Check this out. Pretty soon we’re going to have to start paying publicists’ fees to these “watchdog” people.
Attack the System
Categories: Uncategorized
Editors
-
academiccompositionab
-
Empowerment Equalizer
-
SSaragian
-
Antony Sammeroff
-
Ann Sterzinger
-
Rodney
-
RJ
-
busterjames
-
cainusmaxus
-
Craig FitzGerald
-
David Heleniak
-
Caity & Dan Greene
-
keirmartland
-
Keith Preston
-
Bill the Butcher
-
ljp711
-
MRDA
-
Jack Donovan
-
Rachel Haywire
-
comrade hermit
-
Michael
-
Vince
-
robertstark2014
-
Noonan
-
S E Pearson
-
Rachel Haywire
-
Nexus X Humectress
Is that idiot still at it? I remember the debate you had with him way back when, you calmly explained what you believe and what it all is about. So, why does some people insist on labelling others? Yet if is done in another fashion the same people call it racism. Same kind of thing you had a article on free market anarchism and anarcho-communism and the one guy commenting insisted that people who favour free market anarchism should call themselves anarcho-feudalist because that is what it would mean, according to him anyway. There are so many flavours of anarchism, and if ever we can get freedom to such a degree people will form all kinds of communities probably in ways that not even the theoreticians could have imagined. Yet this strange creature at 3wayfight believes that anybody who diverge from his narrow minded fascist view of the world is a fascist? Why can someone like him not see reason? Let’s start liberal-democratic-anarchism, that would scare everyone. Ideologies without state power to enforce the will of one on another are but abstract words.
“and the one guy commenting insisted that people who favour free market anarchism should call themselves anarcho-feudalist because that is what it would mean, according to him anyway.”
Sounds like me. But I seriously absolutely agree with what you say completely. All I ask is that if Walmart get to turn into the East India Company we get to turn into Vikings. Maybe Walmart win and if they do then An-caps are right, all I ask is a fair fight.
“All I ask is a fair fight” – For sure, equality of authority the purest form of equality. What I do not get about many watchdog groups, and what I suspect comes from a lack of knowledge, is that they sell themselves as specialist on a perceived threat without any attempt to engage them or even truly understand them. Bet you 3wayfight has not read anything of Rothbard, Hoppe or even Preston’s latest book. Has he ever read anything from a perspective other then his own, say a black nationalist like Steve Biko or a white nationalist like Jarred Taylor, and at least tried to understand why they would view the world the way they do? We read the books of those we even disagree with to sharpen our arguments and learn where we are right and where we are wrong before condemning what we don’t understand. Many watchdog groups do anything and everything but that, for if your argument is so correct you should be able to convince others of it.
I actually think these “watchdog” groups are helping us out. ATS and other similar tendencies wouldn’t be nearly as “famous” if these do-gooders weren’t out there fanning the flames. Plus, nothing draws an audience like controversy and an alleged violation of taboos.
If it weren’t for all the “fascism accusers,” ATS would be just another of many, many obscure anarchist or libertarian websites.
Honestly, and this will sound silly, but what these folks remind me of are the “satanic rock” hysterics of the 70s and 80s. You’d see these folks picketing outside the shows of acts like Alice Cooper ( a closeted evangelical Christian), Kiss (two Jews, a Catholic, and a lapsed Lutheran), and Black Sabbath (Anglicans and Catholics) claiming some kind of weird black mass or ritual sacrifice or whatever was going on inside: “Keith Preston drinks the blood of newborns!!”
I’ve had people out this way indignantly tell me that everyone needs to be aware of my ties to ATS and aware of ATS and sites like ours. Of course I agree with them 100%!
I say the same thing: I’m completely open about my “ties” to ATS. The issue is merely that much of what we’re concerned about at ATS is just not on topic in most radical leftist discussions I’m in, so it would feel like an imposition to bring them up of my own accord. And most leftists I talk to about this stuff one-to-one are pretty lackadaisically opposed to it if at all; it’s in groups that it gets a little heated and irrational.
The funniest part of that lecture by Matthew Lyons is when he’s talking about the map of the U.S. with all the different flags:”These people favor self-determination for everyone…everyone!…Can you believe that?…The horrors…!!!”
I got the feeling that he was trying to present the map specifically and ATS generally as honestly as possible. I think he over-stresses the National Anarchism in ATS, but in exposing these ideas to his audience I think you and I would agree that a service is performed. At least one person watching his presentation must have at least been curious about what you’re / we’re saying, and to the extent that pulls an individual out of the orbit of rigid ideology it’s a win IMHO. Thanks for sharing this talk.
I don’t recall anything that he actually said about me that I thought was factually wrong, except for one minor quibble. I never moved to the “far right” per se as much as over time I became a more consistent anarchist, and that meant adopting some “right-wing” ideas while criticizing some “left-wing” ideas. I don’t think anarchism properly conceived of can really be thought of as “left” or “right.” Among many of the classical anarchists, there were plenty of ideas that would now be considered more rightward than leftward.
Besides, even in the era of classical anarchism, these same debates took place. There were laissez faire individualist anarchists like Tucker, and hardline anarcho-communists like Most. Some classical anarchists were proponents of feminism/homosexuality/free love, and others had more conservative ideas about gender roles and sexual morals (you find plenty of that among the Spanish anarchists). There were differing views about questions of ethnicity, nationality, race, etc. Proudhon was arguably a French nationalist, Bakunin a pan-Slavist, and Landauer a Germanophile and Bavarian regionalist. But Rocker wrote a very critical book on nationalism. Proudhon and Bakunin were certainly anti-Semites by contemporary standards, but Mahkno reportedly shot anti-Semites on site. Some anarchists were admirers of Nietzsche, but I remember Sam Dolgoff saying once that Emma Goldman’s admiration of Nietzsche was something he disliked about her. There were some classical anarchists who were rigid class determinists, like the platformists. There were some who were pro-technology, and others who sympathized with movements like the Luddites. There were some who were militantly anti-religion, and others who were religious. There were some who were into “alternative lifestyles,” like nudism or vegetarianism.
So it’s not like these debates are new. ATS position’s are very similar to ecumenical strands in classical anarchism, like synthesism and anarchism without adjectives. The wider ATS strategy is basically the same as the “popular front” strategy of the Spanish anarchists, modified to fit a 21st century society. Pan-secessionism is a more extensive variation of the general strike in that it focus on a wider variety of issues than economics.
I think our approach is the only way anarchists, of any kind, will ever have a fighting chance of influencing the wider society. There will always be sectarians who say, no, their favorite social issue, economic preference, or lifestyle preference trumps everything else. Those will just have to remain on the margins and be irrelevant.
The hysteria these people have over National-Anarchism is silly. N-A is basically the same thing as pan-anarchism, except that some N-As have a more explicit orientation towards ethnic interests or concerns. But so do plenty of other groups, including those that are considered part of the Left.
The big issue with N-A seems to be that Troy once belonged to the National Front. This is what he says about that today: ” I am eternally damned, apparently, for having joined the National Front (NF) in the early-1980s, even though, as I clearly explained in my 2010 work, ‘Nazis, Fascists or Neither: Ideological Credentials of the British Far Right, 1987-1994,’ the NF was in the process of becoming an anti-racist and anti-fascist organisation and expelling its reactionary elements. Lying Lyons and his disgusting friends aren’t concerned about such details, of course, their job is to smear, denigrate and encourage guilt-by-association, which is why he calls me “a veteran of the neo-Nazi movement”. Not once, but twice. This, despite the fact that I have opposed both Hitlerism and fascism in general throughout my life.”
Many of these critics will eventually start to come around. Maybe not the most vehement ones, but others who are currently hostile to us or suspicious. Many things will drive this.
As the totalitarian humanists become increasingly powerful, they will also become increasingly fanatical, extreme, and repressive. Consequently, many libertarians and anarchists, left or right, who take their anti-authoritarianism seriously at all will start to see the merits of our positions.
As demographic changes becomes more dramatic and institutionalized, many cultural leftists will realize that many of the groups they think they are championing are not the enlightened progressives they thought they were.
As the Left becomes increasingly powerful, many minorities will notice more and more that they are getting left behind as class divisions widen and state repression escalates.
As large scale immigration continues to take place, there will be more and more people who have no loyalty to “America” as a nation-state and will instead retain their own ethnic, national, or tribal loyalties.
As the ranks of the poor grow, more people will be looking for radical economic and political alternatives.
As the cultural right becomes increasingly marginalized, they will become correspondingly open to decentralist or libertarian solutions to some of these problems, and yet their opponents will view them as a less credible threat.
Even as class divisions widen, different social classes will be increasingly integrated along racial, ethnic, cultural, gender, etc lines.
I could go with other examples. But the bottom line is that these critics are stuck in the past, at best. The Left continues to hold to a model that was intended for US society as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. That world doesn’t anymore, and that will become more and more obvious over time.
What the Left doesn’t realize is that all of the groups they traditionally hate: whites in the lower socio-economic levels, southern whites, conservative Christians, hardline proponents of the bourgeois nuclear family, the conservative sectors of the middle class, white people generally, patriotic Americans, serious homophobes, serious believers in male patriarchy, are already dwindling minorities and will be increasingly so in the future. Attacking these groups will increasingly resemble Soviet dissidents attacking czarists.
The enemy of the future will be a largely culturally liberal, largely multicultural ruling class presiding over a police state and military-industrial complex in a society that is increasingly stratified along class lines but increasingly diverse in every conceivable way. Meanwhile, movements will emerge representing every kind of previously marginalized interest, from polygamists to pedophiles, from neo-pagans to Hmong immigrants, and dozens if not hundreds of contending ideological, cultural, religious, ethnic, economic, moral, etc factions will be pitted against each other.
It is at this point that the pan-anarchist-organized, pan-radical alliance using the pan-secessionist/libertarian-populist strategy will need to step up to the plate and offer workable solutions.
I suppose there are two things that will test the validity of my work in these areas:
Whether my interpretation of trends research proves to be accurate AND if there’s enough activists and radicals following the methods I have prescribed to make the resistance model I have outlined workable.
I’ve often speculated here that people like Lyons, and that’s real big real noisy group will ultimately side with the system Partly for ideological reasons, “if it take Big Brother to stop people objecting to Gay Pride (even if only in their own heads) then so be it”, but mainly because of what they are. Which is mainly privileged, yeah I said it, privileged little middle class asshole playing at being rebels (“but in completely none confrontational safe way officer!”). I note that over in Ukraine their analogs seem to have somehow ended up not merely simply allied to the state and system but to actual honest to god nazis. Meanwhile the evil far right ethno-nationalists lost 2000 men, women and children fighting the system and its actual old school fascist allies, oh and NATO “advisors” for good measure, in an artillery duel. So their “anti-fascism” is conducted with Grad MLRS in their own streets rather than spastic placards and the occasional half brick in a “Free speech zone”. That is not an outcome our conventional hypothesis on the nature of political philosophy would have predicted; that’s because that analysis totally fucking wrong.