AttacktheSystem.Com is maintained by American Revolutionary Vanguard, a dissident tendency within North American anarchism.  It is our contention that the mainstream of the anarchist movement has become unduly focused on left-wing cultural politics, countercultural lifestyle matters, and liberal pet causes. Consequently, the mainstream of contemporary anarchism has abandoned the central focus of the historic anarchist movement: overthrowing states, ruling classes, and empires. We aim to restore anarchism to the position it held during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that of the premier revolutionary movement in the Western world.

We reject the Left/Right model of the political spectrum and work towards a synthesis of the currently scattered anarchist tendencies. These include anarcho-collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, post-structuralism, Green anarchism, primitivism and neo-tribalism from the Left; anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-feudalism, national-anarchism, tribal-anarchism, paleo-anarchism and Christian anarchism from the Right; and anarchist tendencies that defy left/right categorization such as synthesist anarchism, post-left anarchism, situationism, Zapatismo, black anarchism, native anarchism, Islamic anarchism, third wave anarcha-feminism, geoanarchism, libertarian queer anarchism, and queer national-anarchism. Sympathetic persons from other ideological currents are welcome to participate in our efforts including but not limited to populism, paleoconservatism, Jeffersonian decentralism, Southern Agrarianism, distributism, Catholic Worker, black nationalism, Afro-centrism, and third-positionism.

The most strategically feasible anarchist movement for contemporary North America would be an anarchist-led, pan-secessionist action emphasizing the principles of radical decentralization and appealing to the legacy of the American Revolution. Its primary class foundations would be the lumpenproletariat, petite bourgeosie, lower proletariat, sinking middle, neo-peasantry and declasse` sectors, within the context of a broader populist framework.  A struggle rooted in these classes would necessitate a political re-alignment of the populist right, radical center, independent left, and others outside the center-left/center-right paradigm of the existing state and ruling class.

We reject the “culture wars” of mainstream American politics as a rivalry within the upper-middle class which is irrelevant to our revolutionary struggle. Anarchist participation in the “culture wars” is an unnecessary distraction from the struggle at hand. Irreconcilable cultural differences are best handled through individual autonomy, voluntary association, pluralism and peaceful co-existence where possible. Otherwise, secession, local sovereignty, community self-determination, and mutual self-separation should be the rule. Contemporary political science and social science research shows that Americans are currently in the process of self-separating into diverse communities oriented towards the specific interests of those of a particular culture, religion, political affiliation, language, occupation, economic values, age, race, ethnicity, sexuality or preferred way of life. This is how it should be. The natural results of people using their freedom of choice are a pluralistic anarchism, or “anarchism without adjectives.”

We identify as our primary enemies the American regime, the American ruling class and state-capitalist overlords, the international American empire and its accomplices. We therefore support self-determination for all peoples throughout the world, and the struggles of all enemies of imperialism. We stand in ruthless opposition to the domestic American police state, its prison-industrial complex, therapeutic state, legal caste, and the institutions responsible for the dissemination of its propaganda, from the state-licensed media to the state-run educational system. We further oppose the ideology of Political Correctness embraced by totalitarian Left which has been appropriated by the forces of liberal-capitalism as the current manifestation of its ideological superstructure. Against this ruling class vision, we offered an alternative vision that is anti-authoritarian, non-Marxist, non-militarist and decentralist.

Newcomers to this blog should begin by reading the essays “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America,” “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire,” “National Anarchy and the American Idea,” “Anarchism or Anarcho-Social Democracy,” “Anarcho-Pluralism and Pan-Secessionism: What They Are and What They Are Not,” and “Smashing the State,” by Keith Preston, “Political Program for Anarchists” by Kevin Carson, “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Anarchism” by Larry Gambone and the “American Revolutionary Vanguard Twenty-Five Point Program.” Please listen to this discussion of totalitarian humanism by Keith Preston as well. Our video, “A New Independence” is available on Youtube. Please check out our sister site The Daily Attack. For an extensive discussion of the relationship between us and the Left and Right, see the exchange between Keith Preston and leftist critic Matthew Lyons, “A Polemical Engagement with the Left.”
——————————————————————————————————-
Editor-in-Chief

Keith Preston  (Keith is interviewed by Tomislav Sunic  here, by Richard Spencer here and here, and by Robert Stark here, here, here, and here)

Webmaster

Jeremy Weiland

Associate Editors

Miles Joyner, American Revolutionary Vanguard, Cincinnati area, editor of the ARV Facebook page

Peter Bjorn Perls, Denmark ATS, veteran ATS contributor

Michael Parish, Wisconsin ATS, editor of the Regeneration blog (listen to an interview with Michael)

Vincent Rineheart, American Indian/Alaskan Native ATS  (listen to an interview with Vince)

R. J. Jacob, Las Vegas Attack the System, chief editor of The Daily Attack, editor of ATS and RJWeapon Youtube Channel, editor of “A New Independence” ARV/ATS documentary

Ted Darcy, Northeastern USA Attack the System

———————————————————————————————-

On the White Nationalism Question

We are frequently asked by well-intentioned people about the relationship between American Revolutionary Vanguard/Attack The System and the collection of movements that are commonly grouped under the label of “white nationalism.”  Core ARV/ATS documents like the “25 Point Program” and “Liberty and Populism” outline our perspective very comprehensively and indicate that just as we do not discriminate against any particular race, religion, gender, etc., nor do we discriminate against any specific political identity either. This means that someone who generally supports the ideas of the core ARV/ATS documents is welcome in our camp irrespective of how they label themselves, whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, tribalist, white nationalist, black nationalist, Muslim, Christian, feminist, gay, or whatever.

Any movement such as ours that includes a virulent attack on PC and advocates secession as a tactic will obviously receive a wide audience among the “white right” as well as the “far right” generally. For instance, the paleoconservative scholar Paul Gottfried is a German Jew whose family fled the Nazis, but even he has a large audience in such circles.

Our relationship to National-Anarchism has also been controversial among some other kinds of anarchists. We recognize N-A as a legitimate branch of anarchism and include N-As within our ranks, but there are also substantial differences between N-A and WN, and N-A itself is only a sub-tendency and one of many influences within ARV/ATS.

Even if we zealously excluded everyone tainted by any hint of “racism” from our circles, our enemies would still attack us for having people in our camp who are insufficiently zealous for gay marriage, or pro-life, or pro-gun, or too Christian, or who are black conservatives, or who glorify drugs and prostitution, or promote crime or are un-American or something else. There would be no stopping point. Our enemies will attack no matter what we do because we are fundamentally subversive to the state and threatening to the ambitions of the totalitarian Left (why else would they devote so much energy to attacking such a small movement like ours?)

To spend all of our time attacking “fascists” or “the right” would be strategically foolish and a waste of time, and it would be playing into the System’s hands. Totalitarian humanism has become the legitimating ideology of the System, and the pro-state Left is simply a more virulent version of the same ideological presumption. In many ways, “fascists” and “racists” (however these terms are defined) have become official scapegoats to attack for the purpose of distracting attention from more genuine, serious, and immediate problems. It is also a cover the totalitarian Left uses to mask its own pernicious ambitions. Even the well-meaning Left has fallen into this trap, which is why the official Left has become largely useless, even on what should be fundamental issues like the police state and imperialist war. Unlike the Left, we regard “fascists” as an irrelevant, marginal, antiquated outgroup that is on the losing end of history (like apologists for slavery, theocracy, and feudalism). We are future-oriented whereas our critics from the Left are backward-looking, making them the true reactionaries. We are the true progressives.

Additionally, we have to consider the ideas of WNs and other types of racialists (whatever the race) on their own merits. It is possible to separate legitimate issues raised by such tendencies from the silliness, fanaticism, or malevolence often found there.

Lastly, we have to consider that it may well be that WN-influenced movements will indeed grow in the future as a response to problems associated with mass immigration, multiculturalism, etc. Simply pushing people who raise such issues to the margins and attempting to silence them no matter what will only fuel extremism. It is likely that as the white population in North America shrinks and loses its traditional majority status, there will indeed be organizations advocating for “white rights” (whether one agrees with their specific ideas or proposals or not) that emerge. It is far better that such tendencies be moderate, reasonable, conciliatory, and polite in nature rather than violent and predatory. This is a primary reason why some in our movement have tried to cultivate a relationship with the more intelligent and fair-minded people in those camps and give them their seat at the table.

We trust that reasonable people will accept the explanations of our positions and activities outlined here. The hysterics, fanatics, and ill-intentioned are never satisfied, of course, but so what? They are our enemies anyway.
———————————————————————————————————
Vision and Wisdom

from A New Kind of Mind

A decent while back, the anarchism subreddit was getting me down with it’s lynch mobs and sectarianism. To find some sanity (and probably to confirm a couple biases), I asked fellow Reddit user BondsOfEarthAndFire — who describes himself as “a market-friendly, primitivist-friendly anarcho-communist” and is a member I’ve always found to be considerate and wise — for his take on the situation. He did not disappoint:

I think that the notion that all of humanity will ever be operating under the same ‘flag’, so to speak, is astonishingly stupid, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humanity and and dumbfounding ignorance of history. It frankly astounds me that the intelligent folk on this reddit manage to convince themselves that the future Earth will be entirely syndicalist or entirely transhumanist or entirely mutualist, or entirely re-wilded, or entirely fill-in-the-blank.

I’ve described myself as an Anarcho-ecumenist, but I fly the red star because the ancom belief system is closest to the system I would personally like to live in. That system may be made of a hundred people or a hundred million people; I have no way of predicting the future, and neither does anyone else. I do make some very broad predictions, however:

I think that the future will be a world of dizzying social complexity, replete with small city-states with governments ranging the gamut from democratic to monarchical to theocratic, surrounded by vast hinterlands filled with eco-villages and wild ranges where hunter gatherer humans chase wild game and forage for nuts and berries, while vast trade fleets of ultra-light zepellins transfer goods and services all over the planet, and transhumant consciousnesses zip through endless, decentralized computer networks maintained by industrial syndicates a million workers strong, who build satellites and launch them into orbit to maintain a global network of communication so primitivists can use cell-phones to trade furs for plastic-composite bows… and so on. Personally, I wish I was there right now.

In the immediate moment, I’m willing to ally myself with anyone who who believes that humans are capable of developing large-scale systems that can be entirely consensus based. I don’t think these social technologies exist yet, and so I’m working towards trying to figure them out. The answers lie across a dozen different flavors of anarchism, and the only to even begin is to respecting A) each others opinions, B) our differences and similarities, and C) the fact that we don’t have the answers yet – if we did, we’d already be doing it!

It always struck me as incredibly stupid to say, “We agree on 97% of everything, but we have differing notions of what the word trade means, so you are therefore my bitter enemy.” It’s a crock of shit, but it’s worse than stupid: it’s counterproductive. We’re working towards a very different world than the one we live in, and we need 100% of the people involved to be, ya know, actually working towards it. Even if someone thinks your direction is 15 degrees removed from their compass bearing, you’re both still pretty much headed in the same direction.

I’d like to think that my unabashed outreach to the pacifists, Christians, primitivists, transhumanists, mutualists, ancaps, and everyone else is beginning to pick up speed, but there’s only so far the mass mentality can be pushed without a profound, systemic change in the way people perceive their potential allies.

Granted, there’s a lot of room for improvement in relations between the different flags, but on the other hand, compared to what we agree on, it’s actually not that much.

Just beautiful.