The New Left's Categorical Imperative

Episode 88 part 12 of The Daily Shoah begins with an amusing but telling interview of amiable leftist Brendan O’Connor. Judging by a photo from his blog, Brendan punches reasonably above his bodyweight when it comes to rhetoric. His credentials as a Gawker and Jezebel writer show he’s smarter than the basic Hillary supporter on Facebook, and he knows all the right words to signal his status as a cultured and well read individual (which I’m sure he is). Still, his defense of his moral values was unsurprisingly pedestrian and vacuous. The only thing consistent about the morality of the New Left is that all their values are subordinate to the feelings of non-Whites.
The skin gets nice and crispy about 49 minutes into the interview when Mike asks, “Should people be allowed to have a White-only community or [an exclusive community] of any race?” Brendan answers “no” with little hesitation. Ghoul asks more explicitly, “What is so bad about [segregation] that it outweighs their self-determination?” After struggling to unpack his invisible knapsack of Cultural Marxist assumptions, Brendan boils his objection down to, “I think it is unjust to institute exclusionary practices based on the arbitrary and contingent nature of racial identity. Full stop … The key word[s] being arbitrary and contingent.”
Ordinarily, the words arbitrary and contingent might satisfy an unsuspecting audience. Normies don’t want to associate morality with anything capricious. However, the alt-right isn’t a group of normies; it’s a group of autistic philosophers. Brendan completely fails to make an argument. He does not define what makes something arbitrary or why it is bad. There is no reason a practice is inherently immoral because it’s arbitrary. The ban on driving on the left side of the road in the US is completely arbitrary but makes everyone safer. The law clearly marginalizes Dingoes, but no one cares about their feelings because an arbitrary law is better than no law.

Returning to the interview, the subsequent “gotcha” moment is elucidating. After being pressed by Ghoul, Brendan answers affirmative to Ghoul’s question “You can’t exclude people from coming into an area because it’s arbitrarily built … like borders?” Brendan states that exclusionary practices based on arbitrary delineations are immoral but refuses to advocate open borders. Obviously he can’t have it both ways. Either some exclusionary practices based on arbitrary delineations are permissible or all borders are immoral. Moderates can’t be consistent and that’s why autistes flock to the far right.
Of course, Brendan is willing to sacrifice more than logical consistency to the giant dildo--he seems to advocate a multiracial society even if it demonstrably made everyone more miserable. The oven hits 616 at about the 1:14:00 mark. Mike asks, “If you were to come to the realization that in fact multiracial societies make everyone more miserable, would that have any impact on your thinking?” Brendan responds, “No. You’re going to have to give me more than that. That doesn’t mean anything to me. What does it mean to say that everyone is less happy?”
Brendan’s response is a textbook example of the futility of arguing with leftists. They’ve brined in kosher salt for too long. They’re willing to sacrifice logic and the suffering of others for their moral imperative. They don’t care about a rule being arbitrary. They don’t even care about segregation if you’re a Negro demanding a safe space. Even Brendan! In a Gawker piece, he mocks (((Michael Bloomberg))) because he simultaneously believes in free speech on college campuses while living in a gated community. Although not an explicit endorsement of safe spaces, it’s easy to read between the lines.

So, what is the leftist’s categorical imperative? Nothing matters but the feelings of non-Whites. Even for the open and intelligent SWPLS like Brendan, facts, logical consistency, appeals to democracy, and the suffering of all races don’t matter in the face of a few complaining dindus. Why would you ever argue with these people?