Uncategorized

Arguments Against the ATS Position

I was recently trying to think of all the arguments that have been offered against the ATS philosophy and strategy. I would define the ATS position as follows:

1. The international plutocratic empire is the enemy of all mankind except a small number of people who are its overlords.

2. The most viable means of resistance would be a de facto pan-anarchist movement based on the principle of self-determination of all peoples everywhere. Not only nations, religions, and ethnic groups, but also communities, regions, tribes, subcultures, minority groups, political factions, and socioeconomic categories.

3. The most viable means of achieving this objective would be through the organization of alliances of regional and local secessionist movements with each of these developing their own alternative infrastructure, and maintaining their respective cultural orientation.

From what I can surmise, the arguments against this position amount to:

1. “I don’t care about overthrowing the empire.” Fair enough.

2. “I don’t think the ATS position would work. Too much room or infiltration, division, or co-optation.” Fair enough.

3. “We want special recognition for our issues.” Special pleading.

4. “We demand the right to exclude people we don’t like from the revolutionary alliance.” Special pleading.

5. “I don’t like the ATS position because Keith Preston is an asshole.” Irrelevant ad hominem.

I’m open to hearing other arguments if anyone wants to offer some.

Categories: Uncategorized

30 replies »

  1. The only other one I could think of would be “segments of that alliance would be diametrically opposed/use opposite methods and structures that would cancel each other out”, but that is sorta just a mix of 2,3, and 4.

  2. Not necessarily.

    I explained in the podcast and blog entry below how pan-secessionist activism transcends ordinary philosophical, ideological, and cultural barriers.

    http://attackthesystem.com/2014/02/15/the-ten-core-strategic-objectives-of-the-pan-anarchist-movement/

    http://attackthesystem.com/2014/01/05/3263beyond-partisanship-the-fundamentals-of-pan-secessionist-activism/

    One could employ the tactics suggested in these and hold to any kind of theoretical outlook, e.g. Marxist analysis, Austrian economics, Negri and Hardt’s empire theory, or Illuminati conspiracy analysis.

    And one of the wider purposes of pan-decentralization is peace through self-determination. In the USA, for instance, the red, blue, white, black, brown, yellow, pink, purple and green zones will subsequently achieve cultural autonomy, as will the communities, movements, and institutions that are hybrids of these.

    An interesting case study that might be worth looking at is how different crime families managed to achieve peace with each other during the early to mid 20th century largely through negotiating a system of territorial and commercial autonomy, i.e. different mafia factions were assigned different regions and different rackets.

    Some of that is explained in this academic piece on organized crime: http://jgi.camh.net/doi/pdf/10.4309/jgi.2009.23.6

    In the late 19th and early 20th century we anarchists were winning. We had insurgencies growing in the industrialized countries of the West, the remnant feudal countries, and the colonies of the European empires as well. It was a worldwide revolutionary struggle against imperialism. And it took the combined forces of capitalism, communism, and fascism to defeat us.

    http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23404

    So the big question is how do we get it all back, only in a bigger way, and win this time around?

  3. You don’t need to look any farther than the opinion of most of your allies on the racist right about the uprising in Ferguson to see why trying to create an alliance of enemies isn’t going to work.

  4. “You don’t need to look any farther than the opinion of most of your allies on the racist right about the uprising in Ferguson”

    Well, many of them have not really rejected the system. They’ve only rejected the left-wing of the system, just like many of the anarcho-leftists have only rejected the right-wing of the system. There are others who may disagree with the uprising in Ferguson but who are open to the pan-decentralization idea for other reasons. And there are some on the racist far right who genuinely oppose the system to the point of sympathizing with Black Panther type groups.

    It doesn’t really matter. I wouldn’t expect white supremacists to travel to Ferguson to fight on behalf of black folks any more than I would have expected minorities to travel to Idaho to fight on behalf of Randy Weaver. I’d rather groups like that focus on merely organizing their own constituencies in their own communities and merely agreeing to stay out of each others backyards (like the different Mafia groups described in the article I linked to in an above comment).

    Strange political alliances have certainly happened in the past. Case in point: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-03-30/news/9203300164_1_ku-klux-klan-descendants-of-african

    One of this many important points this very interesting article makes (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/) is that people often end up fighting with those most like themselves most of the time. The article points out, for instance, that the Nazis identified the Jews as their primary enemy, even though there was very little different between Jews and ethnic Germans in the 1930s, but aligned themselves with the much different Japanese.

    Most of my own most intense political battles have been with people who are very much like me. For instance, the left-libertarians around C4SS, the anarcho-leftists, the Infoshoppers, the anti-fascists, etc and I would probably agree at least 80% of the time, perhaps more. Yet my fiercest feuds have been with the anarcho-leftists, anti-fascists, and left-libertarians. Meanwhile, the “far right” sectors that have become allies in many instances I probably disagree with 80% of the time, maybe more. I don’t fight with them over it because I know they’re of a different kind and it’s pointless.

  5. Arguments 1-5 are astonishingly bad.

    1. ATS’ plan is to vague to be workable. The broader the net the less precise the end goal. To hit a mark, a mark needs to be in sight. Not an insuperable problem, but a significant one.

    2. Confusion of goal, with tactics. Pan-anarchism is nothing other than the popular front. To make successful use of a popular front one has to have a goal in mind that you get the other members to move toward concisely or not, such as Lenin in Russia or the Repbulicans in Spain. The former succeeded and the latter failed.

    3. To much diversity is bad, look at the Spanish republicans no unity, no victory. A big tent can be can be more harm than help.

    4. Likely to have future conflict of interests. The standard ATS line is very laissez-faire on many issues, social, economic and political. Yet many the intended constituencies would be more repressive on certain issues than the current state. For example Islam would be more restrictive of women than our current regime, Christians more restrictive of abortion, blacks on homosexuals, environmentalists on consumption and anarcho-leftists on property ownership. If restriction of the range of actions of consenting adults is in and of itself wrong, than not only is it wrong for the state, but for all of ATS’s future constituencies, if it is not wrong for ATS’s future constituencies to restriction of the range of actions of consenting adult than it is not wrong for the state. Sounds like ATS wants to have its cake and eat it to.

    5. The underlying anarchism principles of ATS are flawed. I believe that ATS would agree with Bakunin in “What is Authority” that while authority of technique (doctors, cobblers, engineers and teachers etc.) is legitimate, the authority of politicians, clerics etc are not. Yet if there are technical experts than by necessity there are political, philosophical and religious experts who have legitimacy to just as much a degree as technical experts. Bakunin makes much of authority imposed from above, against his consent, as illegitimate, but this is facile. All people born into this world are governed by authorities they did not consent to, their parents. In the name of anarchism should we allow six-year-olds to revolt against the illegitimate authority of parents? If this sounds absurd why? This is not to equate subjects to a king or citizens of a republic as children, but to show that not all non-consequential relationship are bad and that for the realm of objects “non-consensual relationships” there is at least one and possibly more legitimate forms of said authority. Bakunin really sounds like an over-grown six-year-old. There are other problems with anarchism, but that would be more of an essay than a post.

  6. Reading Todd’s comments, it occurred to me that I should make more effort to distinguish between pan-anarchism as a philosophy, and the pan-secessionist (“popular front”) idea.

    The end game of the pan-secessionist “popular front” is the overthrow of the empire, New World Order, globalization, Anglo-American-Zionist axis, whatever you want to call it. This objective isn’t merely for anarchists alone, but for enemies of the system everywhere. Of course, some anarchist or quasi-anarchist ideas are helpful, or even necessary, for this goal to be realized, such as having a means of accommodating the many cultural elements such a struggle would entail. Hence, my emphasis on the city-state system, alternative infrastructure, decentralist economics, etc

    But I don’t see pan-secessionism or even pan-decentralization as being any kind of prescription for universal laissez faire (Murray Rothbard not withstanding). With pan-secession resulting in city-states, Swiss model cantons, micronations, Holy Roman empire/Articles of Confederation systems of local autonomy, etc. there would no doubt be Muslim, Christian, black, environmentalist, left-anarchist, etc communities reflecting the kinds of values Todd describes.

    “Pan-anarchism” is an overlapping but still separate concept. I would of course like to see the growth of anarchist movements in all their variation (http://www.butterbach.net/hyphen1.htm) and have these coalesce into a united libertarian revolutionary front that would then have organizing the wider pan-secessionist “popular front” as its principal activist effort. However, that doesn’t mean we should expect everyone else to actually be an anarchist. Rather, the goal is to cultivate a means of successfully resisting the overlords while finding a practical means of accommodating the contending interests that would be involved in such efforts

  7. If you are an asshole Keith, it is actually a point in your favor. Nice people don’t get to make revolutions. Indeed the most successful revolutionary leaders tend to be ruthless sociopaths.

    (Welcome to the jungle, children….)

    The main problem with your pan-secessionist strategy is that while you can make all the ideas line up in your head, they don’t line up very well with history or events that are currently unfolding. Ukraine demonstrates the incoherence of pan-nationalism. Hungary demonstrates the incoherence of pan-racism. Ferguson demonstrates the incoherence of pan-anarchism. Our last civil war demonstrates the futility of secessionism as a military strategy in the United States, and furthermore you seem to think that combat effective guerrilla armies just fall out of the sky.

    A Revolution is a war of the most treacherous and difficult kind. One of the primary reasons that Communism was so dangerous is that real Communists understood this implicitly. This great idea overcame the effects of all the other stupid ideas. There is nothing particularly Marxist about this idea and no reason why Anarchists and Libertarians can’t adopt it.

    In war, two of the most important factors are high morale (now “unit cohesion”) among the troops, and a high degree of unity in both theory and practice among the leaders. See John Boyd, William Lind, and almost every other important military thinker going back to Sun Tzu. This also applies to revolutionary movements and organizations.

    In the military you can impose brutal discipline and real combat has a way of dissolving deep divisions. A revolutionary movement is entirely voluntary and does not have the resources to enforce a strict discipline outside of exceptional cases. Thus the original coalition must be built out of people who already like each other and who possess a deep common outlook. This coalition must then develop a new common identity that is strong enough to carry it through the fires of war.

    A totalitarian movement can ignore this problem to a degree, but never entirely. Presumably Anarchists don’t want a totalitarian movement or a mind control cult, so this problem is even more difficult and far more crucial for us. Getting it wrong is suicide. This business is hard enough without putting the gun in your mouth on the first day.

    Ideally the revolutionary coalition should be as wide as possible, but the idea that you could form a revolutionary movement, much less a revolutionary organization, out of white racists and black people is just completely absurd. You can look at how your racist police state toady friends over at NPI and Taki’s defend the pigs in Ferguson to see that it isn’t going to work.

    If there was a national anarchist or fourth positionist faction fighting in Ferguson, it would be different. It would make all the antifa leftards choke to death after biting off their own tongues, too. I certainly encourage it. I know better than to expect it to happen. You cunts aren’t up for it. The truth is that most of you are on the other side, and always have been. You only fool the fools. (How is that working out for you as a cadre policy?)

    Ferguson is not the product of “totalitarian humanism” or any other of your retarded Jew-conspiracy theories. Ferguson is the product of the white man’s state with its jackboot on the black man’s neck. That jackboot didn’t come from the Frankfurt school or PC leftism. That jackboot is aimed at all our necks now, and our white privilege has been revoked by the very monster that was built to guard it.

    The reason for all the bitter racist butt hurt from white sheep over Ferguson is very simple: the black man is fighting back. No one hates a real man more bitterly than a eunuch. The white brat is MAD because he got castrated by the “Totalitarian Jewism” and his birthright as the master race was stolen away by a Black Muslim with a fake birth certificate. Little white sheep is so well trained to blame his own castration on Blacks or Jews!

    See hoss, it ain’t no nigga or jew that castrated you. IT WAS OUR OWN KIND. Whitey built the prison industrial complex. Whitey built the police state. Whitey built the public school system. Whitey built the corporation. Whitey trained you from birth to obey, and you sit up and beg all day long. Broken and obedient happy white sheep are now on so many psychiatric medications that they show up in the water supply and the fish.

    How the fuck you expect to make a revolution with them is beyond me. I’m rolling with 2Pac and whitey can fuck off and die if he ain’t down. Go snitch on someone else.

    Everyone who is on the wrong side of the Ferguson rebellion is really a police state collaborator, and clearly was never an Anarchist in the first place, so this is actually a very healthy split if it really divides. Now we see who is who. Now the pigs are unmasked. This is a good thing. It will continue because the volcano is just beginning to erupt.

    So what side are you on, you supposed Anarchists?

    Because now you have to choose between all your “holohoax” Facebook friends and the real men who have the balls to fight the state. On one side we have bitter racist white sheep who troll the internet. On the other side we have the first open rebellion against the post 9/11 police state.

  8. Well, readers, Julius throws out some pretty compelling questions here. I have some of my own ideas on this, but what say you? How do you respond to the points Julius is raising?

  9. “Well, readers, Julius throws out some pretty compelling questions here.”

    Hell would freeze over before the negro would ever have the cojones or tactical expertise to fight the US Empire. Besides they are too busy sucking the government nipple to bother with an uprising.

    I could just as well say that the darkies were not oppressed by the white man, but it was his own unwillingness to fight for himself that led to slavery and the ghetto. So yeah stop bitching darkies, its our own fault where your at.

    Needless to say I do agree with Julius that anarchists, environmentalists, white-nationalists, Negroes and Indians will likely never tackle the US empire in arms. If any resistence is to take place it will be, I think, centered around the militia movement.

    The reason why they fail is that in war, centralized power and coercion are necessities, but the anarchists and de-centralist by definition repudiate coercion and centralized power. As long as the struggle is purely material, the empire will always win. While empires come and go, empires are never eliminated only replaced by other empires.

    “I have some of my own ideas on this, but what say you? ”

    I’d like to see them.

    In short if the struggle is purely material then were fubar.

  10. I agree with many of the points Julius has raised, and his insights are certainly very well-taken.

    However, what Julius seems to be advocating (correct me if I’m wrong) is a position not unlike what the hard left has promoted for 50 years in the U.S., i.e. the idea of impoverished blacks as the race/class vanguard of the revolution. That was the view many of the Maoist-influenced groups of the 60s and 70s promoted (Panthers, Weather Underground, BLA, CWP, etc). It was the view of the hard-left anarchists in the 80s and 80s like Love and Rage/NEFAC/anarcho-leftoids/antifa. It seems to be the position that Lorenzo Ervin takes. I think the RCP still takes this line as well.

    While I might be inclined to agree with this theory on a sufficiently abstract level, in practice it just doesn’t work.

    Blacks who are politically motivated generally prefer to have their own organizations that they control themselves for the sake of advancing their own interests. And that’s really how it should be. But the consequence of this is that white radicals get nowhere with trying to organize or recruit African-Americans en masse. For instance, African-Americans are probably the most underrepresented ethnic group in anarchist and libertarian circles, and the ones you find are generally drawn from the middle class.

    Blacks also tend to resent white radicals who try to recruit them. They often regard them as interlopers and patronizers and often for good reason.

    Additionally, there’s a seriously demographic problem. African-Americans are only 14% of the population, and their numbers are not growing very rapidly like they are with Hispanics. Three-quarters of blacks in the US are middle class, and middle class blacks are often understandably very conscious about guarding their status. The last thing they want is to be radicals and agitators. Stereotypical poor, inner city blacks are only about 2-3% of the US population. They just tend to be visible because they’re concentrated in cities. By themselves, there’s no way they could make a revolution. They’d be annihilated. Look at what happened to the Panthers. An attempted “black revolution” would basically amount to a “black holocaust.”

    A black-based insurgency would have to start in the inner cities among the most outcast social elements. It would likely be organized by gangs and former gang members. Once these established themselves they would need political leadership and representation. The natural folks to fill this position would be the black nationalists and Afro-centrics, not anarchists and libertarians. The entire apparatus I just described, a gang-based urban black insurgency led by nationalist political organizations, would have to already be in place before folks like us became relevant.

    Our role would be to recognize and acknowledge the insurgency as it begins, and form an alliance. But we would have to have something to offer such an insurgency as alliance partners. That means we have to have an already functional radical movement in place of our own before we even try to reach out to black communities en masse.

    • “An attempted “black revolution” would basically amount to a “black holocaust.”

      Exactly. No Zulu’s here.

      • If I recall correctly, Eldridge Cleaver admitted later in life that if black folks had listened to him and Huey Newton in the 60s en masse there would have been a black genocide in the U.S.

        I remember a conversation I had around 1989 or 90 with a fellow who had been a veteran of the black power movement in the 60s. I asked him why he thought the movement didn’t go further than it did. His reply was, “It was 100 to 1.”

        • “I asked him why he thought the movement didn’t go further than it did. His reply was, “It was 100 to 1.””

          Yeah and even when the odds are reversed the Negroes still get an ass-whooping, just look at the 20th century bush-wars in Rhodesia and South Africa. One Rhodie was like worth 50 or more Negroes. Just look up Operation Dingo. Without external sanctions it is doubtful if the Ian Smith would have fallen.

          Paradoxically Negroes make good soldiers if lead by whites or Arabs. In the medieval period Arab armies often had negro slave soldiers, and European Askari such as British “The Kings African Rifles” or Lettow Vorbeck’s German Askari were quite effective. Or even for that matter negro soldiers employed by the US in the Civil War and World War 2.

          But by themselves Negroes will be butchered. Only one Black nation ever repelled a European invader, Ethiopia in 1895-96.

  11. I generally think Todd and also Spencer Pearson have it right in the sense that if folks like us are to draw a large following, it would likely come from the “populist far right,” e.g. militia movement types. The leadership and theoreticians of the movement might continue to be bohemian weirdos like all of us but the rank and file of the movement would probably look not unlike a gathering of Alex Jones fans in terms of demographics.

    I disagree that minorities, environmentalists, anarchists, libertarians, etc would be irrelevant to all that. But I suspect the “populist right” would be the single largest demographic, not so much the racist right-wing as much as the ones that are into conspiracies, guns, tax resistance, survivalism, etc. The “white right” is basically the same as their “left-anarchist” arch-enemies in that both groups are comprised of terribly dysfunctional people who can’t organize their way off the toilet much less fight a revolution.

  12. I suspect Todd is probably correct that to really be motivated to fight, it would have to be about more than material interests. People aren’t going to go to the barricades for income tax cuts. What people will usually fight for is either some ideal they perceive to be particularly noble (“the natural rights of sovereign citizens”?), or a sense of loyalty to family, place, faith, and tribe. Ironically, I’ve thought before that the vast array of “cults” (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/list_of_cults.html), many of whom are persistently harassed by the state, might be a source of possible constituencies for a project like ours. Another ironic source might be immigrant communities, the more of these there are and the larger they become. In fact, it might be easier to organize immigrants than to organize African-Americans because the legacy of centuries of enmity is not as present.

  13. Remember that I also listed a vast array of demographic, cultural, and single issue groups that are under attack by the state in the “Liberty and Populism” essay. http://attackthesystem.com/liberty-and-populism-building-an-effective-resistance-movement-for-north-america/

    But I don’t think there’s any one “right” way, and certainly no sure-fire or fool-proof way to do this. My goal is to merely promote ideas as far and wide as I can, and then let the chips fall where they may. Continue to work to popularize anti-state movements of all kinds, from syndicalists to sovereign citizens, and continue to promote some basic strategic ideas, like secession and the city state system. And see what happens.

    LOL. I often feel like I’m Mr. Spock in the classic Star Trek episode where the shuttle craft is about to burn up in deep space and Spock as a last minute, desperate effort jettisons and ignites the remaining fuel in order to send up a “flair.”

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXa_TqevqaU&w=420&h=315%5D

    • Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think the main problem a group like ATS has it that we’re too cerebral and disconnected from “ordinary” folks, or at least the kinds of “ordinary” folks that are drawn to dissident movements.

      For instance, a while back a libertarian friend of mine told me that whenever refers other libertarians to ATS the usual response she gets is that they don’t understand us and think we’re over their head.

      An alt-right guy I know once told me that the main problem with libertarianism is that it usually appeals to people of high intelligence but who are individualists rather than community-minded, so it’s hard for them to organize anything or find a demographic base for their views. There’s probably a lot of truth to that.

      If we’re really serious about merely attracting numbers, probably the best line we could take would be some hybrid of libertarian/an-cap/voluntarist anti-state ideas, left-anarchist anti-corporate/anti-globalization ideas, and patriot/militia/sovereign/conspiracy/goldbug/gun nut/survivalist ideas. I know RJ’s had a large audience on Youtube at one point with this kind of stuff.

      If most of the material on ATS was about the FED, vaccinations, guns, FEMA, Chemtrails, 9/11 Truth, the New World Order, Illuminati, Freesmasons, Bilderbergers, compulsory sterilization plots, the UN, disease plots, Monsanto, genetic engineering, et. al. ad nauseum we would probably have ten times the audience or more.

  14. @Todd Lewis

    The Xhosa, the Zulus, the Tukulor, the Dahomey, the Masai, the Hehe, the Ethiopians, and the Asante all valiantly resisted European colonialism, even when they ultimately lost due to the technological superiority of their enemy. I could fill an entire page with quotes from awestruck European officers attesting to the African’s extreme bravery and skill in combat under his own leadership. The Haitian slave revolution established a state and defeated the same Napoleonic French army that was overrunning most of Europe. Slave revolts almost *always* fail, too. From the introduction to The Black Jacobins by CLR James:

    In August 1791, after two years of the French Revolution and its repercussions in San Domingo, the slaves revolted. The struggle lasted for 12 years. The slaves defeated in turn the local whites and the soldiers of the French monarchy, a Spanish invasion, a British expedition of some 60,000 men, and a French expedition of similar size under Bonaparte’s brother-in-law. The defeat of Bonaparte’s expedition in 1803 resulted in the establishment of the Negro state of Haiti which has lasted to this day. The revolt is the only successful slave revolt in history, and the odds it had to overcome is evidence of the magnitude of the interests that were involved. The transformation of slaves, trembling in hundreds before a single white man, into a people able to organise themselves and defeat the most powerful European nations of their day, is one of the great epics of revolutionary struggle and achievement. Why and how this happened is the theme of this book.

    This book should be required reading for ATS cadre.

    The African American contribution to the American Military under segregation runs from the legendary Buffalo Soldiers to the 761st “Black Panther” Tank battalion that even the bitterly racist Patton had to admit were “damn good soldiers”. These “negroes” repeatedly defeated your precious Aryan “ubermen” despite fighting with deathtrap tanks and a completely inferior combat doctrine, and they did it with almost entirely black officers.

    Furthermore, for someone who endlessly presents himself as a Christian you have some very odd ideas about who you should have sympathy for, and it is even more bizarre that you have such a nasty attitude towards one of the last demographics that still seriously believes in your God. Where is your church of the martyrs, white boy?

    And where are your Christian soldiers, eh? The totalitarian humanists are about to shove a big fat gay marriage cock straight down your throat, and aside from some whining (and maybe a mall shooting or two) you won’t do anything about it. White Christians are broken sheep. Someone runs a cartoon about Mohammed and all of Europe is terrified of the consequences. Secular humanism can piss all over the cross and nothing happens. At this point Africa may in fact be your religion’s only hope.

    And once again, I don’t know how a member of the race that produced the hideous “honey boo boo” family nightmare has any business looking down on anyone else. This repulsive shit is all over the trailer parks, nice and fat on food stamps and on a disability check for being retarded. Between crack hits and Big Macs it likes to rape its own children. Looking at where we actually are, a “white genocide” may in fact be the only sane option left.

    • “The Xhosa, the Zulus, the Tukulor, the Dahomey, the Masai, the Hehe, the Ethiopians, and the Asante all valiantly resisted European colonialism, even when they ultimately lost due to the technological superiority of their enemy. I could fill an entire page with quotes from awestruck European officers attesting to the African’s extreme bravery and skill in combat under his own leadership.”

      Stop being dyslexic, if you can help it, if you actually read what I said I never doubted Ethiopian resistance, but even they failed in the face of Mussolini in 1936. Who btw was the weakest and most pathetic of the great powers. So what I could fill volumes of your precious weakings being ground into the dust not just by the white man, but also the Saracens and Turks.

      “The Haitian slave revolution established a state and defeated the same Napoleonic French army that was overrunning most of Europe.”

      Only because the Royal Navy prevented the French from reinforcing Haiti. And of yeah the place where genocidal lunatics killed all the white population and then stared murdering their mulatto neighbors for good measure. Some how I’m not surprised you’d side with the genocidal lunatics.

      “These “negroes” repeatedly defeated your precious Aryan “ubermen” despite fighting with deathtrap tanks and a completely inferior combat doctrine, and they did it with almost entirely black officers.”

      With American training and tanks. For all your bitching and whining the White man crushed the black man and ruled Africa for a century. Only after two fratricidal civil wars did Europe’s hold on Africa lessen. Somehow you think that a race that had the hell beat out of it for 500 is somehow going to grow balls and fight, yeah thats a good one, fairies and pixie dust anyone?

      “Furthermore, for someone who endlessly presents himself as a Christian you have some very odd ideas about who you should have sympathy for, and it is even more bizarre that you have such a nasty attitude towards one of the last demographics that still seriously believes in your God. Where is your church of the martyrs, white boy?”

      Yeah for someone who is a lunatic where do you come judging anyone since you obviously have no moral values.

      “And where are your Christian soldiers, eh?”

      Yeah where are your black warriors? Oh I forgot with a bullet in their head from Red Coats, Frenchies and Rhodies. Where are your pathetic warriors buried? In Khartoum, Ulundi, Blood River and Operation Dingo. You suck get over it.

      “White Christians are broken sheep. Someone runs a cartoon about Mohammed and all of Europe is terrified of the consequences. Secular humanism can piss all over the cross and nothing happens.”

      Yeah and Al-Shabaab raids into Kenya and the police let them slip of while they steel rolex watches from the local mall. While AL Shabaab and radical Islam are running riot over Somalia then entire African union cannot stop them. When the white man left Africa all his high tech infrastructure went to crap, somehow Kaffirs can’t operate even a simple power-grid. Their is the K-factor for you. Some hope.

      “At this point Africa may in fact be your religion’s only hope.”

      This might the only sensible thing you’ve said at ATS, but with rampant witch doctors, cannibalism and human sacrifice I won’t hold my breath.

      “And once again, I don’t know how a member of the race that produced the hideous “honey boo boo” family nightmare has any business looking down on anyone else.”

      Dido for people that still eat each other, practice human sacrifice and gave us P. Diddy.

      “his repulsive shit is all over the trailer parks, nice and fat on food stamps and on a disability check for being retarded. Between crack hits and Big Macs it likes to rape its own children.“

      Sounds like kaffirs to me, who exactly are you talking about?

      Yeah you losers gave us nothing. You are the ultimate undermenschen seeing the towering highest of western man Mozart, Netwon, Tolstoy, Boyle, Shakespeare etc. Oh I forgot Hip-Hop, Rape Rap, cannibalism and witch doctors. How is it that people from the shittiest civilization in history have anything on anyone? Oh I forgott they don’t. In the immortal words of Saul Bellow: “Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus? The Proust of the Papuans? I’d be glad to read him.” Pretty much sums it up.

      You are obviously a stupid troll that has nothing to offer and bitches about being a weakling and a loser. All you seek to do is have a petty dick measuring contest and guess what darkies are always last, if your the best darkies got, your fubar. Do you have the balls to shoot a cop, since you’ve been trash talking the ATS team? Probably not.

  15. @Keith

    You seem to misunderstand everything into an ideological debate between left and right. Your straw man is not my position, so I will ignore it. My position breaks down into these main points. Try and respond to them rather than to another straw man:

    1-An armed revolution would be suicide for any faction in the US, and no significant force is remotely serious about one in any case. The people who go around on the internet advocating for one are either fools or FBI informants. The white nationalist scene is full of both.

    2-A political revolution is a possibility, although only a possibility, and a very small one at this time. Massive civil disobedience (or even full scale civil unrest) is only useful in so far as it has a political effect that either threatens the legitimacy and political integrity of the system or that helps to build a political movement against it. Ferguson does both. This struggle should be understood as a form of political warfare, and it will require some level of violence, but the less heavy fighting the better or we won’t have a country left at the end of it.

    3-Everyone who supports or defends the police state in Ferguson is a pig. Many people on the right pretend to be opposed to the police state when in fact they are pigs. Ferguson has unmasked them. Pay attention to this, anarchists. You at ATS should ask yourselves why exactly you are fellow traveling with pigs. It makes you look like pigs, and it plays straight into the hands of the leftists you hate so bitterly.

    4-White racism is main source of all the worst aspects of the modernity that we are trying to overthrow. It is the direct historical source of the most dangerous parts of the American police state. That it is now clearly disintegrating as a cultural force is nothing to be lamented. Trying to form alliances with the wrecked remains of white supremacy is both idiotic and suicidal for a revolutionary movement.

    5-The mainstream white culture in this country is a culture of craven sheep who deeply identify with the systems of authority that broke them for the cage. Just as a housebroken dog will occasionally piss on the rug, they sometimes make inarticulate and meaningless noises in opposition to some aspect of the system. Just as the domesticated dog hates and fears the wolf, so the broken white sheep hate and fear any human who resists the cage. What the neutered dog hates more than anything else is anyone who still has his masculinity intact. This is why cultural conservatives who supposedly oppose the culture of emasculation never seem to notice that it is entirely the product of white culture. Nor do they notice that it is utterly rejected by African Americans and Latinos, and in fact mercilessly derided by both as the most pathetic and repulsive aspect of white culture. They would have to look their own castration in the face in order to see these things, and that is far too painful.

    6-If it is even possible to turn broken white sheep into revolutionaries, the mainstream white culture of submission and obedience must be destroyed. The most effective way to do this is exposure to other cultures that were not constructed around craven submission to white authority. The success of Hip-Hop among the white underclass is an example of such an event. Hip-hop is now far more popular among the white working class than Hitler ever was or ever will be. Once again ATS is on the wrong side of a revolutionary trend because it prefers to fellow travel with white power assholes and racist police state toadies.

    7-Political revolutions require people who are deeply committed and deadly serious. The people you can recruit from deviant internet subcultures are usually neither, and the ones who are serious are also tend to be the ones who get committed to mental hospitals. You can’t make chicken chow mein out of chicken shit, and you can’t make revolutionaries out of people who approach politics as a role playing game. Almost all of the American “far right” and “far left” fall into this category. The American new right is a million Facebook posts wide and an electron deep. Facebook “revolutionary” subcultures are a recreational activity (on both the left and the right) and are merely another meaningless form of political consumerism. At best you get the tea party or occupy. At worst you get a malignant little Hipster social club that has deliberately sealed itself off from real politics. They threaten nothing and you cannot build a revolutionary movement out of such material under any conditions.

    8-In Ferguson you have an entire community (not a motley collection of subcultural drop outs) willing to go out into the street and face down pigs with tanks. One single black grandmother who throws a rock at a pig is worth more than the entire dork enlightenment and occupy left combined. If it was a white ghetto out in the street fighting I would say exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons. This is real politics breaking out, and the system is unable to control it. A real movement needs cadre that have more of a commitment than Facebook friends, and who have more in common than a set of disposable political beliefs. Whatever the issues are with organizing black people: THIS ISN’T A FACEBOOK HOBBY. Ferguson is not going to lead to a military victory, but it might be the beginning (and I stress “might”) of a radical political movement. They don’t come along every day. People who are serious can’t afford to be on the wrong side of them when they do.

    In response:

    >”1. The international plutocratic empire is the enemy of all mankind except a small number of people who are its overlords.”

    This is a Jewish conspiracy theory without the Jews. Less racist, but just as stupid. Some countries have plutocrats, but the dominant global trend is meritocratic technocracy. A huge number of people benefit from the system, which is why it continues to exist and why it is so hard to get rid of. It has a vast and complex political economy that must be charted and understood before it can be brought down.

    >”2. The most viable means of resistance would be a de facto pan-anarchist movement based on the principle of self-determination of all peoples everywhere. Not only nations, religions, and ethnic groups, but also communities, regions, tribes, subcultures, minority groups, political factions, and socioeconomic categories.”

    How can a nation have self determination if every lesser part of it is completely independent? How does it even exist? How does a “subculture” have self determination at all? Do hobbies get self determination? Why not include farm animals? What about butterflies?

    >”3. The most viable means of achieving this objective would be through the organization of alliances of regional and local secessionist movements with each of these developing their own alternative infrastructure, and maintaining their respective cultural orientation.”

    What real world secessionist movements are you talking about? You seem to have spent so much time on Facebook that you have mistaken it for reality. Five guys with a Facebook page is a hobby, not a movement. There is no viable secessionist movement in the United States. If you want to secede, move to Kurdistan.

    >”the rank and file of the movement would probably look not unlike a gathering of Alex Jones fans in terms of demographics”

    You want an armed rebellion of Alex Jones retards? Jesus fucking Christ, why don’t you just go ahead and hang yourself now?

    >”The “white right” is basically the same as their “left-anarchist” arch-enemies in that both groups are comprised of terribly dysfunctional people who can’t organize their way off the toilet much less fight a revolution.”

    So why do you endlessly pander to them?

    Why are you constantly using Zionist conspiracy language? Who do you think that appeals to? Do you ever consider who it drives away? For someone so obviously influenced by Jewish thinkers, you have a strange approach to recruiting them into your movement.

    Your national anarchist project failed in large part because it was dominated by racist white power assholes. Even ATS had to admit this:

    http://attackthesystem.com/2012/01/17/attack-the-system-anarchism-secession-and-the-relevance-of-these-to-the-alternative-right/#comment-7245

    Did you learn anything from that failure? No, you went on to move even closer to the racialist right. Your project failed, and instead of adapting to reality you reinforced failure that much more. That is a recipe for defeat under any conditions.

    >”I’ve thought before that the vast array of cults, many of whom are persistently harassed by the state, might be a source of possible constituencies for a project like ours”

    Undoubtedly the mind control cult is THE organizational form for the United States. Your friends over at New Resistance seem to have engaged in an extensive program of cult creation and religious entryism:

    http://www.nate-thayer.com/white-power-and-apocalyptic-cults-pro-dprk-homegrown-u-s-terrorist-groups-are-pyongyang-chosen-favorites/

    http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=30868

    http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=30385

    https://web.archive.org/web/20111106022214/http://www.freewebs.com/ruralmaoism/

    http://b-i-f.com/The%20ARYAN%20APPROPRIATION.html

    Did they ever produce any analysis or theoretical work from this experience? This is potentially groundbreaking work and it should not go un-theorized, however scandalous and hideously embarrassing the results may, in fact, have been. How did the Jim-Jones-Juche-thought project of the “rural people’s party” work out? Inquiring minds want to know!

    >“An alt-right guy I know once told me that the main problem with libertarianism is that it usually appeals to people of high intelligence but who are individualists rather than community-minded, so it’s hard for them to organize anything or find a demographic base for their views. There’s probably a lot of truth to that.”

    Realistically speaking, anarchists are either at the very beginning of a project, or we have no hope at all. As such attracting smart people is the proper strategy, because a whole intellectual framework has to be laid out first. We will have plenty of time later to appeal to stupid people. Right now all they do is drive smart people out and turn threads into retarded flame wars. Let them eat Facebook.

    I suggest that instead of pushing a fixed strategy ATS should be an open ended inquiry into the fundamental strategic questions that face any new anarchist project. The main page has turned into an aggregator that seems to mainly attract brain dead racist trolls, so maybe you should think of some new annex that is a more stable and accessible format for long form debates, and that is aimed at a higher reading level than the holohoax assholes.

    Anyone who wants a new anarchism should be interested in asking hard questions, and should be very suspicious of easy answers.

    • Now I know you are a lunatic, this article had nothing to do with WN or racism or anything else. You must be really dyslexic to not get that. Nothing you have said is even remotely relevant to Keith’s article. You trash talk because you are weak and pathetic trying to compensate for the fact that you and yours will never bring down the Empire.

    • No disagreement with # 1 and 2.

      “Everyone who supports or defends the police state in Ferguson is a pig. Many people on the right pretend to be opposed to the police state when in fact they are pigs. Ferguson has unmasked them.”

      It’s not that simple. People identify with the values of their own reference groups. Liberals, leftists, and (some) minorities sympathize with the uprising in Ferguson because it fits their ideological narrative of “Oppressed People of Color in Revolt Against White Privilege” or something similar. But where would many of these same people be if the victim were white farmers having their land seized by the banks or the IRS or some weird cult massacred by the feds? They would be cheering the pigs. That’s what they did with Cliven Bundy, Randy Weaver, the Freeman, David Koresh, etc. People care when individuals or groups they sympathize with are attacked by the state but that doesn’t extend into a general principle. Most people are tribalists, not anarchists, by nature.

      “White racism is main source of all the worst aspects of the modernity that we are trying to overthrow. It is the direct historical source of the most dangerous parts of the American police state.”

      I agree with that. The root of modern American police state is the war on drugs. While I disagree with the analysis that merely says “drug war=race war” there’s obviously a very, very extensive overlap.

      “That it is now clearly disintegrating as a cultural force is nothing to be lamented.”

      Right. But that’s a big part of my criticism of the Left’s, particularly the left-anarchists’, hysteria over “racism and fascism.” Today’s white nationalists are not “supreme” anything. Instead, they’re just another oppositional subculture, no different from, for example, Afro-centric groups.

      No disagreement with # 5.

      “If it is even possible to turn broken white sheep into revolutionaries, the mainstream white culture of submission and obedience must be destroyed. The most effective way to do this is exposure to other cultures that were not constructed around craven submission to white authority.”

      I wouldn’t exactly describe the militia movement as characterized by “craven submission to authority,” whether white or any other kind.

      “The success of Hip-Hop among the white underclass is an example of such an event.”

      Well, there are are all sorts of musical styles that extol youthful rebellion that are popular among the “white underclass.” How is hip hop any different from punk rock, heavy metal, death metal, outlaw country music, etc? As our punk rock anarchist friends have shown, a youth music subculture is not synonymous with serious revolutionary politics.

      No disagreement with # 7 and 8.

      “This is a Jewish conspiracy theory without the Jews.”

      No, it’s the analysis put forth by Hardt and Negri, supposedly the bible of the anti-globalization movement.

      “How can a nation have self determination if every lesser part of it is completely independent? How does it even exist? How does a “subculture” have self determination at all? ”

      You’re familiar with enough will my published material to know what I’m talking about. Defend the sovereignty of nations against imperialism yes. But it doesn’t stop there. Are you familiar with the concept of “power to the neighborhoods”?

      http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/10/all-power-to-the-neighborhoods

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City:_the_51st_State

      “Do hobbies get self determination?”

      If they’re large enough and organized well enough to actually form a viable self-governing community. Disneyworld could probably be an independent city-state unto itself.

      “Why not include farm animals? What about butterflies?”

      You will have to ask Tia Foster about that one.

      “What real world secessionist movements are you talking about?”

      http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/March/The-New-USA-Secession-Movement-Gains-Steam/

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-usa-secession-exclusive-idUSKBN0HE19U20140919

      “You want an armed rebellion of Alex Jones retards?”

      I’m talking about demographics not ideology.

      “So why do you endlessly pander to them?”

      For the same reason, I “pander” to everyone. Someone like myself who simultaneously advocates secession as a tactic, criticizes PC, and endorses the militia movement is obviously going to have a large audience on the “far right.” The left is a harder sell because the left is much less oriented towards actual revolution, overthrowing the government, or criticizing the state’s current ideological superstructure. Instead, they’re just about do-gooder “social issues.” The Left today is just the equivalent of a bunch of church ladies wringing their hands about the liquor store that opened up the street.

      “Realistically speaking, anarchists are either at the very beginning of a project, or we have no hope at all. As such attracting smart people is the proper strategy, because a whole intellectual framework has to be laid out first.”

      Well, I published a 400+ page book outlining a comprehensive theoretical paradigm and strategic model for a 21st century anarchist movement. I’ve had my say on the subject. It’s time for others to start building on it.

      “I suggest that instead of pushing a fixed strategy ATS should be an open ended inquiry into the fundamental strategic questions that face any new anarchist project.”

      Agreed.

      “Anyone who wants a new anarchism should be interested in asking hard questions, and should be very suspicious of easy answers.”

      Agreed.

      • Ultimately, I’m for a couple of sets of grand alliances, as you know. One inside the domestic USA, and one international. I want to see the eventual emerge of a “Free Nations Coalition” of independence, secessionist, and self-determination movements around the world for the purpose of combating imperial states. And I want to see the emergence of a “tripartite” left/right/center popular front in the US against the ruling class and for radical decentralization. But before these grand alliances can be developed, the seeds have to be planted from the bottom up. This means promoting all forms of anarchism, libertarianism, decentralism, anti-state radicalism and anti-authoritarianism even the ones that don’t like each other and the ones we may not like individually. It also involves promoting a wider set of strategic ideas like pan-secessionism, fourth generation warfare theory, alternative infrastructure, counter economics, city-states, pan-secessionism, anarcho-populism, inside/outside strategy, a pan-anarchist federation, an third-party alliance, the 25 point platform, building coalitions of anti-state interest groups, a peoples’ economic front, legal defense organizations, civilian defense organizations, identitarian organizations, regionalist movements, etc.

        The idea is to inject these meta-political and meta-strategic ideas into as many cultural, political, religious, and demographic tendencies as possible, and then let them grow independently of each other until movements of the kind of we envision start popping up everywhere, in otherwise divergent sectors, and start bending towards one another.

        While there is plenty of untermenschen on the right, there is also plenty of untermenschen on the left. The antifa are just the Left’s version of the skinheads with swazis tattooed on their face. Freaks like that, on both ends, are a hindrance not a help. The goal is to reach people who can be reached everywhere, thereby marginalizing the fruitbats in the process. I have no more interest in reaching antifa than I do in reaching Hammerskins. If antifa or hammerskins were to suddenly start embracing pan-secessionist strategies or pan-anarchist metapolitics, then good for them. Strange things like that happen from time to time (like the PKK renouncing Maoism and embracing Murray Bookchin). But that’s not the target audience.

        The big question for us is how to get our ideas out to as many radical groups and anti-system groups as possible. As you say, no one likes the system. Even the most ridiculous SJWs and the most extreme right-wingers alike are still against the war in Iraq, the police state, the war on drugs, the NSA, etc. But it seems like we’re the only ones that are trying to move past mere topical issues or sectarian fighting with other groups.

        People whose entire outlook is defined by their being “anti-rightist” aren’t going to be interested in our ideas. Not ever. So they’re not worth worrying about. Just like people on the right whose entire outlook is about being “pro-American” (e.g. FOX News groupies) aren’t going to be interest in us either. But there’s a wide spectrum of opinion that doesn’t necessarily fall into either category that we do need to try to reach. It’s probably best to identify a few key bullet points that we can keep hammering away with until they start to stick in more and more places: For example: 1. The Tripartite Alliance (“left/right/center against the system’)
        2. Populism (“the people against the elite”)
        3. Decentralization (“city-states/power to the neighborhoods”)

        None of the ideas we promote are any less socially or politically unacceptable than gay marriage would have been in the 1970s or legalizing weed in the 1960s or having a black president in the 1950s.

        To really promote our ideas on the Left we’re going to need activists and writers on the Left who aren’t actively (or at least openly) associated with any of us but who are promoting the same concepts in the “progressive” milieu in language and within the context of a theoretical framework that works for the Left. Unfortunately, most people can’t look past the norms of their own tribe which is obviously a hindrance when promoting meta-political or meta-strategic ideas that rise above all that.

        • I should add that while I agree that a real insurgency might emerge from the gang culture at some point in the future, if that happens it won’t be because of anything we do.

          My guess is that if the Bloods, Crips, Vice Lords, GDs, MS-13s, etc started taking up any kind of political struggle their philosophy would be rooted in their own gang identity. They wouldn’t be anarchists, communists, socialists, libertarians, Garveyites, Farrakhanites, pan-nationalists, pan-racialists, etc. They would probably be something more like this: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-11-22/news/8503200810_1_el-rukns-street-gang-prison-officials

          There’s absolutely nothing that working to middle to upper middle class radicals like ourselves can offer these people. We would be making fools of ourselves to even try.

          Additionally, a rebellion by inner-city poor people, mostly black and Hispanic, triggered by an incident of police brutality is not dependent on whether white nationalists or any other right-wingers agree with it or not. It’s not like the folks who participated in the L.A. riots stopped and thought, “Hmm. Wonder what the white supremacists in backwoods Mississippi are going to thing about this?” or “Geez, maybe we shouldn’t do this. It might really piss off middle America.” No, they just did it.

          The best that white people, or people outside the urban lumpenproletarian culture generally, can do if they sympathize with uprisings like Ferguson is to push for the general decentralization of political power and break up of the police state. And they should do it among audiences they can actually reach or have some kind of personal relationship with. Of course, I realize I’m not going to build an audience of inner-city black people or Hispanic migrant workers by theorizing about anarchism on the internet and speaking to audiences of paleoconservatives about the evils of political correctness. But those are just the audiences I can reach.

          Is a right-wing audience going to be susceptible to a message that says they should renounce America and embrace the city-state system so black folks in Ferguson can achieve self-determination and drive the pigs from their community? No, of course not. But they might be receptive to the message that says they should renounce American and embrace the city-state system in order to shield themselves from totalitarian humanism. Some already have.

          We have to meet people where they’re at. Those who wish to advance our ideas to the Left should go out and make arguments like these loud and clear: http://attackthesystem.com/why-the-radical-left-should-consider-secession/

          Perhaps there should be a separate pan-anarchist project that’s oriented towards the Left that is completely independent of ATS.

          But the long term goal should be to build a society-wide consensus around some of the core ideas we talk about here.

          Fifty years ago, the idea of gay marriage would have been insanity to most people. Now the majority agrees with it.

          We need to achieve the same with the kinds of issues we push here.

Leave a Reply