Against One-Dimensional Thinking 3

A somewhat amusing reference to your truly from a tweet on Goofy Gillis’ Twitter feed.

The reason this “Drunk Foxx” person cannot “wrap their head” around my various positions is that they cannot understand the concept or practice of multi-dimensional thinking. How can I be sympathetic to both left-anarchism and national-anarchism, and influenced by both far-left thinking and conservative thinking? Well, lots of reasons. My perspective was once described as “left-anarchist plus some modern tweaks brought under the ‘pan’ umbrella.” Yes, exactly.

The fact that many left-anarchists are SJW fruitbats does not negate the traditional left-anarchist critique of concentrated power, the economics of Proudhon, the sociology of Kropotkin, the value of the writings of Emma Goldman, or anarcho-syndicalism as a tactical concept, just as Carl Schmitt’s opportunistic flirtation with the Third Reich does not negate his actual approach to political theory. The fact that many Antifa-types are crust punk scumbags does not negate the Chomsky/Zinn critique of the US empire or US imperial history, just as the royalist sympathies of Edmund Burke does not negate his critique of the excesses of the French Revolution.

Regrettably, most left-anarchists are Blue Tribe loyalists first, and anarchists second. In fact, many of them represent a kind of Blue Tribe fundamentalism, a kind of Plato’s forms version of totalitarian humanism, just as their hated counterparts on the “far-right” represent a Red Tribe fundamentalism. Perhaps in the Middle East there are “Shia anarchists” or “Sunni anarchists” who are Shia or Sunni loyalists first and anarchists second. “Right-wing” anarchists are certainly not immune to this kind of thinking as well. For example, just as, in 2016, many left-anarchists veered off into “anarcho-Hillaryism” (I even encountered an “anarchists for Hillary” social media page) so did some in the an-cap and N-A milieus veer off into Trumpism.

Ironically, within the pan-anarchist paradigm, there could actually be “anarcho-Hillaryism” or “anarcho-Trumpism,” for example, a village community with a statue of the Dragon Lady or the Orange Man in the town square toward which everyone is expected to kneel every day at noon, just as there could be a “Goofy Gillis Land” (like Disneyland only with more body odor) where the primary activity is issuing hysterical tirades against “neighborhood nationalism” and there could be an “Alexander Reid-Ross Land” where Rachel Maddow videos are played 24/7 and the principal activity is preparing for a Red Dawn-like Russian invasion.


  1. Not necessarily a reply to the post at hand per se, but it seems ATS is now mainly engaged in issuing its own unique perspective on social media/internet driven issues. I appreciate that perspective of course. But what is the practical application? This is the same criticism I’ve made before. I think the concept of intentional communities is the most useful tactic at this point. Where would you point those of us who are up to snuff on theory and critique and are now prepared for “praxis” as the reds would say?

    • I gave a talk at the HLMC last year that was somewhat related to all that:

      The details involving the development of intentional communities are something the individual groups of communards would have to decide for themselves depending on their specific goals and needs. The Startup Societies Foundation has some interesting ideas on that: But a lot of the details will depend on the number of people and the number of resources involved. A large group with wealthy backers might be able to form their own private chartered cities somewhere. A smaller group with more limited resources might need to think more along the lines of the Free State Project. Even smaller might be a communal city block or rural enclave, and even smaller than that might be a mutual aid network or temporary autonomous zone:

      If the idea is to have a mass movement of intentional communities (which I am in favor of as a form of pan-secession) the idea has to catch on before mass action can be taken, which means winning the Gramscian war of ideas first.

      • Thanks. I’ll look at those links when I have time. I was involved peripherally with FSW, but I thought most of the participants were bourgeois doctrinaire libertarians. What the kids these days call LARPers. It seems to have fizzled as far as I know. Obviously the nonviolent coup never came about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s