Left and Right

Maoists Accuse National-Anarchists of Subverting Governments Worldwide

If only it were true.

This is an interesting though rather bizarre article from a Maoist webzine, bits of which are re-posted on Matthew Lyons’ “anti-fascist” blog with additional commentary from Lyons himself (some of which is also rather interesting).  Apparently, these Maoists think there are cadres of national-anarchists out there leading and organizing subversive movements worldwide, from the Ukraine to Thailand. However, there’s no real mention of what exactly these alleged national-anarchists are doing that is supposedly so awful.  Check it out at this link. The hysteria that national-anarchism generates among leftists is really rather fascinating.

ARV-ATS would not be nearly as well-known as we are if it were not for the fact that so many leftists believe that we are a front for National-Anarchism, which is in turn a front for the neo-Nazis, which is in turn trying to infiltrate and co-opt the Left. If it were not for the prevalence of this conspiracy theory, ARV-ATS would likely be regarded as just another obscure but somewhat usual anarchist tendency (which is actually closer to the truth concerning both us and the national-anarchists alike). It is really is fascinating how the “anti-fascists” have made both ARV-ATS and the N-As into such larger than life bogeymen. In the process, they’ve become the de facto marketing division for both tendencies. Now they’re giving N-A credit for being supposed major players in significant world events. That’s far more credit than what is actually merited (to say the least). The truth is actually a lot more boring.

Categories: Left and Right

21 replies »

  1. Anyone who subscribed to the old ATS Yahoo group could easily see the links between ATS and National Anarchism, not to mention various other white nationalist maggots.

    Or you can scroll down to the bottom of this page and see the links.

    • Ah, that ol’ smoking gun of the lazy: “links”.

      Which links in particular? What’s the significance of these links, relative to other links (such as those to my blog, or Vince’s, or the Libertarian Alliance, etc.)? What’s the nature of the links?

  2. I have no problem with N-A and consider it to be a legitimate branch of anarchism, just like syndicalism, primitivism, anarcha-feminism, situationism, agorism, etc. Many of their ideas overlap with ours, and they’ve been among our strongest supporters. I disagree that N-A and WN are the same thing. It’s certainly not necessary to be a WN to be an N-A. As for white nationalism, I’d look at it the same way I’d look at black nationalism, Jewish nationalism, Hindu nationalism, Arab nationalism, etc. It all comes down to the specific individual or group in question and what their particular views are.

  3. This is what I wrote about the major schools of anarchism eleven years ago, and I would still stand by this:

    “The differing schools of anarchism each bring to the table a valuable perspective often not found among the other schools. Classical anarchism continues to emphasize the class struggle against international state capitalism, and correctly so, but unfortunately often falls into the trap of economic determinism in the same manner as the Marxists and libertarians. Also, many classical anarchist groups resemble nothing quite so much as history clubs or archivist societies, continually adorning their activities with the symbolism of European anarchism of a century ago, an action whose propagandistic value to the modern world is at best quite dubious. Neo-anarchism of the post-New Left, post-1960s variety admirably opposes the mistreatment of traditionally disfavored or marginalized social groups-racial minorities, women, homosexuals, the handicapped and so on. Yet neo-anarchism has also adopted for itself the dogmatic “political correctness” of the liberal establishment with a fervor that approaches self-parody. Libertarian anarchism champions the individual against the state, a refreshing approach given the incipient collectivism and pseudo-statism often found on the left-wing of anarchism, but sometimes ignores the role of community, cultural and non-economic influences in shaping the human personality. National-anarchism focuses on the long neglected matter of the plight of traditional racial, national or religious groupings under attack by the forces of modernist multicultural totalitarianism, yet often places a myopic emphasis on race as opposed to class, culture, the state qua the state and other such matters. Primitivist anarchism of the Zerzanite variety points to the inherently totalitarian potential of advanced technology (as evidenced by such phenomena as the Echelon spy satellite program), yet ignores the potentially liberatory aspects of technology (as classical anarchists like Kropotkin pointed out) and, predictably, dogmatizes its critique to the level of absurdity.”

  4. This is what I also wrote in that same essay eleven years ago about the relationship of the radical Left to anti-system movements that are at other points on the political spectrum:

    “It is important to remember that a movement for political decentralization should employ a decentralized strategy. This means that the same tactics will not be appropriate in all situations. For example, anarchists working in urban or metropolitan areas should naturally take a political line that is considerable further to the left than anarchists working in rural areas or among more conservative population groups. The anti-racist/feminist/gay rights cultural paradigm that dominates the modern left might well be applicable in those communities that it is suited for, such as large cities with huge minority populations and where the prevailing values are cosmospolitan in nature. However, this would clearly not be an appropriate model for rural Kansas. For anarchists to persistently push “the right to bear arms” in liberal Connecticutt would probably be a waste of time. For anarchists to agitate for gay causes in small Tennessee towns would likewise be rather futile.

    So-called “extremists” from all points on the political spectrum might be rallied as the core constituents of the anti-System forces. It is essential to remember that the anarchist movement itself (properly and constructively organized) is not necessarily a mass movement per se but only the intellectual and activist vanguard of a broader populist movement containing many different tendencies. The role of the anarchists is serve as the coordinating mediators conceived of by Mark Gillespie or the principled militants envisioned by Mikhail Bakunin. The decentralized organizational efforts of the anarchists would necessarily involve a scenario where the character of the anti-System movement varied considerably in its specific ideological, cultural, religious or ethnic orientation on a geographical or institutional basis. Across the American heartland, in the Deep South and in the mountainous regions, the anarchists might assemble a coalition of tax resisters, home schoolers, gun nuts, conspiracy theorists, pro-lifers, Christian fundamentalists, common law enthusiasts, farmers rights advocates, land rights advocates, “cults”, racists, libertarians, militiamen and other elements common to the political culture of rightwing populism. In large metropolitan centers, inner-cities, border areas and coastal regions, a similar coalition might include militants and separatists from the various minority groups, advocates for all sorts of class based social issues (gentrification, housing, environment), gays and other “sexual minorities”, all sorts of countercultural groups, students, street gangs and other official outlaws, communists, left-wing “anarchists” and others.

    Among the affluent elements of American society, such as the realm of suburbia, it is probably best if the ranks of the revolutionaries draw heavily from the youth population. Opposition to the great oppressor of youth-the state’s school systems-might be the key issue. It is also important to note that class distinctions in modern liberal democratic states are somewhat more blurred than they may have been in previous times. Any authentic populist revolutionary movement would naturally have to include persons from all class levels. The task of the genuine anarchists, who will always be a small minority, even in Official Anarchist circles, is to coordinate and guide formal and informal alliances among such disparate groups. The kinds of issue and ideology based constituent groups being described here would provide the grassroots base for the broader anarchist agenda. But there remains the question of how to appeal to the broader public. A party/organization that combined local and regional autonomy, defense of social groups under attack by the state, recruited disparate elements from the cultural fringes as its activist/support base and maintained a decentralized infrastructure would also have to develop a populist program for the masses.”

  5. @ X

    It takes a special kind of brainwashed anarchist to oppose National Anarchism.

    One thing I find interesting is the existence of non-state dating sites designed exclusively for certain races and ethnic groups, like “blackpeoplemeet.com” (Blacks), “JDate.com” (Jews), “Amigos.com” (Hispanic), and so on. Or dating sites that target gay men, or where gay men self-organize by filtering out all the women and straight men. Is that discrimination? If not, what’s wrong with say, race-based bus transportation services? Relationships are a huge deal, a bigger deal than bars, restaurants, and transportation. It’s absurd to argue that people should be allowed to associate freely when it comes to relationships which are some of the deepest and most intense personal connections, but bars, restaurants, schools, and transportation are not okay.

    Seems like the most outspoken do-gooders in the blogosphere who rail against white self-organization are typically straight white liberals who think they have something to prove. But the only thing they end up proving is that they’ve never belonged to a minority group and so they don’t understand how nice it is to be in an environment where you’re not a minority. A lot of people that belong to a minority group see the value in free association and self determination, but it’s very difficult to explain this to people who don’t.

  6. Zora Neale Hurston once said something to the effect of that what white liberals often seemed to believe is what black folks needed most is to be in the company of white people.

    These white hyper leftist groups are always lamenting the lack of minorities in their midst without ever bothering to consider that that maybe minorities aren’t interested in them because they just don’t find them attractive or feel they have anything to offer them.

  7. I kinda sympathize with the article. I agree that some kind of anti-progressive/modernist impulse is starting to develop real traction everywhere. Sure it takes radically different forms in response to its local environment, which is great because that’s pretty much what the right is all about as far as I’m concerned, but all these forces are united by a common hatred of Hillary Clinton and everything she stands for.

    Maybe that looks a lot clearer when your standing in the path of that rage wave than it does if your a part of it, thus the progressive left can see what the radical right can’t. (From the vantage point of the masters of the orthodoxy UKIP and ISIS might as well be formally allied since the main objective of both is to destroy their power, all else is irrelevant. And its not like any of them can be persuaded to intone the sacred catechism “LBGTQ” in the proper reverential tone anyway).

    moreover many of these movements do have commonality. They do tend to be decentralist, partly because that is the natural antithesis to what they oppose and partly because that’s the most effective strategy and tactical model in their situation. They do all point out the progressive Emperor’s sack is in fact conspicuously visible. They do tend to think that the modern world isn’t exactly an unalloyed delight. Of course they do, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be dissidents but would be conformists instead.

    I don’t think the guy is arguing that NA cadres are fomenting these challenges to the status quo. Obviously he is going to give that faction undue prominence because he’s a leftist and leftists are all about antifa. He wants to see NA as the vanguard of the movement against his beliefs because he can plausibly believe they are undercover nazis. He desperately needs to find some way of invoking Godwin and Troy Southgate is by far the best bet for that, he’s fucking white for a start. (*1)

    So yeah, this article is depressingly culturally left “the right is changing into something completely different; but its still the right somehow, so whatever they believe fuck those guys”.(*2) However I think there are some insight’s here which are, well, insightful. What this guy needs to pray real hard for is that no one on the actual right is smart enough to draw the same conclusions and start spreading them.

    *1 “Leftists have made this mistake repeatedly and have suffered for it. In particular, we should not underestimate the far right’s capacity to remake society in radical ways. Witness German Nazism, which brought settler-colonialism into the heart of Europe and created a horrific new system of industrial slave labor.”

    *2 “I agree that this dynamic is important, and that when you combine leftist and rightist politics, the result is right-wing. But this really isn’t new — fascists have been parasitizing leftist politics from the beginning, a point that would have strengthened NPC’s argument. Also, it’s too simple to see the incorporation of leftist political themes as a veil or an aesthetic maneuver. It also embodies genuine changes in the far right, such as the shift by many rightists from advocating highly centralized nation-states to advocating various decentralized forms of authoritarianism and ethnic exclusivism.”

  8. I wasn’t so much criticizing Matthew Lyons’ blog post as much as the article from the Maoist zine he was quoting from. The “three way fight” analysis that Lyons holds to is actually somewhat more sophisticated than much leftist analysis of fascism, which in the classical Stalinist mode regards fascism merely as a strong arm of capitalism. I think that’s a completely wrongheaded understanding of historic fascism, which is better interpreted as a revolutionary counterpart to Marxism with both of these having hostility to bourgeois society as a guiding principle.

    However, I think Lyons’ analysis is still too simplistic in the sense of constructing a “three way fight” between fascism, capitalism, and “the Left” (whatever that means nowadays). I think it also demonstrates the limitations of the left/right paradigm. I argue there’s “the system,” i.e. the global plutocracy which has many different component parts, many of which are in conflict with one another. And then there’s the “anti-system” forces which come from an almost infinite number of directions and represent a myriad of cultural and ideological currents. Beyond that, I supposed we could break it down into categories of centralist vs decentralist, authoritarian vs libertarian, universalist vs pluralism, statist vs anti-statist, traditionalist vs liberal, religious vs secular, etc.

    “And its not like any of them can be persuaded to intone the sacred catechism “LBGTQ” in the proper reverential tone anyway).”

    Well, I suppose the best interpretation of “the Left” in its present form would be as a kind of religion that believes that highest human, social, and moral values are perfect and total non-differentiation on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation. Whatever one things about this idea, it’s clearer that it’s being adopted or at least coopted by the establishment as part of its ideological superstructure of self-legitimation. That’s a big part of the reason why the Left is increasingly unable to offer any kind of substantive opposition to the System. What is there for them to oppose, really? That the System isn’t adopting transgendered anti-discrimination laws at a rapid enough pace to suit them? That feminists aren’t as dominant is all industrialized nations as they are in Sweden? That national borders, porous though they are, haven’t been completely abolished? That’s not quite as motivating as eternal paradise with a harem of 70 (presumably former) virgins, or defending an ancient civilization that has existed for millennia.

    “Obviously he is going to give that faction undue prominence because he’s a leftist and leftists are all about antifa. He wants to see NA as the vanguard of the movement against his beliefs because he can plausibly believe they are undercover nazis. He desperately needs to find some way of invoking Godwin and Troy Southgate is by far the best bet for that, he’s fucking white for a start.”

    As I wrote years ago, the hysterical reaction of the Left to N-As is comparable to that of a five year girl who finds a spider in her bed. It’s laughably silly. When I first started noticing the anti-N-A hysteria of these folks, my reaction was along the lines of “Are you fucking kidding me? What kinds of babies and ninnies are you losers?”

    • I didn’t read Lyons’ thing, I was also talking about 3ways analysis.

      There is nothing you have written above I would not completely agree with. However I would go a little further in asking why can’t our friend over at 3way et al see what is obviously a fight between the System and everybody else as exactly that? The author is obviously an exceptionally intelligent guy (more so than me certainty), almost certainly a genuinely decent and well meaning person and yet he can’t see, or at least accept, this obvious situation.

      To me it looks like this. 3way is cool with being a rebel, dissidents are necessary in the Left Progressive narrative to keep the grand project pushing forward. That kind of subversion is righteous, it’s a hell of a lot of fun and it exempts one from taking responsibility for the failure of Progressivism. “It’s not working because of the god damn elites’ not going fast enough and subverting the whole fucking program”. But other dissidence is not cool, not in the slightest. And if any of those none-Progressive dissidents looked like impeding the project much less halting it completely then there is no question at all whose side 3way is going to be on.

      Historical example, Spanish civil war. OK it totally made sense for the radical left to side with the Republicans, but it actually happened and fairly easily. That isn’t normal, normally everyone points out that X and Y are natural allies and nothing happens at best, at worst they immediately attack each other in an attempt to monopolize one side or the other. (This is actually the most sensible thing to do to under ordinary circumstances unless you want end up like Durutti.)

      I’ve argued this before but I don’t think ATS is getting it. The System is indispensable, let me repeat in-dis-pens-able, to Progressive Leftism which is like 99.9% of the Left. Because they have to have some mechanism of imposing their belief system on everyone. Progress will not have won as long as one man anywhere in the world could even think it was OK for lesbians to be excluded from say joining up with the local equivalent of the Navy SEALS (which for 80% of the world is the Navy SEALS) for example. Only a totally delusional person could believe such an out come is even remotely possible unless some massively powerful force makes it possible. And the best candidate for that force, by far, is the System. (Unless the Age of Aquarius thing turns up any time soon)

      We could go further still and argue that The System and The Left are the same thing. The System is addicted to Progress, it could never have existed without the “fruits” of the Enlightenment and it dreams of greater power yet delivered by the next crop. The Left did not exist, or if they did not as any viable proposition, before the System existed in its developed form (yeah Lilburne was cool, but that shit was just never going to work). It’s no co-incidence that the Left are considered to have come into existence at the exact moment the High Modern state did in the French Revolution (The levee en masse, and all it entails, represents the development of a mature modern state IMO). This is why the Left has, unbelievably, been able to assimilate capitalism and vice versa; they are both products of the Industrial Age which share basic assumption. Which is that power at any price is good.

      So yeah, there are ninety nine reasons to oppose the System, but being a progressive Leftist aint one.

  9. I’ve never actually read Dugin’s “Fourth Political Theory” (in spite of being constantly urged by alternative right friends to do so). From this description http://www.arktos.com/alexander-dugin-the-fourth-political-theory.html it sounds like a more Eurasian or Russia-centric version of the same basic set of ideas promoted by Benoist and the ENR. If ENR and Eurasianist ideas could be considered a “fourth political theory” beyond the 20th century triad of capitalism, communism, and fascism, I suppose what I promote could be considered a “fifth political theory” that recognizes the same anti-universalist or traditionalist forces as having a tremendous radical potential for building resistance to global neoliberalism, but then does another ideological inversion where this idea is incorporated into the anarchist revolutionary paradigm that capitalist, communist, and fascist regimes all worked to suppress in the 20th century, and doesn’t stop at embracing traditionalism as an end unto itself, but merely as a bulwark against the principal barrier to the wider libertarian project of human liberation.

    What I mean by that is, yes, I might share many of the same pragmatic analyses of the FPT or ENR. For instance, I tend to welcome the emergence of the BRIC axis as a counterbalance to the Anglo-American-Zionist “Atlanticist” hegemony. I tend to agree that Putinism is perhaps a necessary counterbalance to Americanism. I see “radical Islam” as a principal resistance force to neoliberalism. Contra the Maoists quoted by Lyons, I think a “national anarchism” with an Orthodox orientation might be a suitable resistance model or alternative political model for Russia and Eastern Europe, given the cultural context. And “Buddhist national anarchism” might be suitable for Thailand. As a pluralist, I’m also comfortable with Nepal being Maoist, and the Middle East being Islamic and Singapore being Confucian and Sweden being feminist.

    But I’m also sympathetic to libertarian movements wherever they arise. Yes, Islam may be a bulwark against globalism, but I’m all for more freedom for Christians, atheists, women, gays, etc in Islamic countries, or an end to witch burnings and the persecution of albinos in Africa, or workers and peasants struggles anywhere, or repealing drug prohibition worldwide. For instance. contrary to what is widely believed I have no problem with “LGBTQ” people at all. I merely point out that emphasizing the PC use of gender pronouns is not as pressing an issue as overthrowing global neoliberalism or the domestic American police state, and that much of PC thinking has gone cultic as well having been coopted by the system as a new force for repression.

    And unlike the Eurasian or ENR vision of a Eurasian or federal European empire, I’m of course in favor of radical decentralization. For instance, I was recently discussing internal Greek politics with someone where I pointed out the anachronistic orientation towards the 1930s model of radicalism of many Greek dissidents like the Greek anarchists, Syriza, Golden Dawn, etc and suggested what they need to do is dig into their history and heritage and revive their ancient city-state democracy, with city-states for leftists, anarchists, Golden Dawn, minorities, immigrants, Gypsies, etc. perhaps with each of these having a Spartan militia to fend off attacks by the others.

    • I’ve never read Dugin, or Faye or Benoist either for that matter. I have read people talking about them, listened to podcasts about their stuff, watched some vids etc. This is the 21st century after all. I know I really should but on the other hand I’ve never read Marx either but I get the gist.

      I can say this for certain about Dugin. I really don’t think he can be written off as a simple traditionalist. I base that on one thing I heard him say in a speech which was something like; “we’ve lost so many of our traditions and many of those we retain are useless because they were designed for another Age but that’s OK we can always make some new ones”. That ain’t no regular conservative.

      As for the ENR. According to Benoist.

      ”Only a return to communities and to a politics of human dimensions can remedy exclusion or dissolution of the social bond, its reification, and its juridification.”

      ”Rather, local communities would have to make decisions by and for themselves in all those matters which concern them directly, and all members would have to participate at every stage of the deliberations and of the democratic decision-making. It is not the welfare state that ought to decentralize in their favor. Rather, it is the local communities themselves that ought not to cede to the State power to intervene except in those matters for which they are not able or competent to make decisions.” (I’d say that if we judge competence in relation, which is to say communities should cede power only when they are less competent than the state, then Benoist statement here is merely a affirmation of the concept of complete local autonomy).

      ”Each level of the association should have its own role and its own dignity, not derived from approval from above, but based on the will and consent of all those who participate. The only decisions that would come from the summit of this structure would be those relating to all the peoples and federal communities: diplomatic matters, military affairs, big economic issues, fundamental legal questions, protection of the environment, etc. European integration is equally necessary in certain areas of research, industry, and new communications technology. A single currency ought to be managed by a central bank under the control of European political authority.” (or bit coin)

      Which I would suggest puts the ENR somewhere near conventional libertarians and minarchists. Which given where the radical right is coming from is some considerable leap. That’s a trajectory which is lookin good from my perspective.

      What I think is important here is that the principle is sound and taken to its logical conclusion would end up with something indistinguishable from pan secessionism. I can see no philosophical reason why Right wing sensibilities can’t go that far, whereas as I have argued Left wing ones can not even approach the position. I would go further and argue that the current orthodoxy of the ENR is philosophically inconsistent and it is only the residual fear of statelessness which causes them to stall at the minarchist position. However unlike minarchists, who are generally halted from going further because particular attachments to things like capitalism, almost always capitalism, require some degree of state force to be maintained/imposed none of the primary concerns of the ENR require a state. Indeed resolving their issues would likely be achieved more efficiently and definitively via a rout of statelessness.

      So I think that Dugin and the ENR do not represent some qualatively different from PS, but rather something within the same paradigm, but less rigorous or developed, and being generated by similar analysis and thought.

      I see this as encouraging because it suggests that people of reasonable intelligence are coming to similar conclusions from many different perspectives, a kind of radical convergence is coming about. This is driven not by cross fertilisation but by the solutions to the problems being so obvious that they scream out to anyone with enough latitude of thought to be able to hear.

      Things to note here is that the American New Right seems to be seriously less “new” than the European New Right. That these tendencies are rapidly becoming dominant on the radical right (in the UK it probably is dominant at this point). That these tendencies have the potential and motive to go full PS. That these tendencies are currently in a state of flux and thus open to influence. That these tendencies have every probability of defining the default mainstream basis of opposition to the System in the near term.

      I think that ATS could play a role in shaping how this turns out, taking a position even more radical in respect to the right than the New Right. And radicalism being what it is that means taking a leadership position. A revolutionary vanguard you might say.

  10. What ARV-ATS and allied tendencies really need now is simply more activists and adherents of our philosophy and strategy. We’ve got all the theory we really need. It’s now time for implementation. “Pan-Anarchists of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your dogma, and a world to win!”

  11. Surely that should be “pan anarchists of the world …… disengage, in as surly a manner as you like, from conflict with anyone other than those with actual power. You have nothing to lose (since you have all hitherto been losers), and a possibility of winning …….. well how far can you walk in a day?

    I share your distaste for theory in preference for action. However, let’s be serious, theory is what we do. If we’re (mis)quoting KM then we might consider:

    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it”.

    I assume by this Marx meant that the point of intellectual political theory is not merely to describe impartially but to justify and motivate a desired change. The implication being that can be done; a concept the guy himself pretty much proved.

    That’s what I was trying to argue with the “retconning the revolution” essay. Rather than trying to inspire explicitly PS projects we should find those that already exist that are either plausibly PS in practice or “proto-PS” and claim them. We should take a page out of KM’s book and argue that PS isn’t an optional thing but something which is going to happen like it or not because conditions increasingly demand it. With the success, spread and existence of our proto PS movements being used as evidence.

    What we should do is not change reality at this point, but change the perception of it. Which is pretty much the same thing except one is a great deal easier than the other. If we could succeed in creating a consciousness of the essential system Vs anti-system conflict and of the commonality of anti-system forces then that would become a reality in short order anyway.

    We should use and see theory and analysis as weapons rather than optical instruments. And since, as far as I can tell, we’re right then we must assume we have the potential to be an ideological superpower!

    You commented on 3ways piece “if only it were true”. I say, at the risk of plagiarising George Micheal, All we should and can do is make 3ways lies true with the tools at our disposal.”

  12. “I’ve argued this before but I don’t think ATS is getting it. The System is indispensable, let me repeat in-dis-pens-able, to Progressive Leftism which is like 99.9% of the Left. Because they have to have some mechanism of imposing their belief system on everyone. Progress will not have won as long as one man anywhere in the world could even think it was OK for lesbians to be excluded from say joining up with the local equivalent of the Navy SEALS (which for 80% of the world is the Navy SEALS) for example.”

    No, believe me, I get it. But my approach is simply to promote the wider set of ideas, and criticize the things that need to be criticized, and beyond that it’s merely a matter of who shows up. It that’s the radical right, then so be it, though I’m not really into closing any doors. A lot of former leftists are finding their way to us, though I certainly agree we have a larger audience with the radical right.

    “So I think that Dugin and the ENR do not represent some qualatively different from PS, but rather something within the same paradigm, but less rigorous or developed, and being generated by similar analysis and thought. ”

    So I take it ATS is the “fifth political theory” that is “beyond the new right” as well? Sounds good to me.

  13. “Rather than trying to inspire explicitly PS projects we should find those that already exist that are either plausibly PS in practice or “proto-PS” and claim them. We should take a page out of KM’s book and argue that PS isn’t an optional thing but something which is going to happen like it or not because conditions increasingly demand it. With the success, spread and existence of our proto PS movements being used as evidence.”

    Which examples do you think we should emphasize?

    • I think that there are a number of “movements”, “groups” and tendencies we could reasonably call “proto-PS” or “PS orientated”. These could be further broken down into categories.

      Those I find most exciting are practical in their nature. A class of politically motivated examples might include:

      Freetown Christania, the anarchist suburb of Copenhagen. This one is particularly well developed and interesting because it is within the context of a modern Western “core” nation and because it’s practical nature has forced a re-evaluation of the BS traditional “conventional” anarchist doctrine. The fight between FTC and hard drug dealers is particularly interesting.

      The EZLN Autonomous zones. This is more or less pure PS because the project is seated within a wider global ideological framework. Sure we still have some residual leftist rhetoric but I see that as tangential at best.

      Western Spring (and other “PLE” radical right projects), Western Spring is perhaps the most advanced of these in the West. Sure the implementation is somewhat lacking, sure the ideology is fucking awful, sure the tactical model is rudimentary at best but if it succeeds then it could definitively move the strategic doctrine of the radical right into a secessionist mode.

      Orania, Boar autonomous community; Northern Cape South Africa. Another example of a radical right ethnocentric project. Pure PS in practice but lacking a wider formal philosophic basis.

      Ukrainian separatism, interestingly active and militant. Disappointingly pro Moscow but that may well change. Operating in the same area of the Ukrainian Free Territory, which might be an interesting angle.

      Various secessionist movement in Europe and the West. Particularly those at a city-state or provincial level.

      The Free State project. Ideologically and strategically similar to PS. Tactically weak (New Hampshire is still too large an area)

      Switzerland. Which is about 80% PS and doing quite nicely.

      Micro-Nation movement, some of which have de facto seceded already. Sealand for example.

      And so forth.

      A separate category of might consist of practical projects of a none political nature but which tend towards a PS position in practice.

      Transition Towns/Resilient Communities and other localisation projects.
      This movement is actually becoming politicized naturally in any case. It’s logic has to tend towards PS.

      Direct Democracy initiatives. Since ultimately the logical end point is PS.

      Local currency projects: And any others which tend toward localised autonomy and self organization.

      We have another category of philosophic and intellectual movements which tend towards PS sympathetic positions.

      The New Right and Forth political theory. I see this as another example of a underdeveloped form of PS. Mainly because it is more focused on critique of other systems than providing actual solutions.

      The Dark Enlightenment, another milieu for which the above comment is equally valid (although not given much prominence within their work ideas very similar to PS are proposed)

      Doomerists: De-industrialization presupposes a return to local autonomy.

      Libertarianism: Obviously

      and so on.

      The point here is that I think all these, and many other, forces represent an organic response to the failure of “the system” on every level. I think PS’s role is to put them all within a common ideological framework and provide ideological and intellectual justifications for it. As I have said I see ATS’s position as the most advanced or developed element of a movement which is emergent and really is the “wave of the future” for lots of practical and philosophic reasons.

    • I think that one of the best ways that any political group (but esp. pan-secessionists) can promote themselves is to do community activism under the flag of their organization. To that end, we should recontextualize PS using pan-ideological/cooperative action to address local concerns. This can be accomplished by mobilizing different political groups to address, for example, permaculture (Guerrilla gardening), homelessness (passing out food), electronic security (show people how to use tor), ALF/ELF action; organize protests, lectures, etc. We need to spend less time defending the controversial allies of pan-secession (like White Nationalists) and more time actually organizing/ acting.

      A great way for us to co-opt other organizations is to challenge political advocates that just sit on their ass all day: we have to devalue theory itself. “Oh, you’re an anarchist/ commie/ libertarian? What do you do besides moralize the state and post memes?” Hit em where it hurts (nicely), then give them means of action, even if it’s just Food Not Bombs and community works. Increase militancy as needed.

      We need media, and lots of it; but the way we portray ourselves is subpar. Right now we look like crypto-fascists. Pan-Secessionists would do well to utilize a certain post-modern image by taking from post-anarchism, Hakim Bey (esp. TAZ), situationists, adbusters, Bob Black, dada, etc. This serves to disassociate PS from the stigma of far-right politics and give it that sexy esotericism. This is not to say that we shouldn’t appeal to the right, but that we currently seem to *only* appeal to the right.

      More effort should be given to convey an “anti-racist” image to the public. Associating with nationalists, fascists, and traditionalists is essential, but it needs to be softly packaged to leftist allies. This probably necessitates limiting our critique of political correctness/ modernity, except insofar as they stand in the way of unification, progress, and autonomy. It’s probably better for public relations if we come off as truly agnostic on questions of nationalism/racial identity, but religiously certain of self-determination and subsidiarity.

      Pearson lists good examples of organizations we should vocally support and appropriate for PS, especially leftists like EZLN and Christania. More important than these, however, is your local community groups, regardless of affiliation (okay, maybe not the KKK or New Black Panthers).

      • If we actually had any activists that would be an excellent assessment of how they should be operating. The problem is we haven’t.

        One problem is that to go out and advocate PS on a unprimed population doesn’t tend to be very fruitful. You may as well suggest voluntary oxygen abstinence as local autonomy to the vast majority of average people. For most not having a powerful centralized state is literally inconceivable, that they might be competent to make their own political decisions ludicrous. That is especially the case when you go from the abstract “we should have the right” to practical “this is what we would need to do”.

        It is much easier and effective to join other groups and tilt them towards “proto-PS” through practical and attainable local projects such a the institution of local currencies, local food markets and the like. Boring old entryism aimed at identifying particular individuals who might be capable of getting it and doing something about it. Its worth remembering that local elites tend to be very small and Western populations highly passive, a very small group using the right techniques (Transition towns in particular are brilliant at this) can have considerable impact.

        Which is all good fun, and it’s possible to fantasize about what could be achieved if even one working PS community could be established to serve as a model for the concept. However perhaps its little more realistic to suggest we might be able to, let’s not say co-opt, let’s say tactically augment groups which have activists already in the field.

        Oh, wait I did that wrong. I meant to say we already have thousands of fanatical entryists PS stormtroopers in the field, shit like Transition Towns is just a front as is like every secessionist movement from Tibet to Chiptas and Anonymous is providing the tech support while Bitcoin is financing the whole operation . Any day now our people will throw off their V for Vendetta masks and storm the bastions of power! Also something about Nazis eating Jew babies. Did you get all that 3way?

  14. This is actually an issue I’ve been thinking about quite a bit. At this point, I feel like I’ve pretty much done all I can do in the theoretical realm. Years ago, I sat out to develop a comprehensive theoretical paradigm and strategic model for a new anarchist movement that would borrow from but grow beyond the historic anarchist movement, and certainly move past much of the crap that passes for “anarchism” today (i.e. the “anarcho-Marxoids”). I’ve more or less done that, and anyone has access to all that through this website, my book, the backlog of podcasts, interviews I’ve done that are now scattered over the internet, etc.

    So we don’t need any more theory at this point. At present, I’m more interested in implementation. Its sounds like you’re suggesting that instead of trying to from an “ATS Revolutionary Party” or encouraging others to develop a “Yay for pan-secessionism!” outlook that we instead take the same approach as guys like Lind and Van Creveld do to fourth generation warfare. Mostly, those guys analyze trends and relevant historical precedents and contemporary factors. The actual participants in fourth generation warfare aren’t saying, “Hey, we’re the fourth generation warriors!” They just do what they do. But Lind points out 4GW and Van Creveld talks about the transformation of war as it unfolds.

    There’s actually more and more stuff emerging that’s similar to what we talk about: libertarian populism of the kind that’s developing in the US, a growing interest in secession movements, 4GW, etc.

    So I guess the question is how do we go about claiming all that?

  15. Well that is the 64 million dollar question.

    I suppose it depends on the level of sophistication we think a group like ATS can achieve and on the vectors we chose to try and popularize the concept.

    However at the most fundamental level I think that the idea that PS isn’t a theoretic abstract proposition needing to be implemented but a predicted inevitable end state of forces already in motion has its own power. I think that many will find that to be an interesting concept, some because it would terrify them and some because it would give them a great deal of currently lacking optimism.

    And of course we can always rely on our good friends at the SPLC and allies to broadcast our message at maximum volume through their excellent resources. Hell, one of the more base reasons I think ATS should adopt a position of claiming to be the Ultra-New Authentic Antifa Right is that we should really toss our pals at the likes of 3way some ammo. Anything less is positive ingratitude apart from any other consideration.

    ATS is reasonably influential in that while its audience is fairly small that audience does consist of the higher end of the market. Merely advocating the idea that PS is here and is winning and will win might potentially have a serious impact on a number of elite actors in their respective milieus.

    I believe that small groups could massively enhance their “reach” by adopting some radical techniques. I think that ten years from now net culture will regard “sites” such as these as hopelessly defensive and passive in nature. Coordinated and organized internet outreach, cuckoo tactics, deliberately provoking inter group conflicts (flame wars if you like) and other aggressive net based techniques will give their early adopters some considerable influence.

    At the most ambitious end of the options is an attempt to reformat the popular conception of the political spectrum. If we could persuade a section of the intellectual elite that PS represents the most radical form of one end of the political spectrum, and let’s face it that’s going to a lot easier to do for the “right poll” than the left, then that status would rapidly transmit the doctrine to a gigantic audience and , better yet, make PS the default Plan “B” when “Plan A” (the status quo” falls apart. I think that is a more than realistic proposition, I mean its not like the current incumbents of that intellectual space are especially intellectually formidable. In fact one might go as far as to suggest that they could reasonably and fairly described as cunts.

    But over all I think it’s case of considering if the analysis I have suggested is plausible and can be sincerely advocated. If it is then it should be adopted and promoted for its own sake. “Just do it” as a popular shoe manufacturer might say.

Leave a Reply to Jeremy Weiland Cancel reply