What I Believe

This is a statement of my positions that I just posted during the course of a discussion on a Facebook friend’s page.

If I had to summarize my outlook in a few points, I’d say my current positions are a synthesis of these:

-Chomsky’s critique of US foreign policy fused with the neo-isolationism of Buchanan/Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell, etc.

-Thomas Szasz’s critique of the therapeutic state fused by Bill Lind’s and Paul Gottfried’s critique of Cultural Marxism

-Hans Herman Hoppe’s critique of welfare-statist mass democracy

-Kevin Carson’s critique of the relationship between the state and capitalism

-Richard Lawrence Miller’s critique of the domestic American police state

-The European New Right critique of mass immigration and multiculturalism

-Martin Van Creveld’s theories on fourth generation warfare and the decline of the state

-The traditional anarchist critique of the state as a criminal gang writ large; one of the best introductory essays I know of that provides a good overview of the anarchist position is Kirkpatrick Sale’s “The ‘Necessity’ of the State”

-Nietzsche’s critique of the impact of nihilism on Western civilization

-Carl Schmitt’s critique of the contradictions of liberalism

-The elites theorists ideas on the impossibility of egalitarianism

There are plenty of sidestreams to all of this, of course, but this is the gist of it. Most of my other writings or ideas have to do with strategic considerations, and the practical implications of the above.

Categories: Uncategorized

2 replies »

  1. Your political view is the intellectual equivalent of the music of Nirvana-a diverse grab-bag of disparate influences allowing you to transcend and create something more out of what you started with (in thier case it was punk music, in your case left-anarchism.)

  2. Well, all I’ve tried to is take traditional anarchism and modify and update it so that it is relevant to a society like the US.

    The classical anarchists aligned themselves with the labor movement, which made sense in the 19th and early 20th century because that’s where the action was. Today, unions are about as establishment as churches, and the “industrial workers” are integrated into the middle class.

    Anarchist movements in the 60s adopted the rhetoric and ideology of the New Left, which also made sense, because the anti-Vietnam War movement, black power, the counterculture, draft resistance, women’s rights, gay rights, ecology, et.al. was where the action was then. All of that is a dull middle of the road cliche now.

    Anarcho-capitalism has an interesting role in this lineage, because it took what some of the more advanced economic thinkers from classical anarchism were doing (like Tucker) and further applied the insights of modern economic science. Unfortunately, it’s reaction against Marxism and state socialism pushed it too far towards capitalist apologetics. The work of Carson and some comparable others is a necessary corrective for that.

    Today, most genuine or serious political dissent comes from the so-called “radical right.” Hence, the emergence of national-anarchism and overlapping tendencies. Actually, I think Carson’s economics and National-Anarchism are simply the implications of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism taken to their logical conclusions. Remove the state and its support for economic centralization, and you get something approximating Carson’s decentralist ideal, whether you agree with all of Carson’s specifics or not.

    Additionally, if you apply the anarcho-capitalist model of removing the state in favor of private, voluntary, proprietarian communities that create whatever economic or cultural arrangements and standards for inclusion/exclusion they wish, what you end up getting is very similar to the stated ideals of N-A.

Leave a Reply