7 replies »

1. Hmm. Wondering why O’Keefe is talking to this racialist twit, opportunist and charlatan. Isn’t it hard to withstand the cognitive dissonance bred by listening to this street corner philosopher lamenting how the “great nation’s” wonderful and benign foreign policy (if we just ignore basically all of the last century of carnage, and then some) has been hijacked by evil foreigners and “traitors” – on this ostensibly “anarchist” website? Someone who supports controls on “non-European” (whatever that means) immigration?

   Appreciate the anti-war work done by O’Keefe, in Iraq and elsewhere because he puts his money where his mouth is, but Duke is just another two-penny conspiracy theorist who peppers his declarations with bits of historical truth in order to give a legitimate cover.

   This is rather weak sauce cooked up with an “anti-imperialism” label. Not that it’s all wrong, because it isn’t, Zionism is indeed a problem, but the main premise is just flawed. People like this are anything but “anti-state” – they support a strong state which keeps out the undesirables, traditional hierarchies of familial and patriarchal authority, and “racial kinsmanship” which serve to protect order and obedience. It’s like having cops without the cops. Also, Duke’s views on society are curiously similar – almost exactly the same – as the right-wing fanatics and fascists controlling the Israeli government right now, who basically believe in an ethnocratic, “racially pure” society, and have roughly the same views on immigration. In other words, if Duke were an Israeli politician today, he’d really fit right in…

   It’s vital to have dissenting views, and no one should be jailed or silenced because of them, (Duke, Faurisson, Zundel, etc.) but bullshit should be called out as bullshit too. Looking around this website, though, I am not surprised to see it here, to be honest. There is good mixed in witht he bad, but some of the US “libertarian” movement is basically a cover for many (mostly white men, let’s not kid ourselves) who resent the state not because of its inherent violence and structure, but rather because in infringes upon their own power and authority in their own little domains. In other words, your basic right-wing frat boy all dressed up to play the “patriotic dissident”. Sorry for the vitriol, but tough. Anarchists can’t lack the cojones to speak about this kind of thing, otherwise they don’t deserve the label “anarchist”, in my opinion, or it becomes just another herd following the party line.

   Reply

   • I don’t think the Duke you’re talking about is the same Duke that exists in reality. See his essay A New Paradigm For Human Diversity and Freedom! and his interview on The Stark Truth.

     David Duke does wonderful PR for the “white rights movement” and white Christian racialists would be wise to follow in his footsteps if they hope for their movement to ever become legitimate.

     I think he harps on Zionism a bit too much but other than that I think he’s been moving in the right direction. He needs to read some of the essays on this website and become an anarchist!

     Even if he is ‘putting on a show’ to gain followers he’s created a persona that other races could potentially find pleasant enough to work alongside towards the mutual goal of establishing autonomous regions on the North American continent.

     Reply

     • He says much that is good in his essay, but I fear people are being sold a bill of goods. He’s re-branded himself.
       There is a form of “Jewish supremacism”, if you like, in Palestine (more accurately called a form of apartheid), but his ascribing the global banking system to a form of “Zionism” is pure fantasy. That’s just not what Zionism is.
       Also, painting different cultures and ethnic-linguistic groups as different “races” is just non scientific, it makes no sense.
       Thanks for the reply.

       Reply

2. Saw a comment about ATS regarding this video and the SOP via Jews sans frontieres:

   “I’ve just seen your tweet on David Duke talking KoK for a change. I checked out the “about” on the site and. like Demize, they are calling themselves anarchists whilst promoting fascism. It might be worth a post in its own right, not sure. But it is interesting to see how the Jew hatred of some of these people seems to be the tip of a far larger iceberg of more generalised racism. I suppose these “anarchists” call that equality.”

   Reply

3. “Looking around this website, though, I am not surprised to see it here, to be honest. There is good mixed in witht he bad, but some of the US “libertarian” movement is basically a cover for many (mostly white men, let’s not kid ourselves) who resent the state not because of its inherent violence and structure, but rather because in infringes upon their own power and authority in their own little domains. In other words, your basic right-wing frat boy all dressed up to play the “patriotic dissident”.”

   If we wait around until we convert masses of people to reject the state “because of its inherent violence and structure,” we’ll be waiting an awfully long time. Most people have little interest in ideology, and most people are not nearly averse enough to authority in order to become anarchists. If anarchists actually want to be politically influential, then we need to figure out how to go about influencing society way beyond what is proportionate to our actual numbers. There are two things that will motivate the average human type to go against the norms of their particular society’s institution: 1) If they see their primary reference groups or the subcultures with which they are affiliatated come under attack by the establishment or 2) if they become economically desparate enough.

   The only way to attack the state with any modicum of success would be for anarchists to position themselves as the militant leadership of a larger anti-state populist movement that has as its constituents all of those political interest groups that either see their cultural or reference group interests as being under attack by the state or see their economic interests as under attack. I’ve identified a long list of who these might be in the past: http://attackthesystem.com/liberty-and-populism-building-an-effective-resistance-movement-for-north-america/

   The trick is to be able to a) convince enough political interest groups and their individual members or adherents that decentralized associational liberty better serves their own interests than continued loyalty to the existing state and b) convince of enough of these that decentalized associational liberty is more likely to be achieved than the creation of a new state that is more to their liking. Enough political interest groups and their members have to be convinced of this that we ultimately achieve a political majority.

   If what we are trying to create here ever becomes a reality, there will likely be all sorts of otherwise irreconilable factions that collectively comprise the anti-state movement: Conservatives who see the state as a threat to family values, faith, tradition, and bourgeois morality. Leftists who see the state as a threat to women, minorities, workers, LGBTQ2 people, etc. Black nationalists who want autonomous enclaves of their own. White nationalists who want likewise. Religious fundamentalists who want communities that conform to their sectarian moral preferences. Vice merchants and consumers who free-for-all zones.

   Demographically, the trends show that such as movement would draw from all layers and sectors of society, but there would probably be more younger people than older people, more poor and working class than affluent and wealthy, more far rightists than far leftists, more liberals than ordinary conservatives, more urbanities than rural people, and I doubt there would be an ethnic majority within such a movement.

   Reply

4. “I checked out the “about” on the site and. like Demize, they are calling themselves anarchists whilst promoting fascism. ”

   The irreducible minimum characteristics of fascism are the primacy of the state, militarism, the corporatist economy, and legal authoritarianism. Without these characteristics, any conception of “fascism” becomes unintelligible. Yet these are precisely the things that this website and associated projects were created to oppose and that all of the core documents associated with ATS specifically and virulently attack.

   Another characteristic of fascism is its flexibility regarding the myths and symbols it uses in order perpetrate its own self-legitimation. Fascism can take on the aura of a futurism that seeks to reclaim a glorious past (like Mussolini), or crude racial supremacism (like Hitler), or pan-Arabism (like Saddam Hussein), or “man of the people” populism (like Juan Peron).

   I’d argue our critics label us as “fascists” not because of any actual compatibility between ATS and any coherent definition of fascism, but because they desire a fascism of their own, one whose legiitimating mythology is neo-Jacobin universalism.

   Reply

5. says everything about O’Keefe, he cannot fathom what Duke is about at all..with his limited grunt intelligence he cannot see through it at all..fucking charlatan

   Reply