I’m not sure how I feel about this particular group. They seem a bit neoconnish on the surface at least. But it’s certainly an interesting model of blurring the left/right distinction.
Here’s the Wikipedia entry for third parties in the U.S. Read it here.
Question: In their current forms, all of these parties are terrible failures, and that’s not likely to change. But to what degree might these parties be a vehicle for entryism by those of us in the alternative anarchist milieu? Read Troy Southgate’s essay on entryism to explore this concept further. What if we were to gradually gain leadership positions in each of these party formations, one by one, and combine them into a revolutionary federation that de-emphasizes conventional politics in favor of secession by culturally specific local autonomy movements and rejection of the left/right ideological framework?
Over the past six months or so, interest in the various alternative anarchist milieus seems to have grown exponentially. The number of blogs, websites, or local affinity groups devoted to such projects has proliferated to the point where I can no longer keep track of them all. It would certainly be beneficial to our cause if this momentum could continue to keep building over the next year or two. Some months ago, I posted a list of possibilities concerning potential projects that Attack the System supporters or allies might wish to pursue. I’m posting the list again (minus the ones that have already been taken!). Keep in mind that these are only suggestions. Feel free to come up with your own ideas. And notice that some of these possible projects would be identified as “far left” and others as “far right.” That’s the value of pluralism, anti-univeralism, free association, and decentralized tribalism. Ideas that would otherwise seem mutually exclusive of one another in any other context can peacefully co-exist.
Attack the System Group for Radical Greens, Peak Oilers, Primitivists, Linkolans, and Deep Ecologists
Attack the System Canada
Attack the System Firearms and Self-Defense Project
Attack the System Student Association
Attack the System Fathers’ Rights Group
Attack the System Men’s Rights Project
National-Anarchist Project to Assist Battered Women and Abused Children
The Szasz Alliance: Exposing the Mental Health Industry
Attack the System Police State Monitoring Project
National-Anarchists Against Imperialist War
National-Anarchist Palestine Solidarity Project
Pagans Against Political Correctness
National-Anarchist Alliance to Expose Atrocities Against White South Africans
Bias in Hate Crimes Reporting Group
Attack the System Anti-AIPAC Outreach Project
National-Anarchists Against the Federal Reserve
Attack the System General Strike for Superstore and Fast Food Workers Project
Attack the System Prisoner Outreach Project
National-Anarchist Alternative Medicine Group
National-Anarchist Tea Party Outreach Project
Attack the System Secession for (pick your city, state, or region)
National-Anarchist Association of Home-Schoolers
National-Anarchists for Animal Rights
Attack the System Drug War Resistance Project
Attack the System Sex Workers Group
The Evola Study Group
The Nietzsche Study Group
The Classical Anarchist Study Group
Literature of the Weimar Conservative Revolution Study Group
Third Position Health Care (it’s been taken, so keep it active!)
Attack the System Alternative Economics Project
National-Anarchist Project to Document and Expose Political Correctness
Radical Patriots/ Radical Anarchists United Against Big Brother
As you can tell, the possibilities are virtually endless. Just set up a blog or FB page reflecting your preferred themes, or pull a few close comrades together and form a group, and see where it leads.
Thanks to Jeremy for digging up this piece from David Graeber.
As an anthropologist and active participant—particularly in the more radical, direct-action end of the movement—I may be able to clear up some common points of misunderstanding; but the news may not be gratefully received. Much of the hesitation, I suspect, lies in the reluctance of those who have long fancied themselves radicals of some sort to come to terms with the fact that they are really liberals: interested in expanding individual freedoms and pursuing social justice, but not in ways that would seriously challenge the existence of reigning institutions like capital or state. And even many of those who would like to see revolutionary change might not feel entirely happy about having to accept that most of the creative energy for radical politics is now coming from anarchism—a tradition that they have hitherto mostly dismissed—and that taking this movement seriously will necessarily also mean a respectful engagement with it.
Eric Margolis sums up the situation very well.
For the entire twenty-five years of my political activism and writing, I have considered the defeat of the American empire to be the most pressing political question. Now, it finally seems to be happening. The empire is essentially bankrupt, and is incapable of pacifying the indigenous resistance on the periphery. The post-WW2 alliances that formed the structure of the empire during the Cold War and post-Cold War periods seem to be falling apart as Europe is becoming more assertive of its own interests independently of the U.S. and the BRIC axis is rising as a potent economic force. Perhaps we can refer to this situation as “Noam Chomsky’s Revenge.”
Walter Williams on the latest manifestation of the therapeutic state.
Notice that the proponents of the therapeutic state seem to be the most extreme and deeply entrenched in those regions of the U.S. where the general totalitarian humanist ideology is also the most influential. As totalitarian humanism advances, this kind of thing is likely to spread to other regions and localities and into the federal government with much greater ferocity.
Soon enough articles like this will probably be illegal in England.
The winning essay in the Libertarian Alliance’s 2010 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize. Congratulations to David Robert Gibson.
Paul Craig Roberts provides a concise but comprehensive overview of the authoritarian legal revolution that has transpired under the Bush and Obama regimes.
Last February Cheney said on ABC’s This Week that “I was a big supporter of waterboarding.” US law has always regarded waterboarding as torture. The US government executed WW II Japanese for waterboarding American POWs. But Cheney has escaped accountability, which means that there is no rule of law.
Vice president Cheney’s office also presided over the outing of a covert CIA agent, a felony. Yet, nothing happened to Cheney, and the underling who took the fall had his sentence commuted by President Bush.
President Obama has made himself complicit in the crimes of his predecessor by refusing to enforce the rule of law. In his criminality, Obama has actually surpassed Bush. Bush is the president of extra-judicial torture, extra-judicial detention, extra-judicial spying and invasions of privacy, but Obama has one-upped Bush. Obama is the president of extra-judicial murder.
Not only is Obama violating the sovereignty of an American ally, Pakistan, by sending in drones and Special Forces teams to murder Pakistani civilians, but in addition Obama has a list of American citizens whom he intends to murder without arrest, presentation of evidence, trial and conviction.
An additional curiosity is that this system of outright elective dictatorship that consolidated itself in the 2000s fits perfectly with the “seventy year cycle” theory of American history discussed in this article by Steven Yates. Notice that Yates is writing in the year 2000, and predicting a crisis and major political change is on the way. This was just before Bush was elected, before September 11, 2001, before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, before the beginnings of the terror war and the subsequent legal revolution that Roberts describes.
The Gingerbread Person?
The good news is that the more ridiculous this PC shit gets, the quicker people will turn against it, and the sooner it will fall. I look for this to be the major political fault line in the future: a rising new elite committed to PC ideology, and a growing class of the economically declining against whom PC is used as a weapon of political, economic, and social control.
1984 is here, says civil liberties attorney John Whitehead.
Two great articles on the up and coming elites.
The New Elite by Charles Murray
New group formed for the New York area. Check out their very well done blog.
Good stuff on the neocon nature of the Tea Partiers from my friend Jack Ross at the American Conservative.
But even he seems to take a misguidedly benighted view of the tea parties, as implied by the notion that they have been merely co-opted by the neocons. I would argue, to the contrary, that the Tea Party movement is in fact fundamentally neocon in its first principles.
What else needs to be said about the Tea Party?