson-type Marxists. In the UK too, guys like Ed West and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard are very good, although I don't know that scene very well.

[redcarpet]

I read Marquis de Sade. True it's not as taboo as it used to be, but still doesn't have
a positive image.

[Heisenberg]

Among the right wing in Britain, I find that Peter Hitchens can often be pretty interesting. I'm not really familiar with Ed West or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Other than that, I agree with Potemkin. Most right wing writers here are full of shit, and incredibly dull to read.

[QatzelOk]

The most important forbidden writers are the ones we've never heard of, of course.

Which is why the Internet has so much potential... to kill (by gatekeepers).

[anarchist23]

These books were banned.
1.A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
2.A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Earnest Hemingway
3.LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
4.BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
5.METAMORPHOSIS by Franz Kafka
6.BORSTAL BOY by Brendan Began
7.MADAME BOVARY by Gustave Flabert
8.ONE DAY IN THE LIFE OF IVAN DENISOVICH by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
9.ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT by Erich Maria Remarque
10.BEAUTIFUL LOSERS by Leonard Cohen
11.CRY,THE BELOVED COUNTRY by Alan Paton
12.I KNOW WHY THE CAGED BIRD SINGS by Maya Angelou
13.LADY CHATTERLEYS LOVER by D.H.Lawrence
14.NAKED LUNCH by William Burroughs
15.A BOYS OWN STORY by Edmund White
16.THE GINGER MAN by J.P.Donleavy
17.SLAUGHTER HOUSE FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
18.THE ADVENTURE OF TOM SAWYER by Mark Twain
19.LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN by Hubert Selby
20.THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli
21.SINGING FROM THE WELL by Reinaldo Arenas
22.THE VATICAN CELLARS by Andre Hide
23.TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
24.SHAME by Taslima Base in
25.FAHRENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury

[The Immortal Goon]

Actually I find the American paleos (Buchanan, Sailer) to often be better than the best American liberals.

I know you've carefully qualified the statement, but I have to say that I find paleo-conservatives to be amongst the worst. I realize that one could argue that this is a matter of aesthetics, but paleos tend to really like the idea of a glorified past that we must return to-and I know this is generalizing. Take the paleo rag American Spectator's review of 12 Years a Slave:

If ever in slavery’s 250-year history in North America there were a kind master or a contented slave, as in the nature of things there must have been, here and there, we may be sure that Mr McQueen does not want us to hear about it. This, in turn, surely means that his view of the history of the American South is as partial and one-sided as that of the hated Gone With the Wind. That professional historians among others insist on calling such propaganda “truth” and “reality” and condemning anyone who suggests truth and reality might be more complicated than that is one measure of the politicization of historical scholarship in our time — to a level, perhaps, rivaling even that of film studies.

Of course, the withers of Professor Foner and his kind are unwrung by such a charge because they assume that all of history is political to begin with, a Marxist-Leninist war of exploiters against exploited that can only have one outcome as it can only have one “right” side. They don’t care that such a cartoonishly simple-minded view of the vast and fascinating sweep of the past cuts them off from learning anything from it that they don’t already know — just as it cuts off the movie audience, assumed to harbor similar prejudices themselves, from any acquaintance with historical “reality” not pre-certified as politically correct.

1. The premise is bad and offensive. I'm sure a paleo would never publish something saying that there must have been the occasional fun card game amongst inmates in a Nazi death camp, so it's really wrong to just focus on the negative of the institution. Further, the fact the author can't think of or find an an example to back up his point is problematic; not to mention the fact that the movie he's reviewing is now expected to show every aspect of slavery, finding even a good part of slavery, instead of following the book upon which the film is based.

2. Because the movie (and the book upon which it's based) doesn't talk about contented black slaves and their kind and loving white masters, it's partially a conspiracy. McQueen is hiding the truth (which the author cannot track down either) and thus this should expanded to what historians think about the Confederacy and slavery in general, and everything bad or cruel about slavery should be called into question.

3. Who is behind the conspiracy? The communists. Specifically named are the Stalinists, who are wrong because they see slavery as an us-verses-them kind of system. The implication, I suppose, being that we should see slavery as a holistic system in which everyone benefitted and everyone exploited and, really, everyone was pretty much equal-master and slave.

4. If you don't agree that slavery was partially the fault of the slaves who also benefitted from the system, then you're probably a communist. Or, at least, have a, "cartoonishly simple-minded," view of the world and harbour, "prejudices," which sort of implies you're the racist-not the person asking us to consider how happy black slaves must have been under their white masters.

Now, admittedly, some of this is reading between the lines. But it's pretty clearly there. The agenda comes first, and the agenda is to glorify the past no matter what facts get in the way of that.

You can, I suppose, argue that there are merits to their political position. But this kind of writing, I think, is at least as guilty of what it loudly screeches it's trying to stop as anything.

I understand what you mean about the paleos maybe better than the New Yorker writing an essay in which the writers and readers can thoughtlessly pat themselves on the back for being against slavery.

I would submit, however, that thoughtlessly accepting that slavery was not fun for slaves is still more accurate and useful than claiming that slavery probably was sometimes great for the slaves who had sometimes contended masters working for them...despite the fact there is no evidence the proponent of said theory can find to support this beyond, "as in the nature of things there must have been."

Especially when this arguments sets up an attack on communists and academics for no specific reason beyond to presumably perpetuate the narrative of a left-wing conspiracy undermining paleo stated (or implied) facts.

[Ombrageux]

TIG - I won't defend that piece and I don't mean to defend all Paleo writing. But here's what I think tends to be good about them:
* As "isolationists," they tend to be peace-oriented on foreign policy and skeptical of the Security State. (Paleos have been far better for instance on Russia recently, whereas Liberals in France and the U.S. have taken a very chauvinist, aggressive attitude selectively using human rights and homophilia as pretexts to promote conflict and Western imperialism.)
* They actually have thoughts on immigration and ethnicity, whereas Liberals just have moralism.
* They tend to have a critical attitude towards free trade and globalism which is otherwise rare on the American Right. They also tend to think seriously about the Nation-State, national identity (and the importance of both to democracy/solidarity), and sovereignty, which tends to be rare on the pseudo-cosmopolitan Left.
* Their thinking is in tune with America (or, should I say, the historic majority that was white America, which votes Republican) - more in tune than Liberal thinking - and as such if one is democratic one needs to take that into account.

In not having Liberals' taboos, I just find Paleos (and I mainly mean Steve Sailer, although I am sure there are others), very fertile. As much as I like my Liberal technocrats - your Krugmans, Yglesiases, Ezra Kleins - they ultimately don't help you understand the world as it is. They might have a good case for how the world should be, but if you don't know how it got to its current state, you'll probably not know how to get to where you want to go.

The premise is bad and offensive. I'm sure a paleo would never publish something saying that there must have been the occasional fun card game amongst inmates in a Nazi death camp, so it's really wrong to just focus on the negative of the institution.

See, this doesn't tingle my indignation. On the one hand, every era was complicated; the evidence left behind is always limited; "history" is always politicized to favor the victors and those in power. This is true even if the Confederacy or the Third Reich were Evil Empires which we are happy were destroyed. Even so, their memory is being exploited by today's establishments to promote worldviews reinforcing their own power. I don't have a problem with off-color humor and criticism, on all topics.

Who is behind the conspiracy? The communists. [...] Especially when this arguments sets up an attack on communists and academics for no specific reason beyond to presumably perpetuate the narrative of a left-wing conspiracy undermining paleo stated (or implied) facts.

Here is an interesting point. Pseudo-cosmopolitan, (center-)left people tend to gravitate to professions in the ideological superstructure: teacher, professor, journalist, TV/film, etc. On the other hand, the people who pay them tend to either be the State or corporations, so they are beholden to conservative and plutocratic forces.

The results are plutocracy and equalism, which I think helps reconcile the left-wing critique of oligarchic power, and the right-wing critique of so-called "cultural Marxism." Basically, once you have mass media, it's very easy to offend (or drum up offense in) a particular community, be it sexual, ethnic or whatever. Everyone is exactly the same and interchangeable, and anyone who nuances this with inconvenient facts will be accused of being a "-ist" and ostracized. The leftists get in on this because, being impotent in their jobs and moralistic-pseudo-cosmopolitan to feel superior, they like to take on some evil du jour. But they tend to attack secondary, dying or minor evils, rather than going for the real powers that be, that is, their employers. They agitate on "societal" issues rather than core economic issues. The plutocrats and politicians who pay for all this now have a powerful tool, they can selectively enforce political correctness against opponents who threaten their power, and ignore it for those who do not. (Again a big example of this being Russia, endlessly demonized for its citizens, while Saudi Arabia, Bahrein or even India, who are worse in many respects, are largely ignored.)

Because of its limitation of thought and its strengthening the powerful, I have come to a radical rejection of political correctness. I am not interested in speculating about people's (racist or otherwise excommunication-worthy) ulterior motives, I'd rather engage with or attack their argument, and then move on.

More generally, there is definitely a "liberal supremacism" among center-leftists where anything which doesn't conform to their post-60s lifestyle (practicing religion, conservatism, any cultures that contradict their pseudo-tolerant bobo lifestyle) must be denigrated and ultimately destroyed.

I would submit, however, that thoughtlessly accepting that slavery was not fun for slaves is still more accurate and useful than claiming that slavery probably was sometimes great for the slaves who had sometimes contended masters working for them...despite the fact there is no evidence the proponent of said theory can find to support this beyond, "as in the nature of things there must have been."

Perhaps I need to show you the better writers

The latest I have discovered is Diane Johnstone. I found her via the Dieudonné controversy in France and she wrote the best stuff on it in English. Interestingly, she's an American living in France, which might explain it resonates with me. I just bought her book on the Kosovo War and it's quite promising. She is not "forbidden" as such but, apparently coming from the Anglo far-Left, she doesn't systematically demonize the Right (she is happy to recognize that the FN's foreign policy agenda is probably the most peace-oriented, at least as much as the communistoids). This may get her into trouble.