Who Am I?

Occasionally, new readers will come to this site and ask who I am and what I’m about? Briefly, this is me:

Over the past 20 years or so, I have written half a dozen books, hundreds of essays, given dozens of lectures, done hundreds of podcasts and radio and television interviews, made thousands of blog posts, and tens of thousands of social media posts, most of which are accessible from AttacktheSystem.Com. My main area of interest is the ongoing concentration of political and economic power on a global scale, and critiquing the state and power elites generally.

Philosophically, I am an egoist in the tradition of Nietzsche, Stirner, and other similar thinkers. Politically, I am a classical/traditional anarchist, though with some modern tweaks, and within the framework of a wider pan-radical, pan-decentralist, pan-secessionist/separatist umbrella.

However, I regard political ideologies, religions, ethical theories, philosophical systems, and economic schools as having the same basic function. None of these are “true” per se in the same way that gravity is true. Instead, they are a collection of myths, creeds, dogmas, narratives, rituals, and prejudices that individuals use to give order to their own psyche and to form social bonds with other people. These things are all “tribes” in the same way that the Ibo or Visigoths or Comanche are tribes. I also think the philosophical, religious, political, moral, etc. beliefs that people are drawn to will reflect their psychological makeup and personality type, along with their genetic proclivities, and these things will find their expression based of cultural and social experiences.

Most of the material I have written over the years has been more analytical (in the vein of trends research) than ideological per se (“This is what is happening, like it or not”). Even the ideological stuff I consider to be more prescriptive or pragmatic rather than deontological. “If you really want to overthrow the globalists/imperialists/Zionists/capitalists/Illuminati/lizard people/whatever, this is what you need to do” or “Given the fractiousness and diversity of modern societies this is the most viable alternative political model.”

Categories: Uncategorized

3 replies »

  1. Keith, what do you think about the *scientific* dissensus / heterodoxy – this is, the criticism and rejection of the consensus / orthodox scientific models? For the most obvious examples, let me name three widespread criticisms and rejections of the currently dominant scientific positions:

    – anthropogenic (largely fossil fuels-generated) global warming / climate change,

    – safety and efficacy of (some) vaccines,

    – safety and efficacy of (most) GMOs.

    Here one can also mention the usage and support of the alternative medicine (from homeopathy to acupuncture), or deviations from the strictly materialistic interpretations of the empirical evidence (from parapsychology to Intelligent Design theory).

    It is quite clear that the opposition to the some parts of the mainstream science and / or acceptance of the fringe science is among the reasons why some people refuse to accept the mainstream and establishment in general, and move to fringe / radical circles. It is also the common target of the censorship and persecution by the authorities – state, corporate and academic ones alike. One cannot discard scientific heresies as the motivation to reject the status quo – and as a target of repressive actions by the ruling elites.

    • I think scientific, medical, and historical heresies are interesting. There are not many that I personally adhere to but all are welcome to have a seat at the table from my perspective.

      • This is an AWESOME article post, Keith. Have you thought about joining the fediverse yet? there are multiple instances to join including many different Mastodon & Pleroma instances, both open source decentralised federated twitter-like social networks. Pleroma is more superior as it allows even longer posts, depending on the instance.

Leave a Reply