The Ten Core Strategic Objectives of the Pan-Anarchist Movement?

Four years ago, I introduced the concept of the “ten core demographics,” that is, ten very general sets of population groups, the majority of each we would have to win over to our camp if pan-anarchism, anarcho-pluralism, alternative-anarchism, anarchism without adjectives, national-anarchism, tribal -anarchism, synthesist anarchism, whatever we are is to be successful.

Then as now, I generally regard these ten demographics, and the many sub-demographics within each, as constituting the basis of the alliances and constituents we should seek to be cultivating for practical purposes. Now that my book, Attack the System, is finally published, I believe I have been successful in doing what I originally set out to do years ago: Establish a comprehensive theoretical paradigm and strategic model for a 21st century anarchist movement that draws on the legacy of the movements that have gone before, but advance the theoretical foundations of anarchism to a level that is appropriate for a 21st century society.

It would seem that at this point, it is appropriate to establish a particular set primary objectives for the 21st century anarchist movement. So in that spirit, I offer these “Ten Core Strategic Objectives”:

1) The establishment of a Pan-Anarchist Federation representing the entire spectrum of anarchist, anti-statist. libertarian, decentralist, and anti-authoritarian movements in North America, and to work for the formation of similar federations in other nations as well.

2) The creation in the United States of an Alliance of Third Parties towards the common purpose of opening the U.S. political system to greater competition. This alliance should be inclusive of the minor parties of the left, right, center, libertarians, socialists, nationalists, religious, ethno-identitarian, and various ideological outliers.

3) The creation of a People’s Economic Front for the purpose of stripping away forms of state intervention into the economy that have the effect of centralizing control over wealth and resources and imposing systems of artificial economic privilege.

4) The cultivation of a vast array of single issue activist and political pressure groups with an anti-state or decentralist orientation as our constituent base and network of alliances.

5) The creation of legal defense organizations for the sake of taking action on behalf of all those who come under attack by the system, and working with organizations of this kind that are already in existence.

6) The creation of alternative infrastructure for the purpose of providing for those social services and public goods now provided by the state or state-capitalist corporations, i.e. “building the new society within the shell of the old” as the Wobblies used to say.

7) The establishment and support of local, regional, cultural, religious, and ethnic civic organizations for the purpose of developing both regional and local secessionists movements, and the formulation of a cultural foundation for alternative infrastructure.

8) The eventual establishment of a Free Nations Coalition of independence and sovereignty movements around the world, and the eventual bringing to public attention of a Free Nations Day to be held every October 24 as an alternative to United Nations Day. This should be to the movement that we aim to build what May Day was to the classical workers movement.

9) The development of the initial stages of establishing a civilian militia and defense organization or federation, and the creation of various kinds of support organizations for this purpose.

10) The cultivation of international allies and supporters, from countries to transnational organizations to religious movements to guerrilla armies.

Of course, all of this represents a very long term plan and set of objectives, to be achieved over the course of the next half century. But it would seem that the time to begin planting the seeds is now.

Categories: Activism, Strategy

2 replies »

  1. I have every generous hope for the brave revolutionary vanguard of anarcho nationalist libertarian fascist transhumanist traditionalist international localist populist elites of pan secessionist gangster pluralist Ubermen.

    You just need to work on your theory a little bit.

    It poses some serious problems.

    Who is going to storm a machine gun nest in the name of pluralism? Who ever has?

    How exactly do you create crack cadre without a deep organic unity of belief and common identity?

    How do people who can’t agree on first principles operate within a common political doctrine, much less a practice of war?

    Who is going to suffer for years and die horribly in the name of pan secessionism, or the gold standard, or some Alex Jones bullshit?

    How would a loose coalition of geographically and politically disconnected secessionist movements avoid the system concentrating its own political and military forces to defeat them piecemeal and at its own convenience?

    The level of political and strategic decentralization that would be required to maintain a coalition that included libertarians, left anarchists, white nationalists, black nationalists and neo-confederates would mean in effect: *no strategy at all*. Dealing with the friction in any coalition is difficult enough, but what you are proposing would lead to nothing but friction, without any of the traditional means of counteracting it.

    Is your “vanguard” going to have an organization? How is it a vanguard if it does not? What kind of an organization? Of who? To do what? Clearly you aren’t going to use the party model of the 20th century, so what is the alternative? I hate to burst the tribalist bubble, but tribes have been losing the war with the state for thousands of years. The dominant cultures worldwide are state centric, and while strong tribes survive most are heavily integrated into the state. Conspiracy theories, Bitcoins, and plastic guns are not going to change that equation.

  2. Your making it sound more complicated than it needs to be.

    The best examples to look at are right in front of us: the Democrats and Republicans.

    Regarding the Republicans, what do cosmopolitan Jewish billionaires in Manhattan, Southern rednecks, evangelical Christians, and Midwestern Chamber of Commerce types have in common with each other? Nothing, other than a common enemy in left-liberalism, whom the collectively regard as threat to their own cultural, ethnic, religious, or economic interests.

    Regarding the Democrats, what do Hollywood entertainment moguls, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, billionaire owners of tech companies, social service bureaucrats, university professors, inner-city black people, young urban professionals, college students, elderly people on social security, homosexuals, transexuals, Mexican immigrants, blue collar white ethnics, feminists, pornographers like Larry Flynt, environmentalists, atheists, Muslims, Jewish liberals, Arab immigrants, and Catholics have in common with each other? Nothing, other than perceiving the traditional WASP elite and the traditionally dominant WASP culture as the common enemy.

    The coalition that ARV-ATS aims to eventually put together would be no more diverse and no more comprised of otherwise conflicting interests than the Democratic Party at present. The unifying thread would be a common perception of the U.S. ruling class as the primary enemy.

    Regarding possible military alliances among otherwise much different factions, that happens all the time during warfare. What about the U.S.-Soviet alliance during WW2? What about the U.S. backing al-Qaeda against the Assad regime in Syria? What about the CIA-Khmer Rouge alliance in the 80s?

    Actually, what I have in mind would be more like the UNO alliance against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the early 90s:

Leave a Reply