We Need Volunteers, Damn It!! 10

Over the past month or so, I’ve probably had at least half a dozen conversations with different colleagues and comrades regarding the need to get this pan-secessionist, national-anarchist, tribal-anarchist, anarcho-pluralist, alternative right, conservative revolutionary, whatever we are movement off of the internet and into the realm of real-world action. Some of our colleagues (most notably, the Bay Area National Anarchists) are already doing this. So what are the rest of us waiting for?

I’ve come full circle on this. For some years (roughly 1986-1992) I was heavily involved in activism of all different kinds. If it was part of the radical Left during those years, I was part of it. After developing the desire to move past some of the deficiencies I found on the Left, I became inactive for a good number of years and devoted myself instead to private study, radical journalism, and what might be called “behind the scenes” efforts. I recall a conversation with a close comrade circa 2003 where I said that I wasn’t interested in any activism at that point, on the grounds that before we could have a fresh and dynamic radical movement, we first needed to have a solid intellectual foundation for such a movement. After observing subsequent events in radical circles for a few years after that, I wrote in 2006:

In the realm of strategy, I have to confess to being a fairly orthodox Bakuninist. This perspective emphasizes the necessity of a militant vanguard and conspiratorial secret societies composed of radical intellectuals and activists acting as a leadership corps of a larger populist movement of which the lumpenproletariat and the rural population are the class vanguard. This is the strategy that was utilized by history’s most successful anarchist movement, that of the Spanish anarchists. Indeed, it was Bakunin’s emissary Fanelli who first planted the seeds of what was to become classical Spanish anarchism. As I will attempt to demonstrate, this approach might be quite feasible for modern North America as well. At present, the primary intellectual framework of a new American radicalism is pretty well complete…

The next step is the assembling of the “principled militants” whom Bakunin recognized as the intellectual and activist vanguard of the insurgency. This is not to be confused with the Marxist-Leninist concept of the “vanguard” whose only purpose is the achievement of military dictatorship for the sake of managing a centrally planned economy. We are now in need of an organizational framework that can play the same role as that of the FAI in the development of Spanish anarchism. Translated into modern American terms, such an organization would be a combination think-tank and activist and propaganda front, sort of an anarchist alternative to ruling class entities of a similar nature…

Four years later, such “militant vanguard” groups have slowly started to emerge. With increasing frequency, websites, blogs, editorials, and new articles have started to appear that present the alternative anarchist tendencies, the alternative right, secession, and other related outlooks in a positive light. Consequently, our enemies have begun to take notice as well. Last night, it was suggested to me by a leading figure in the new radical milieu that there could and should be at least 30 alternative anarchist “tribes” active in North America. Unfortunately, there are only about five at present and plans for a few more in the works. Another comrade recently suggested to me that a present we have all the theoretical work floating around that we need at present, but what we are lacking are serious volunteers who can turn theory and action into strategy.

In recent times, as I’ve been working on networking projects for the North American secessionist movement, it has occurred to me that it will be the local groups who from the foundation of any future pan-secessionist effort. That has always been my position, but the difficulties I’ve encountered involving regional secessionist efforts have driven the point home further that localism is really where it’s at. With regards to secession, Norman Mailer rather than Jefferson Davis should be our role model. Some years ago I came up with an idea called the “100 Cities Project.” The idea was to find a hundred volunteers in a hundred different cities in the U.S. to run symbolic campaigns for mayor of their respective cities on Mailer’s model, and to do so simultaneously during the same election season so as to generate a blitz of media coverage regarding issues of decentralization and secession. But before such an effort could work, there would have to be strong local organizations capable of supporting such efforts with resources, time, and manpower.

So let’s get busy building functional and active local organization, collectives, “tribes” whatever we want to call them. Recently new groups have emerged in Dayton and Ontario. I’m told plans for a queer-oriented national-anarchist group are in the works. We can build local organizations around whatever themes or cultural identities the participant wish: race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, class, ecology, philosophical beliefs, economic preferences, etc. There can be different groups for Eurocentrists, pagans, Christians, Muslims, queers, blacks, native peoples’, women, primitivists, anarcho-capitalists, syndicalists, Evolans, Nietzscheans, and so forth. But whatever our individual or collective preferences, let’s just get something going. With these considerations in mind, I am announcing the launching of a new project for my own local area, Richmond Attack the System (RATS).

10 comments

  1. I’d love to see this model applied to a new American Indian Movement. My tribe in particular is on the verge of a cultural reawakening and the passing of the baton to a new generation of leaders. Trying to think of how to best package this idea for their consumption…..

  2. “I’d love to see this model applied to a new American Indian Movement.”

    Yes!!

    What’s your take on the Lakota Republic? Have you ever had any contact with them? If so, what’s your assessment?

  3. The Amerindian peoples have always been amdirably committed to self-determination and cultural preservation, as well as political and geographical autonomy…so NA would be a perfect fit for them.

    I don’t know if I can make the same assessment regarding blacks and latinos, given the liberal managerial state’s assimilation of their more upwardly mobile members into the ranks of the establishment. This creates an obvious in group conflict that ironically prevents real progress from being achieved.

    Oddly enough, I think whites are the least likely to embrace national anarchism en masse, as most of the multi-culti hand-holding garbage comes from the white middle class.

    Even though I am only a fellow traveller to national anarchism (my own ideology is a homebrewed mix of Jim Goad, Proudhon, and Linkola tailored to a middle american agrarian audience-I call it moo-tualism) I am glad to see it spread as a vehicle for seccessionist purposes.

  4. “I don’t know if I can make the same assessment regarding blacks and latinos, given the liberal managerial state’s assimilation of their more upwardly mobile members into the ranks of the establishment. This creates an obvious in group conflict that ironically prevents real progress from being achieved.”

    This is one reason why the liberal coalition will eventually crack-up. The irreconcilability of the upwardly mobile sectors of the minority groups with those of the underclass from the same ethnic backgrounds will eventually become more and more obvious, especially as the economy continues to decline and class divisions widen (a process that is being sped up by mass immigration!)

    “Oddly enough, I think whites are the least likely to embrace national anarchism en masse, as most of the multi-culti hand-holding garbage comes from the white middle class.”

    Yes, affluent white liberals will be among the last constituencies that come over to our camp, though I do think we’ll get a lot of radical leftists who move over to our side eventually, as they will eventually get tired of the PC crap. Also, ethnic/cultural separatists from the minority groups may well be stronger allies down the road than many people on the so-called “Right.”

    “Even though I am only a fellow traveller to national anarchism (my own ideology is a homebrewed mix of Jim Goad, Proudhon, and Linkola tailored to a middle american agrarian audience-I call it moo-tualism) I am glad to see it spread as a vehicle for seccessionist purposes.”

    All of these different ideas overlap pretty well. What’s in a name?

  5. I’m not from any of the plains tribes, so I don’t have much contact with plains Indians. I do know that the established political body of the various Lakota tribes are deeply entrenched and, of course, backed by the BIA and federal government. They’re resistant to the Lakota Republic movement. Russel Means is the man, in my opinion, but a very divisive figure; which may actually be a good thing. The Lakota tribes basically live in the third world on American soil. It is clear that their tribal government has grossly failed them; so they should be ripe for a revolution. But, again, I am only distantly acquainted with a few Lakota. I hope the Lakota Republic succeeds.

    @ Quagmire: Most tribes have entrenched bureaucrats that are experts at securing federal dollars for their salaries and social service budgets. We have our own upwardly mobile people who have joined the establishment. My strategy has been to point out that this fosters a culture of dependence that we should be ashamed of and that such assistance has done us more harm than good. Given that many tribes rely on this revenue stream for their very existence, an economic model has to be delivered right alongside NA, anarchism, or whatever.

    As far as “principled militants,” Indian Country is quickly developing a gang problem. The older generation is having a hard time reining in their youth. I’m sure this energy can be redirected toward clan loyalty instead of set loyalty and the warrior culture of old can be revived. Its troubling that hispanic and black gang culture is speaking more loudly to them than the rich tradition of resistance of Native cultures.

  6. Anonion,

    I would attribute the rise of gang culture among your youth at least partially to the popularity of hip hop music, which glamorizes and idealizes gang culture. That this anti-art filth enjoys such immense popularity is, in my view, an indication of serious societal decay.

    Keith,

    The reason I differentiate my view from NA is that I developed it independently of Southgate and co., prior to even knowing who those guys were. And I feel that there are certain key differences-

    1) My agrarianism is rooted in american populist traditions, not in an idealized mythic europan past.

    2) I am not a neopagan and am not sympathetic to neopaganism in any way. In fact, the majority who describe themselves as such strike me as embracing it more out of aesthetic preference than any deep convictions.

    3) I am not a racialist, so my oppostion to political correctness and multiculturalism grows out of an aversion to authoritarianism in general (as well as pragmatic concerns), not out of ethnic preservationism.

    4) I largely arrived at the positions I hold today by synthesizing Kevin Carson’s economic and organizational views with the social and cultural analysis Goad puts forth in the Redneck Manifesto. NA grew out of the BNF and the European far right, which I have no connection to or background in.

    5) I am ultimately a regionalist, not a nationalist, and a Carsonite libertarian, not a left-anarchist, so I have a hard time describing myself as NA.

    Ultimately, my ideological journey has been very similar to yours and to Paul Piccone’s-a former leftist turned contrarian who has found himself among the hard right. I see the NA’s, Nazbols (nazbol being an ideology that could never be translated to an American context), and so forth as allies of immense strategic importance.

  7. RJ,

    i am aware Keith is not nationalistic. I never said he was. For the record, I am not anti-nationalistic, it’s jsut never been my thing.

  8. Quagmire and RJ,

    I could have written virtually everything that is in both of your posts.

    Quagmire,

    “1) My agrarianism is rooted in american populist traditions, not in an idealized mythic european past.”

    I’m not so much an agrarian as much as I recognize the need for including the rural, agriculture-based population which is so despised by cosmopolitan elites as a core component of a revolutionary movement. This is something that I learned during my time on the periphery of the 1990s militia movement. I lived the rural lifestyle for a time during my adolescence, but as an adult I’ve been very much a city-guy. LOL, at age 43, I’ve never owned a car because I’ve never needed one given that I’ve always lived and worked in the inner-city and used public transportation.

    “2) I am not a neopagan and am not sympathetic to neopaganism in any way. In fact, the majority who describe themselves as such strike me as embracing it more out of aesthetic preference than any deep convictions.”

    I’m not a neo-pagan in any kind of religious sense like, say, the Odinists. I call myself a “cultural pagan” in the classical Greco-Roman sense as I feel this is the true intellectual heritage of the West, and not Christianity. In other words, I regard philosophy, not theology, to be the true religion.

    “3) I am not a racialist, so my opposition to political correctness and multiculturalism grows out of an aversion to authoritarianism in general (as well as pragmatic concerns), not out of ethnic preservationism.”

    Same here, though I think ethnic preservationists raise valid issues and are solid allies against common enemies.

    “4) I largely arrived at the positions I hold today by synthesizing Kevin Carson’s economic and organizational views with the social and cultural analysis Goad puts forth in the Redneck Manifesto. NA grew out of the BNF and the European far right, which I have no connection to or background in.”

    Same here, more or less. I had already developed a solid “Neither Capitalism nor Socialism” outlook before I discovered Carson, and had held those views for decades before meeting him. He did help me flesh it out a bit, though. Likewise, I had developed largely the same cultural analysis as Goad before reading RM, and when I discovered him it was a matter of finding a kindred spirit. I already had the views I have now when I discovered NA as well, and I’m an N-A fellow traveler by default, as the other anarchist factions are impossible for me to work with (some anarcho-libertarians and an-caps excepted).

    “5) I am ultimately a regionalist, not a nationalist, and a Carsonite libertarian, not a left-anarchist, so I have a hard time describing myself as NA.”

    I would see regionalism and, in some instances, nationalism as means to the wider end of anarchistic decentralization. Economically, I’m a “free-market anarcho-socialist.”

    “Ultimately, my ideological journey has been very similar to yours and to Paul Piccone’s-a former leftist turned contrarian who has found himself among the hard right. I see the NA’s, Nazbols (nazbol being an ideology that could never be translated to an American context), and so forth as allies of immense strategic importance.”

    Yes, to all of the above.

  9. RJ,

    “I have always envisioned communities further decentralizing into autonomous neighborhoods. For example, hiphop-lifestyle communities, blacks, whites, mexicans, whatever, branching off into free neighborhoods operating under their own codes. Hundreds of neighborhoods, some southern style, or eastcoastish, where people still talk the same, just as they did in New York, whatever, a sort of Neighborhood Anarchism.”

    Yes, exactly. That’s why I promote Mailer’s municipal decentralist ideas so fervently.

  10. With regards to the question of race and nationalism, given that’s one of the most controversial issues I deal with, I should probably outline my views on that thoroughly.

    We should support the sovereignty of individual nations as a bulwark against both imperialism and international government. For instance, I sympathize with both Third World nationalist movements resisting American imperialism (or any other kind), and I also agree with the opposition to the U.N., North American Union, EU, etc. of conventional nationalists or paleocons.

    We should support the independence of regions against over-arching nation-states. Hence, my support for secessionist movements or regional “home-rule” movements.

    We should support the sovereignty of cities, towns, provinces, counties, cantons against overly powerful regions. That’s why I support movements like “county supremacy” on the far Right or things like Bookchin’s “libertarian municipalism” on the far Left.

    We should support the sovereignty of neighborhoods and communities against municipal bureaucracies, like Mailer’s ideas on decentralizing New York City.

    With regards to races and ethnic groups, it’s best to support sovereignty for all such groups seeking independence, e.g. Scots, Kurds, Basques, Lakotah Republic, Chechnya, Palestinians, Tibetans, etc. It’s also essential to defend ethnic or racial groups that are under attack by the state (Jews in Nazi Germany, Timorese in Indonesian, etc.)

    With regards to anarchist strategy, I would like to see the continued proliferation of anarchist “tribes” with any number of internal themes: Eurocentrists like most N-A groups at present, Afro-centrist, Native American, multiracial but anti-PC, Queer, Green, primitivist, Rothbardian, pagan, Christian, Muslim, Satanist, Amazon, etc.

    There can also be “sub-tribes” devoted to things like music, diet, fashion, art, etc.

    Strategically speaking, all of you know that I wish to develop an anarchist-secessionist movement that is capable of eventually gaining the support of the majority of the US population, and politically dominating the majority of the territory of the US. This means we have to cultivate constituencies for such a project. The best sources of support obviously are those who are most under attack by the state, most likely to take action against the state, and have the least to lose through the demise of the state. This would include racial/cultural/ethnic separatists on one end, and some “far Right” elements on the other. For instance, white nationalists could be a constituent group (or, more realistically, a collection of groups) in the sense that they might seek sovereign communities, provinces, neighborhoods, or separate institutions for themselves and regard themselves as under attack by the state (which is true, in many instances). But then the same is true of evangelical Christians (certain types, anyway), some Mormons, some black nationalists, some American Muslims, some Orthodox Jews, and so forth.

    Simply put, what I have worked to develop over the years is an anarchist movement that can actually achieve something resembling victory, and not just some kind of hipster cool kids club.

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