academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressOne on immigration , one on the battle between proprietarian anarchists or anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists, and one on anarchism without adjectives in response to a critic.
If you post there, please do so in a civil and courteous manner. Let’s take the high road and avoid flame wars.
Categories: Uncategorized
 | Anonymous on The Forgotten Legacy of John S… |
 | anarch0re on Holocaust Denial Now More Main… |
 | dystopiandeepdives on An Announcement |
| Anonymous on Autism and anarchy: The import… |
 | Dale Dombkowski on Are EVs Truly the Greenest For… |
| Anonymous on Holocaust Denial Now More Main… |
| Anonymous on It’s Not a “National Divorce.”… |
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson
Very Interesting comments and conversation.
I suppose that all terms “anarcho-socialism”, “anarcho-capitalist” and “national-anarchism”, are very un-satisfying me as “anarchisms”, but I understand that this is my opinion, and that bashing radicals about their cultural preferences is not a good idea. Also experience from where I stand has shown me that some “radical-rightists” can be turned against their mainstream leadership. There was a great number of regenades from mainstream “populist-rightism” in Greece, when our national conservative party sided with IMF, and my far more “PC-leaning” leftists didn’t have trouble with the happy coincidence, so why should I?
However you should think these points.:
1) There is a great part of “radical-rightists” that seems that the only thing that they seem to desire is “cultural rightism without the state”. While I respect your argument that they are powerless, the thing is that they will cause problem in a micro-level, since the only thing they care about is “Smashing the Left”, with anti-statism a secondar concern. A lot of comments at “Alternative Right” have that flavour, denouncing your proposals in the sense that aren’t “as racialist as they would like”.
2)Alright, let’s suppose that “anti-leftism” is indeed fine. But they tend to forget that USA is a Center-Right State, and that a lot of leftists are enemies of the status quo as well, (and I don’t mean the PC left). How could these guys cooperate with “sensible” leftists if they think that the “Left” (which seems to include everything but themselves, even Ron Paul libertarians) is the culpit of everything?
I have to say that I judge the “radical rightists” from the things I read on “Alternative Right”, and an internet magazine will have a lot of keyboard philosophes, and keyboard warriors in its commenters. Perhaps you could share your opinions on “real-world” paleos and nationalists, and say if they have those tendencies that I criticize.
“1) There is a great part of “radical-rightists” that seems that the only thing that they seem to desire is “cultural rightism without the state”. While I respect your argument that they are powerless, the thing is that they will cause problem in a micro-level, since the only thing they care about is “Smashing the Left”, with anti-statism a secondar concern. A lot of comments at “Alternative Right” have that flavour, denouncing your proposals in the sense that aren’t “as racialist as they would like”.”
Fuck ’em. These kinds of losers will get left by the wayside. I agree they could cause problems in isolated situations, in the same way that fuckwit antifas and Commies or criminal gang-members undoubtedly will too; conflicts will unfortunately arise.
“1) There is a great part of “radical-rightists” that seems that the only thing that they seem to desire is “cultural rightism without the state”. While I respect your argument that they are powerless, the thing is that they will cause problem in a micro-level, since the only thing they care about is “Smashing the Left”, with anti-statism a secondar concern. A lot of comments at “Alternative Right” have that flavour, denouncing your proposals in the sense that aren’t “as racialist as they would like”.”
Luke summed it up pretty well on this point. What will draw more and more of the “radical right” into our camp over time is that more and more of them will realize that not only is the present state their enemy, but they have no chance of seizing the state and setting up a regime of their own, particularly as their numbers continue to dwindle. This will be true not only of the racialist right but also the religious right, cultural right, etc. For instance, even a curmudgeonly Old Rightist like Gottfried has expressed sympathy for my views, even though he explicitly denies that he is a philosophical libertarian, out of recognition that the state in its present form is controlled by the enemy and there’s no chance of rightists in America achieving a “state of their own.” Gottfried, of course, is at the intellectual top of the heap on the Right, while those who continue to criticize me are, let’s be frank, from the bottom of the heap in many instances.
“2)Alright, let’s suppose that “anti-leftism” is indeed fine. But they tend to forget that USA is a Center-Right State, and that a lot of leftists are enemies of the status quo as well, (and I don’t mean the PC left). How could these guys cooperate with “sensible” leftists if they think that the “Left” (which seems to include everything but themselves, even Ron Paul libertarians) is the culpit of everything?”
The U.S. at present is Center-Right compared to the Western European states, but it’s continually moving leftward and will continue to do so with time. As the Right comes under increasing attacks by the state, they will need allies wherever they can find them. There are already plenty of prototypes for that, for instance, paleoconservative monarchist Bill Lind’s expressions of sympathy for Ralph Nader, or the participation of southern regionalists, evangelical Christians, and palecons in the secessionist movement organized by left-libertarians like Tom Naylor and Kirk Sale. There were also plenty of “radical rightists” who supported Ron Paul’s efforts.
“I have to say that I judge the “radical rightists” from the things I read on “Alternative Right”, and an internet magazine will have a lot of keyboard philosophes, and keyboard warriors in its commenters. Perhaps you could share your opinions on “real-world” paleos and nationalists, and say if they have those tendencies that I criticize.”
The keyboard warriors tend to be the worst elements from all movements, from the far left to the far right.
@Luke
I doubt that those dudes have an ability of violence of any kind (left – right), except when they have a computer screen in front of them. The fact that the kids at RevLeft think that they are Che Guevaras, and that they have avatars of Trotsky in their forums, doesn’t mean that they are. Most likely they are adult “basement dwellers” having revolutionary fantasies. The problem is the misinformation that they spread around, and the fact that they become the “public image” of a given movement. If I judged radicalism by reading something like, let’s say, LibCom or Stormfront (especially the comments), I would never have become a radical.
@Keith
I am happy that activist radicals of different kinds are developing good relationships in the “real-world”, since Internet gives me no hope. On the other hand, given a great “shock” everybody sensible might wake up, and see this has no point. What you said about USA turning Left-ward is interesting, however. But don’t you think that the American Centre-Left has lost much steam already? As I understand Barrack Obama is considered already a disappointment, so I find it difficult that he’ll become what Reagan was for the Centre-Right. Of course he has a lot of time ahead of him.
“But don’t you think that the American Centre-Left has lost much steam already? As I understand Barrack Obama is considered already a disappointment, so I find it difficult that he’ll become what Reagan was for the Centre-Right.”
Obama is a disappointment to the progressives in the sense that he’s not moving as fast as they would like, or makes too many concessions along the way. That’s always true when it comes to the relationship between ideological movements and the actual administration of statecraft. But what matters is trends over time. Throughout the Reagan years, the cultural Left was increasingly getting the upper hand in American cultural and social institutions, e.g. education, media, entertainment, the social bureaucracy, mainline religion, etc. Now that has spread into the general population to a much greater degree and even into ostensibly conservative institutions like the police, military and capitalist corporations. Even cops and soldiers and business executives nowadays have to undergo things like sensitivity training and be concerned about diversity and all that. All of the trends-cultural, generational, political, demographic-indicate that will continue to be the case for the forseeable future. I explain why in this analysis of voting patterns in American elections:
http://attackthesystem.com/2009/05/is-something-really-wrong-with-kansas/
Of course, I’m only discussing trends within the general population in that analysis. Elite opinion is much more influential and important, and the values of the cultural left are much more deeply entrenched within the ranks of elites than among commoners. Tom Sunic explains in part why that is so:
http://www.freespeechproject.com/830.html
Some additional posts from Luke and myself in response to BrainPolice and others on the “without adjectives” thread:
http://c4ss.org/content/3111#comment-2817
And an exchange between Darian Worden and myself on immigration:
http://c4ss.org/content/3099#comment-2862
“I can’t really speak to that. If “individual liberty” against private institutions, local communities, cultural norms, or historic traditions rather than exemption from overarching states that impose uniforms laws and values is what you want, perhaps you should reconsider being an anarchist and become a liberal-constitutionalist state-centralist like, for instance, professors Ronald Dworkin or Lawrence Tribe.”
Can’t one be opposed to both without becoming a shill of the system? I don’t see why this has to be an either/or thing, as long as one is a political fight and the other a (chiefly) personal one.
“I don’t see why this has to be an either/or thing, as long as one is a political fight and the other a (chiefly) personal one.”
Agreed.
I gotta say, I was expecting more of a fight from Brainpolice. Disappointing.
He probably realized he was playing out of his league.
Thinking about MRDA’s earlier point, I should point out that I’m not arguing that community norms, tradition, or private institutional authority is binding on the individual in some kind of moralistic sense. Far from it. As a Stirnerite, I’d say the individual is “justified” in rising in defiance of authority, tradition, and so forth if it suits his own interests. For instance, I don’t think you have an obligation to respect your parents just because they’re your parents. If your parents were good people, and did the best they could in raising you, then perhaps you should respect them out of gratitude or common courtesy. But if your parents were worthless fuck-ups, then I disagree you’re obligated to respect them on the basis of family ties alone.
What I oppose is the idea found in modern liberalism that things like the family, communities, religion, traditional cultures, etc. are so oppressive that we need to appeal to the state to liberate us from these things. I get this all the time from liberals who argue that, no, it’s not the state that’s the enemy, we need to state to uphold our rights so that backwoods Tennessee towns don’t start having prayer in schools and things like that.
I see this kind of thinking frequently in left-anarchist and left-libertarian circles as well. For them, the state, aggressive war, institutions of severe economic exploitation and the like are not unique evils, but simply items on a laundry list of oppressions like having your parents disapprove of your romantic or sexual relationships, patterns of voluntary association that involve exclusion or discrimination along ideologically taboo lines, going to a conservative church, social disapproval by others, less than perfectly proportional representation of favored groups in institutional settings, etc. Ultimately, this leads to statism because the state comes to be seen as an ally against other institutions, social relationships, or cultural norms.
I am curious of what was written in here.