Uncategorized

Montana Introduces Comprehensive Nullification Bill

It’s the first state to do so.

This is how I envision the revolution actually happening.

If I’m correct that the liberal-Left is going to dominate U.S. national politics for the next few decades, then more and more “red states” will likely adopt such actions, and hopefully “blue zones” in red states will follow with secessionist threats of their own like Pima County in Arizona is doing. And then black, white, yellow, brown, pink, green, and purple zones starts will start seceding from each other until the state is virtually destroyed by many different communities going off and doing their own thing.

Categories: Uncategorized

3 replies »

  1. That’s a very realistic vision of how it will go down, I think. I wonder if left anarchists would support secession? It doesn’t look like their glorious version of revolution.

  2. Skimming over some left-anarchist publications on environmentalism and racism recently, it only seems like they could ever hope to have the kind of societies they want (personally I think a “totalitarian humanist” community, even an anarchist one, would be almost impossible to maintain since its based on misunderstandings) with secession.
    Even in a revolution in which they would cooperate with the entire American populace, they’re best mostly left to themselves (their strategies of direct terrorism and mass protests may be somewhat at odds with the dual power and direct democratic community organizing I and you probably prefer, and their radical views being incredibly difficult to sucessfully appeal to the people, as opposed to more third-position libertarian populist views) Have you ever handed out the “why the radical left should consider secession” at infoshops or left-anarchist meetings or whatever?

  3. I’ve encountered a lot of individual left-anarchists who are personally sympathetic to the kind of approach we take here with varying degrees of enthusiasm. The problem is that their movement tends to be dominated by the loud-mouthed totalitarian-types, particularly online. The only thing left-anarchists would really need to do to adopt our approach is to practice tactical non-universalism. They could still embrace universalism on a sufficiently abstract theoretical level or as a longer-term ambition. The main problems I see with them is the level of sectarianism within their own ranks, their inability to develop a viable strategic outlook, and their sometimes hysterical intolerance of those with competing views. That does not speak well of the kind of society they would likely create.

    “Skimming over some left-anarchist publications on environmentalism and racism recently, it only seems like they could ever hope to have the kind of societies they want (personally I think a “totalitarian humanist” community, even an anarchist one, would be almost impossible to maintain since its based on misunderstandings) with secession.”

    Well, I don’t think it’s merely a coincidence that I’ve had better luck reaching out to Green and/or primitivist anarchists or to black or other non-European anarchists than I have to those whose ideas seem more influenced by the academic left. LOL, the “totalitarian humanist” anarchists all sound like a parody of leftist university professors or like a juvenile delinquent version of Tim Wise or Morris Dees.

    “(their strategies of direct terrorism and mass protests may be somewhat at odds with the dual power and direct democratic community organizing I and you probably prefer,”

    The problem is that the former will not work without the latter, although when the latter is in place the former could be the catalyst that pushes things over the edge. The big issue is that something has to be in place to fill the power vacuum when it emerges.

    “and their radical views being incredibly difficult to sucessfully appeal to the people, as opposed to more third-position libertarian populist views) ”

    That’s why anarchists have to be an elitist movement that forms the leadership cadre of a larger libertarian-populist-3P movement, at least in part. I see anachism being the equivalent of the FAI with libertarian-populism-3P being the equivalent of the CNT and the anti-Franco militias. The problem with the left-anarchists as presently constituted is that they have no sense of realism or practical politics. Instead, it’s all just about ideology and raw emotion.

    “Have you ever handed out the “why the radical left should consider secession” at infoshops or left-anarchist meetings or whatever?”

    That essay was published in a Vermont secessionist journal with a likely left-wing or generally progressive audience. I submitted it to Counterpunch but I never heard back from them. It’s turned up in other places as well. Kirk Sale was sending it around at one point.I haven’t actually participated in the “organized” anarchist movement for quite a while, though I do like the idea of circulating that essay in left-anarchist and general left circles.

    I think our best hope so far as reaching the left-anarchists goes is generational change. In the future, it’s going to become increasingly difficult to simultaneously be a PC militant and maintain any kind of bona fide credentials as an anti-establishmentarian. Plus, I think the tightening grip of PC will alienate a lot of the rebellious youth types who are naturally drawn to anarchism. I mean, not that many rebellious youth go out and join fundamentalist churches (unless they come from militant atheist families), and I can’t imagine too many of them remaining attracted to the dour PC Left.

Leave a Reply