28 comments

  1. Keith, the American Revolutionary Vanguard is really spreading like wildfire. This movement seems to be spreading and growing in ways the left-libertarians (who remain largely an internet clique) could only dream off. What is it in your approach that seems to catch on with others, that they lack?

  2. I can only speak for myself. Keith exhibits a form of leadership that is rare among others. Despite the fact that his critics appear to have turned him into a cult of personality, his leadership trait that makes ARV so attractive is that he embraces followers as equals. If you have noticed, the formation of new groups is not about him, but about the movement and cultivating new leaders and autonomous groups.

  3. Yes. Here the ALLers are whining about hypothetical communities and obsessing over the supposed “authoritarianism” of the NAS…meanwhile the ARV is multiplying almost expotentially…leaving those douchebags in the dust.

  4. “What is it in your approach that seems to catch on with others, that they lack?”

    I’d say the main difference is an emphasis on quality. Everyone in our inner circles is a person of quality and superior levels of ability. The other thing is flexibility. Everyone here is capable of thinking outside the box.

    “If you have noticed, the formation of new groups is not about him, but about the movement and cultivating new leaders and autonomous groups.”

    The worst thing any kind of movement can be is a cult of The Leader. Not only is that rather un-anarchistic, but movements like that don’t survive their founding generation.

    “Here the ALLers are whining about hypothetical communities and obsessing over the supposed “authoritarianism” of the NAS…meanwhile the ARV is multiplying almost expotentially…leaving those douchebags in the dust.”

    Their “Center for a Stateless Society” is worth reading, as are the works of some of their genuine scholars like Gary Chartier and, of course, Carson. There are a number of former associates of the “left-libertarians” in our circle, and other persons of quality in or around that milieu or in the wider anarcho-leftoid circle may still find their way to us. I’ve also noticed some of the more ridiculous people among the LLs don’t really seem to be heard from much anymore.

  5. Oh boy…. the Lockean Proviso certainly did run smack dab into the middle of the Native American idea of property ownership during America’s westward expansion. Back in the day I got into some interesting discussions with Lewrockwell/Mises.org type of people regarding the notion of homesteading unused land. If I remember correctly, one of them said something about not caring whether early American homesteads interfered with some Indian’s nature walk. Of course, that wasn’t what it was about at all. From the Native perspective the settlers were chopping down their carefully managed food/fuel forest.

    In case you’re wondering, done is done in my book. I have no notion of calculating repatriations going back half a millennium and giving the entire white race the bill. There are white and Hispanic communities in traditional Indian Country that have just as much of a right to be there as we do by now. I look forward to the day when such communities can have a peaceful, peer to peer relationship with one another and possibly trade and defense alliances.

  6. “I found the article about clan ownership of property to be particularly interesting.

    http://lingitlatseen.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/our-way-forward-is-to-embrace-our-past/

    That should throw a wrench in the wheels of the Lockean fundamentalists.”

    I’ll second that. A much more realistic approach than that of many libertarians, who obsess over some quasi-autistic definition of property in relation to every issue. I recall Keith, Chris, and myself debating some LLs over on the left-libertarian forum a few years back, and some intelligent but misguided LL asking me on what ‘theory of property’ I was basing my general ideas of territorial sovereignty. This kind of myopic reductionism dooms much (though not all) libertarianism to failure; until they can start to engage with reality rather than brain-fuckingly boring theory that 99.999% of the population will never understand or care about, they probably will not make any more progress politically than they are now.

  7. “I recall Keith, Chris, and myself debating some LLs over on the left-libertarian forum a few years back, and some intelligent but misguided LL asking me on what ‘theory of property’ I was basing my general ideas of territorial sovereignty. ”

    I recall that debate. We were discussing immigration with the left-libertarians, and it was Brad Spangler who raised that question. Your response was the appropriate one: That’s like asking an agnostic what part of the Bible they base their beliefs on.

    “This kind of myopic reductionism dooms much (though not all) libertarianism to failure; until they can start to engage with reality rather than brain-fuckingly boring theory that 99.999% of the population will never understand or care about, they probably will not make any more progress politically than they are now.”

    Libertarians in the U.S. tend to be either very middle-class, often upper-middle class, professional people concerned mostly with abstract philosophical concepts and economic theory, or they tend to be the same youth-counterculture-bohemian crowd that you find among the left-anarchists. For a few years in the mid 1990s, I got really into their scholarly work, some of which is actually quite good, particularly that produced by their more radical thinkers. There are a lot of libertarian authors well-worth reading. I’ve always said that the proper relationship with them is to read their books but to take their actual movement with a grain of salt. The more serious libertarians tend to be very principled and consistent thinkers, unlike the anarcho-leftoids who are barely coherent much of the time.

    The problem with them is the one you pointed out. A lot of libertarians are like Marxists in that all sorts of bits and pieces of arcane theory become a kind of obsession. You can go on libertarian discussion boards and spend hours, even days, debating all sorts of really obscure theoretical premises concerning natural rights, land ownership theory, “non-aggression” principles, etc. Stuff like the question of whether an actual crime has been committed according to natural law on the non-aggression principle if you shoot a gun at someone but miss your intended target, or whether drunk driving really violates anyone’s rights if you don’t actually run into anyone, or whether intelligent androids like Mr. Data from Star Trek have Lockean natural rights or not. As you said, most people don’t give a flying fuck about any of that, and they have no idea how to translate theory into real world action. They start out with a few solid premises, e.g., statism is bad, individual sovereignty is good, bureaucracy impedes economic prosperity and organic social life, aggressive war is bad (except for the neolibertarians), a solid defense of civil liberties and privacy rights, and then build up a religion around all sorts of theoretical tidbits that are far removed from reality as we know it.

    I’m more interested in action. If we oppose the state, the ruling class, empire, police state, therapeutic state, cultural Marxism,etc., then what are we going to do about it?

  8. Question: Are any of our English readers familiar with the U.K.’s Libertarian Alliance? They’re actually my favorite of any libertarian groups I’m familiar with, and not just because they awarded me a prize in an essay contest a couple years ago. Their leading figure, Dr. Sean Gabb, is a staunch critic of not only the state, but imperialism, plutocracy, and cultural Marxism as well, much like the U.S. paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians, but he’s also a staunch cultural libertarian, not like the reactionary Christian types who make up much of paleolibertarianism in the U.S.

  9. “Oh boy…. the Lockean Proviso certainly did run smack dab into the middle of the Native American idea of property ownership during America’s westward expansion. Back in the day I got into some interesting discussions with Lewrockwell/Mises.org type of people regarding the notion of homesteading unused land. If I remember correctly, one of them said something about not caring whether early American homesteads interfered with some Indian’s nature walk.”

    If I recall correctly, Ayn Rand argued that aggression against American Indians was justified because Indians supposedly had no conception of property rights. I know some of her followers make that kind of argument. Of course, Rand also argued that aggression against the Palestinians was justified because Arabs are supposedly uncultured savages.

    Property ownership is a cultural phenomena, not something that falls out of the sky. For instance, pre-industrial European societies measured individual wealth through ownership of land. The more land you held, the wealthier you were considered to be. Traditional African societies, at least the West Africans whom the Europeans encountered in their early explorations, had no concept of ownership of land. It was considered common property just like we have no concept of ownership of the air. The Africans measured wealth in slaves. The more slaves you had, the richer you were. Our modern capitalist societies measure wealth in terms of monetary value. Someone is considered to be more wealthy the more cold currency they possess or the more assets they have that can be converted into cold cash, e.g. securities, real estate, commercial property, luxury items, etc.

    “In case you’re wondering, done is done in my book. I have no notion of calculating repatriations going back half a millennium and giving the entire white race the bill. There are white and Hispanic communities in traditional Indian Country that have just as much of a right to be there as we do by now.”

    Reparations might be an acceptable trade-off in return for eliminating the invasive bureaucracy and political centralization involved in “civil rights” enforcement.

    “I look forward to the day when such communities can have a peaceful, peer to peer relationship with one another and possibly trade and defense alliances.”

    Yes, exactly.

  10. “Stuff like the question of whether an actual crime has been committed according to natural law on the non-aggression principle if you shoot a gun at someone but miss your intended target, or whether drunk driving really violates anyone’s rights if you don’t actually run into anyone, or whether intelligent androids like Mr. Data from Star Trek have Lockean natural rights or not.”

    Yeah, it reminds me of those nerdy debates about comics/movies/games that my friends used to have when I was 14. Who gives a shit?

    “Question: Are any of our English readers familiar with the U.K.’s Libertarian Alliance?”

    I’d heard the name prior to your involvement with them, but they’re pretty obscure over here. Libertarianism is a barely visible political movement. Dr. Gabb is a very interesting thinker, who I agree with on many issues; his critique of PC and the nanny-state is far more clear-headed and consistent than the semi-literate tabloid conservatism that comes out of this island.

  11. By the more ridiculous ones do you mean Aster, Mendez, and Brainpolice? Because they’ve been rather quite for some time now.

  12. OK, it’s good to know I’m not the only one who doesn’t appreciate the orthodoxy of some Anarchist divisions. On that note, that’s probably one of the biggest draws of the ARV, in my opinion. I don’t have to convince my tribe to adopt some far fetched, over analyzed theory about property or labor exploitation. All I have to do is ask how we used to run our communities back in the day and then say, “OK, now go do that,” and I’m done.

    New email address, btw. My previous email provider is hopelessly broken.

  13. Most anarchists seem to have zero ability to explain anarchism in ways that make sense to ordinary people. As for my “anarchist-secessionist” approach, I like to keep printout copies of these two articles available to give to ordinary folks.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204482304574219813708759806.html

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00014/

    The Wall Street Journal article explains secession in a respectful and nuanced way and it has the advantage of having been published in a supposedly respectable mainstream paper.

    The article on Mailer gets a bit more into the radical decentralization idea inherent in anarchism, and explains it in the simple concept of “power to the neighborhoods.” Plus, it has the advantage of being printed in a socially conservative magazine, not some wild hippie-New Age-punk rock-semi-pornographic fanzine.

  14. At this rate you’ll have accomodated every single leftist identity group… How about WHITE ATTACK THE SYSTEM.

  15. I’m okay with that. There are already a number of Euro-centric National-Anarchist groups in various U.S. and Canadian localities, e.g. BANA, Inland Empire, Sacramento, Dayton, Folk and Faith, Southern Ontario, etc. More would be fine.

  16. I don’t get what Canadian law regulating employment has to do with indigenous peoples seeking sovereignty for themselves and their lands. The idea is to be independent of the Canadian or American governments, thereby rendering the laws of these regimes irrelevant. And it’s not like all native peoples have identical political views. Women are included in the legislation that Faust refers to, yet by no means do all women belong to the political left or the modern feminist movement, which is what Faust’s logic would seem to imply.

  17. I don’t understand what these losers get out of dropping in to post incoherent WN babble and then disappearing just as quickly. Why don’t they just stick with Stormfront?

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