Former Pat Buchanan Adviser Prepares Third Party Vessel For Donald Trump Reply

Meanwhile, the neocons are planning a third party strategy of their own.

If either of these two third party schemes were to become a permanent reality, it would essentially render the Red Tribe incapable of gaining a national electoral majority, which would ensure permanent Blue Tribe dominance. However, the Blue Tribe would increasingly be faced with dissension, division, and insurgency within its own ranks. The goal of the Grey Tribe should then be to build a critical mass using the libertarian-populist tripartite strategy that ATS has formulated. The goal is to grow all anti-state and anti-stystem movements everywhere, along with the overarching strategic concept of pan-secessionism, until they collectively become the majority and a consensus develops for pan-decentralization.

By Alex Pfeiffer

Daily Caller

A former Pat Buchanan adviser has launched a petition that threatens to launch a new political movement if the Republican Party fails to nominate Donald Trump.


DumpDC Is Endorsing Hillary Clinton For President 1

By Russell D. Longcore

Yep. You read it right. DumpDC is endorsing Hillary for President.

Our Next President?

Our Next President?

Now, let me lay out my argument so you can see the genius of this position.

Remember that the overarching reason for the existence of DumpDC is to promote state secession from the United States of America. So if you are reading this article, expecting me to promote the health and wellness of the USA, stop reading right now. You will not find that here.

The accepted premise for the every-four-year presidential dance is to find the best person to be President. Isn’t it? But out of 320 million people, there are usually only about 20 or less that take it seriously enough to commit to becoming a potential candidate. Most assuredly, these candidates cannot be the best the nation has to offer.

Are these few people TRULY the best, most qualified candidates to become President of the United States? How do Americans determine who is best? How does each political party determine who is best?

There seems to be a separation here between perception and reality. Most VOTERS think that the President is the leader of the entire Washington government, the embodiment of the Executive branch of the Constitutional government, the leader of the political party from which he/she springs, and the leader of the nation. And who would be the best person to occupy this Oval Office chair? Wouldn’t it be the person who sticks most closely to the Constitution, our founding document?

Let’s not bullshit each other here. Let’s acknowledge the reality of how DC works. The elected officeholders in Congress and in the White House all take an oath of office in which they swear to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Then they spend most of their time violating that Constitution.

They vote to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually that are authorized nowhere in the Constitution. They enact unconstitutional laws. They created gigantic bureaucracies that over time have mushroomed into the liberty-stealing, money-wasting, entitlement-growing leviathans we have all come to despise.


Questions About Gun Control After UCC Shooting 1

A gunman killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg Oregon before being killed by responding sheriff deputies. This is a sad, horrific incident, and my heart goes out to the families of the deceased.

President Obama was quick to say that “This is something that should be politicized” in reference to stricter gun control laws and has even gone on to cite Australia’s outright ban on guns and subsequent confiscation as an example of what might be done here in the US. Before I can entertain support for such policies, there are a series of issues and questions that I would like to have addressed.

  • Mother Jones cites 572 fatalities in 71 mass shootings from 1982 to July of 2015. Adding UCC that makes 72 mass shootings and 582 fatalities. From 1984 to 2014 there have been 608,478 homicides in the United States. Based on these numbers, mass shootings have accounted for .09% of homicides in the United States. Should we be crafting nationwide policy based on terrifying, spectacular, but extremely rare incidents such as mass shootings?
  • More…

The Kurds’ Democratic Experiment Reply

These are the folks that anarchists should be paying attention to, not “social justice warriors” or American libertarian kooks.

By Carne Ross

New York Times

Across an empty and arid plain, south of a town in eastern Syria called Tell Brak, there is a long berm marking the front line of the war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. A levee of gravel about 20 feet high was raised by excavators operated by men and women who were often killed by distant Islamic State snipers. Every few hundred feet, there is a sentry point or dugout for a platoon of the Kurdish militia known as the People’s Protection Units, or Y.P.G., that holds the position.

Along this stark boundary, the Kurds are there not only to fight against the Islamic State, but also to defend a precious experiment in direct democracy. In Rojava, the Kurdish name for this region of eastern Syria, a new form of self-government is being built from the ground up.

After the authority of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad collapsed at the start of the Syrian revolution in 2011, the Kurds took advantage of the vacuum to set up government without a state. There is no top-down authority, even within the military. One Y.P.G. commander gently corrected me when I addressed him as “general.”


The Road to Panarchy: An Interview with Joe Kopsick Reply

The Agrarian Aquarian

Interview questions asked by Wayne Sturgeon, February 3rd, 2015
Responses by Joe Kopsick, April 4th to 9th, and mid-September to September 21st, 2015
The Road to Panarchy: An Interview with Joe Kopsick
Sovereignty Without Territory
Government Without Monopoly
Emigration Without Movement
Please could you introduce yourself and how you came to promote and understand Panarchism?
I was born in 1987 in Lake Forest, Illinois to an attorney and a homemaker. I grew up in Lake Bluff, Illinois, attended Lake Forest High School, and from 2005 to 2009 I attended the University of Wisconsin at Madison and achieved a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Political Science. After moving around for a few years, I settled on Portland, Oregon for a year and a half, in February 2015 I moved back to Lake Bluff, and in September 2015 I moved to Orlando, Florida.
While in college, my areas of study included American government, Israeli government, classical and radical political theory cartography, and shamanism. My hobbies include playing guitar and piano; recording music and making mash-ups; writing songs, poetry, and rap; and visual art (including graphic design, acrylic painting, and glass and Lego mosaics).
A Democrat until the age of 13, I became interested in Ralph Nader and the Green Party during the 2000 presidential race. It was at this time that I became very interested in political statistics, the electoral college, and various political issues; and during that election I constructed my first political ideological survey. I supported John Kerry in 2004 but remained a Green at heart. In 2007, while still in college, I watched the presidential debates and discovered Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul.
Following Ron Paul’s suggestions, I studied the work of Lysander Spooner, expanded my research into libertarianism and constitutional law, both at college and in my spare time. In 2010 I settled on Agorism, studying the works of Agorists Samuel E. Konkin, J. Neil Schulman, and Wally Conger, and other free-market theorists such as C. Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert P. Murphy.
Having studied some Karl Marx, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Gustave de Molinari, and Max Stirner in a radical political theory class in college, my attraction to Panarchism (and Polyarchism) developed out of a desire to reconcile free markets with fair markets, find a truly voluntary socialism or communism, and reconcile non-territorial expressions of market-based political theories (namely, Agorism and voluntaryism) with non-territorial expressions of Marxism (namely, the National Personal Sovereignty of Austromarxist Otto Bauer) and non-Statist expressions of collectivism (such as consensus-based and unanimous democracy).
But this was as far as I could get by myself. The work of John Zube and Will Schnack have been very helpful. I don’t know where I would be without John Zube’s astute cataloguing of anarchist thought and his consistent voluntaryist approach to political and social problems. Neither would I – not a student of economics, mind you – know where I would be, without Texas anarchist Will Schnack’s application of economics to anarchist theory, most notably in his formulation of “Geo-Mutualist Panarchism”, which is a union of the theories of geoist Henry George, mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and panarchist Paul Emile de Puydt. I believe that Will Schnack’s ideas are a “great leap forward” for anarchist political and economic thought, as they make possible the application of real mathematics and science to what is otherwise a disorganized, biased, and maligned stream of thought; that of anarchist and radical political theory.
              Could you please define Panarchism?
          Panarchism refers to a state of being in which all people are leaders, or at least potentially so. Panarchism does not mean that all people are leaders, nor does it mean that everyone must follow some leader (even one they choose), nor does it mean that rules or rulers are supreme or sovereign.
In a Panarchist society, each person would be free to follow the path which their own free will and desires have laid down as the course for the rest of their life, provided of course that their attempts to achieve their wishes do not infringe on the life, liberty, and personal (i.e., bodily) autonomy of others.

“Restoring America”: A New Book Calls for Radical Decentralization of the United States Reply


Dr. Michael Hart  is the author of the article How Peter Brimelow Caused Me To Rethink Immigration on, and his books Understanding Human History and The Newton Awards: A History of Genius in Science and Technology  have been reviewed here and here.(He’s also spoken at the American Renaissance convention, which is where the photo above comes from.)

Now he’s got a new book, published by called Restoring America. Here’s Restoring America is about:

Secession? Peaceful secession? Why would patriotic American want to do that? How, in any case, is it possible? Michael Hart lays out the answers in clear expository prose, pinned to reality at every point by historical precedent and scientific fact. The heart of his argument is a separation of the U.S.A., at county, not state, level into a rump “blue” nation purusing current federal policies and a new “red” American Federal Republic (A/F.R.)–‘a constitutional republic, with civil liberties fully protected.’ The A.F.R. will begin with a new Declaration–Dr. Hart provides a full text–followed by a new Constitution containing clauses to prevent the evils that today threaten our liberties.

Thoughts on Electoral Politics, Reform and Revolution Reply

These were some thoughts I originally posted during a social media discussion on the current Presidential candidates.

I lean towards the view that U.S. Presidents are similar to corporate CEOs in the sense that, yes, they have their own objectives and interests, BUT their primary job is to serve as chief executive for the Power Elite (see C. Wright Mills and William Domhoff) just like a CEO is the front man for the Board of Directors and major shareholders. The President’s task is to implement whatever policies reflect the general consensus of Power Elite opinion. For instance, I think the major banksters poured money into getting Obama elected initially because the Republicans had become such an ineffective embarrassment. A president who defies Power Elite opinion to too great a degree will be severely undermined if not destroyed (see Salvador Allende). In other words, it doesn’t matter that much who the actual man is, he can’t really act outside the context of ruling class consensus in any particularly significant way.

The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is the ruling class factions they represent. The Repugnicans tend to represent the right-wing of the ruling class, e.g. old monied WASP elites and the Sunbelt insurgents that emerged following WW2 in the South and Southwest (Texas oil, for example) plus the neocons (right-wing of the Jewish elite, which is about 30% of the plutocracy). The Democraps tend to represent newer more high-tech industries (Silicon Valley and Hollywood, for example), elites among traditional minority groups, urban cosmopolitan technocrats, what Orwell called the “New Class,” etc.

I don’t think there’s any hope for a third party to actually win the presidency. Presidential elections are cost prohibitive to third parties. The media would vilify any competitive third party candidate and ballot access laws are highly restrictive as well. The exception might be a mega-billionaire who buys their way in like Ross Perot.

Trump is only worth about $4 billion. To run a credible, successful campaign, he’d need to spend $1 billion. I doubt he has that much liquidity, or that he’s be willing to spend it if he did. When Perot ran for Prez in ’92 it cost about $100 million to run a credible campaign. That’s increased about 10 tens since then, making a self-funded campaign cost prohibitive to everyone except Bill Gates, George Soros, or Warren Buffet. For Trump to be a successful candidate, he’d need real backers. Plus, the media would be overwhelmingly opposed to him, which he would have to spend extra to counter.

The main reason to prefer Democrats over the Republicans is that the neocons are not as deeply embedded in the Democratic apparatus, although that could change as many of them seem rather sympathetic to Hillary, and she’s not above doing their bidding.…/5460484

I think Webb, Sanders, and Chafee are all superior to Hillary, though it would be an uphill battle for any of them. The Republicans are a collection of freaks and sociopaths. Ironically, Trump is their best candidate because he’s the least in bed with the neocons as his comments about McCain and Krauthammer indicate.

The Holy Grail in this is to figure out how to break the power of the banks and the military-industrial complex. One way might be a Gorbachev-like situation where an reformist head of state sets a process in motion that inadvertently has the effect of unraveling the system. Another might be a Ba’athist or Chavez style coup by reform oriented military officers. Another might be secession by regions and localities similar to the secession by the Soviet republics towards the end of the USSR (or some combination of all of these).

If electoral politics is to be the answer, I think the way to do it would be for a populist mass revolutionary movement to work to obtain dominance in the majority of state and local governments, while bypassing the federal system, and then withdrawing from the federal system altogether, thereby engineering a Soviet-like collapse. From there the next step would be to initiate an Iceland-style crackdown on the banksters, and withdrawal of foreign troops to local military bases. For this to happen, the military would have to either come over to the side of the revolutionaries or merely dissolve by means of internal fracturing. Meanwhile, the System would fight tooth and nail to survive, of course, either by attempting a coup of their own, attempting to pacify or buy off the radicals with a carrot rather than a stick, or attempting to play off different groups against one another in a divide and conquer strategy. There would need to be some contingency plans for resisting all of this, and there would need to be a pre-existing alternative infrastructure in place to fill the power vacuum when the system collapsed. Needless to say, there is currently no movement or group in the US that would be capable of doing any of this.

I can just imagine Americans trying to pull off something comparable to what is presently going on in Rojava. What a basket case that would be.”

Texas Separatists Pushing for 2016 Ballot Measure Reply

Getting secessionist measures on state and local ballots would be an excellent activist strategy for adherents of the pan-secessionist tactical position of any ideological stripe.

KTRH Radio

The race for the presidency in 2016 is already heating up, but one group in the Lone Star State is hoping for a bigger battle on next year’s ballot.  The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) is launching a tour of 21 cities across the state over the next month to build support for Texas independence.  “This tour is in support of the new initiative we’ve launched to gather enough signatures on a petition so that we can force a referendum on Texas independence onto the Republican primary ballot in 2016,” says TNM President Daniel Miller.

The push for secession in Texas is nothing new, with various groups promoting it over the years and even longtime Congressman and former Presidential candidate Ron Paul speaking out on the subject earlier this year.  Miller tells KTRH that the TNM has been around for more than a decade and is seeking to bring the movement to the mainstream.  “To place this on a ballot so that people can go to the polls and vote for it, and express their will to the politicians and elected officials here in Texas,” he says.

Miller cites a Reuters survey from last year that showed support for secession nationwide is much higher than many thought.  “The breakdowns were about 54% of Republicans, roughly 50% of independents and 35% of Democrats,” he says.  “So we know that right now support for Texas independence is higher than it’s ever been, and it just continues to grow.”

As to the question of why should Texas break away from the union, Miller turns it around and asks why not.  “Is it the skyrocketing debt, is it the lack of respect for sovereignty, is it the excessive regulations that come out of the federal government?,” he asks.  “What exactly is it that’s attractive about staying?”

Greening Out #31 – The Authoritarian SNP Are Not The Answer Reply


Caity and Dan shift their gaze towards the Scottish National Party (SNP) and their scary authoritarian policies. We chat about the Named Person legislation and the dangers of the state getting involved in family life, the rise in armed police and stop-and-search powers in Scotland.

We move on to the mainstream media scaring the shit out of people, all the ‘free’ shit that politicians try to peddle, how podcasting is not therapy, the infuriating the vagueness of manifesto pledges and the complete nonsense of having nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Don’t worry, we also mention the sinking ship that is the Scottish Labour party and their negative campaigning tactics (which have left them in the state they now find themselves) plus a look at their ten pledges, cheap boob jobs in Prague and zero hour contracts.

We figure out the best and most artistic way to spoil a ballot paper, how social media desensitises people to government surveillance, getting finger printed at Disney Land, why nothing is free and we finish on the liberating feeling when you realise that all political parties are the same and voting is bullshit.

Download (right click save as)

If All Those State Secession Movements Got Their Way, America Would Look Like This Map Reply

By Nate Cohn

The New Republic

The electoral map divides the country neatly into blue states and red states. But blue states include vast conservative stretches; and most red states harbor liberal enclaves, too. In recent years, as partisan polarization has grown, some political minorities in these disaffected areas have proposed a radical solution: state partition.

It has happened before. Maine, for instance, was once part of Massachusetts. And while none of the current movements really has a shot, the eleven instances mapped here (including that to grant the District of Columbia statehood) have at least attracted the support of elected officials.

What would happen if all of them succeeded? Each new state would get two senators and its share of electoral college votes. We ran the numbers and recalculated the 2012 presidential race.

In this bizarro United States, the GOP would have a structural advantage in the expanded Senate, and Barack Obama would have had a tighter fight against Mitt Romney in the electoral college (which he won, in reality, 332–206).


The 124 states of America: What would the U.S. look like if all of the secession movements in U.S. history had succeeded? Reply

If only…

By Chris Cilliza

The Washington Post

Secessionist movements are all the rage these days. A handful of counties in Colorado tried to secede from the rest of the state earlier this year.  There’s an attempt to create the State of Jefferson (northern California/southern Oregon) via ballot initiative in 2014.  And there’s plenty more.

What would the U.S. look like if all of the secession movements in U.S. history had succeeded?  Well, Mansfield University geography professor Andrew Shears built a map to answer that question. (It covers secession movements through the end of 2011.)

Secede? Separatists Claim Texas Never Joined United States Reply

Interesting seeing a headline like this in the voice of the ruling class.

Many Fernandez

New York Times

John Jarnecke, 72,  president of the Republic of Texas, at his home in Fredericksburg, Tex. The group’s Valentine’s Day meeting in Bryan, Tex., was raided by local, state and federal law enforcement officials. Credit Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times

HOUSTON — The Republic of Texas is unlike any other volunteer organization in what used to be the Republic of Texas.

Its monthly meetings are called joint sessions of congress. Members have minted their own silver and gold currency and carry ID cards warning police officers they are diplomatic representatives of the nation of Texas. Its vice president, a retired telephone company worker, sent a letter in 2011 to the governor of Oklahoma, informing her that she faced indictment because her state’s counties and territories were “trespassing inside the geographical boundaries” of the nation.


Breaking Away: The Case for Secession 1

Video from the Mises Institute’s recent conference on secession.

Secession and Liberty

January 24, 2015

Read more

January 24, 2015

A Critique of the State of Libertarianism Reply

Some thoughts I originally posted in an online discussion concerning the various libertarian by-ways”

There’s a big rivalry right now between the paleolibertarians, left-libertarians and “mainstream” LP/Cato/Reason type libertarians.

The paleos and the leftists view the latter tendencies as establishment brown-nosers, and the mainstreamers view the radicals as utopians, sectarians, or tin foil hatters. The mainstreamers and the paleos views the leftists as communists, and mainstreamers and the leftists view the paleos as fascists.

The way the dynamics of opposition movements always play out is that they tend to split off into reformist and revolutionary camps, and socially conservative and libertine/bohemian/countercultural camps. The historic socialist movement was the same way. More…

Taking the ATS Philosophy and Strategy to the Next Level: Building the Pan-Secessionist Meta-Party 32

By Keith Preston

In the essay, “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America,” written in 2006, I made the following observation:

Ultimately, we may at some point be able to combine the Green, Libertarian, Populist, Constitution, Natural Law and other minor parties into a single party,… I would suggest calling such a party the “Federalist Party” for several reasons. First, there is precedent for this from American history. Second, it accurately describes what the internal structure of the party should be. Third, it provides a model for the general types of institutional arrangements we should seek to develop. Perhaps our party flag could be an anarchist black flag with the snake from the “don’t tread on me” Gadsen battle flag embroidered on it.

It is now time to begin the application of the core strategic ideas outlined in such ARV-ATS documents and “Liberty and Populism” and “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire.” More…

Inside South Africa’s whites-only town of Orania Reply

By Pumza Fihlani

BBC News

A Welcome to Orania signpost

In the sparsely populated Karoo desert in the heart of South Africa’s Northern Cape, the spirit of apartheid lives on.

I spent a few days in Orania, a town established in 1991 where no black people live.

I was part of a BBC crew, including Zimbabwean journalist Stanley Kwenda, who were accredited to visit.

And during that time, I did not see any other black people in the town of 1,000 – an unusual experience in modern South Africa.

It is an Afrikaner-only town, where only Afrikaans is spoken, because of fears about “diluting culture”.

“We do not fit in easily in the new South Africa. It [Orania] was an answer to not dominating others and not being dominated by others,” says Carel Boshoff Jr, the community leader.


The Libertarian Principle of Secession Reply

By Lew Rockwell


For a century and a half, the idea of secession has been systematically demonized among the American public. The government schools spin fairy tales about the “indivisible Union” and the wise statesmen who fought to preserve it. Decentralization is portrayed as unsophisticated and backward, while nationalism and centralization are made to seem progressive and inevitable. When a smaller political unit wishes to withdraw from a larger one, its motives must be disreputable and base, while the motivations of the central power seeking to keep that unit in an arrangement it does not want are portrayed as selfless and patriotic, if they are considered at all.


The Coming Golden Age of Anarchism Reply

It is not unreasonable to suggest that the decades ahead will witness the unfolding of a golden age of anarchism. What is the evidence for this?

-The most powerful state in the world, the United States, the mother country of the empire, is slowly losing its internal legitimacy and serious political discontent is beginning to rise.

-Antiwar sentiment in the United States is at an all time high. War fever could rise again in the event of a war with ISIS or Iran, an intervention in Syria, or a confrontation with Russia. But none of these scenarios would turn out well for the United States in the long run. Instead, the state would continue to lose its legitimacy and antiwar and anti-imperialist feeling would come back on an even stronger level.

-Class divisions are the widest they have been in a century in the United States. This all but guarantees the re-emergence of class-based politics at some point in the future. Proponents of alternative forms of decentralist economics will then begin to find a ripe audience for their ideas.

-Public opinion is slowly turning against the police state, prison-industrial complex, and the war on drugs. Sentiment of this kind will likely begin to grow exponentially in the future. It is likely that resistance to domestic American fascism will be the civil rights movement of the 21st century.

-One in four Americans are now sympathetic to secession by their region or community, and these sympathies will probably increase as the system begins to deteriorate.

-One in four American adults now has a criminal record due to overcriminalization. This can only have the effect of undermining respect for the state and its legal decrees.

-The idea of the state as the savior of humanity is an idea that is coming under increasing disrepute. The fiscal debts alone of modern welfare states likely guarantee their ultimate demise.


Panarchist Party, U.S.A. Reply

An interesting proposal from Joe Kopsick. See more here. This is very similar to the concept of a pan-secessionist meta-party that I wrote about in “Liberty and Populism” and that Ryan Faulk has previously suggested with his concept of an “All Nations Party.” As far as pan-anarchist/pan-secessionist involvement in electoral politics goes, it would probably be best to work to build an alliance of actually existing minor parties for the common purpose of advancing minor party interests (e.g. ballot access). Pan-anarchists could then work their way into leadership positions in these parties, and use them as vehicles for pan-secessionism, with parties with conflicting agendas and ideologies agreeing to stay out of each others’ backyards, e.g. leftist parties focus on the blue zones and rightist parties focus on the red zones.

Pan-secessionists could also apply the Mailer model or Ron Paul model, e.g. entering the major parties as dissident or maverick candidates or activists. At the national level, there could indeed be a pan-anarchist led, pan-secessionist party, organized internally as an alliance of minor parties and regionalist movements for the purpose of defending secessionist or other interests at the federal level. I would suggest calling such a group something like “The Federalist Party,” because it’s a familiar term to most Americans, and there actually was a federalist party early in U.S. history.

The Panarchist Party is a potential federal-level U.S. political party.

It is philosophically opposed to oligopolization and monopolization of business, representation of labor, and political representation.

The Panarchist Party aims to:

1) require the federal government to permit citizens to choose whether to
submit to its jurisdiction,

2) require the federal and state governments to permit citizens to choose
which state governs them (regardless of which state they are located in),


Anarchists, Secessionists, and the Grey Tribe: Where We Conflict Reply

In a perfect world, there would be a federation of anarchist organizations, representing many kinds of political and cultural groups with a generally anti-authoritarian orientation (a libertarian Grey Tribe in opposition to the various forces of statism, totalitarianism, imperialism, militarism, corporatism, and fascism). Further, the overarching strategic outlook for the anarchist-Grey Tribe would be pan-secessionism (a kind of contemporary version of the classical anarchist notion of the general strike). It is indeed probable that a relatively unified anti-state force will need to emerge at some point if the enemy is to be effectively combated and overthrown.

However, it is also true that there is also a great deal of division between and among anarchists, libertarians, Grey Tribers, and secessionists. For example, a large majority of anarchists are cultural leftists while a significant percentage of the much larger Grey Tribe are right-wingers or social conservatives. And many serious libertarians, not to mention Grey Tribe sympathizers, are neither anarchists nor secessionists. Likewise, there are many fellow travelers of the Grey Tribe who have a foot in either the Red Tribe, Blue Tribe, or some other tribe. How can a coherent much less cohesive movement emerge from such an array of contradictory and often hostile opinions?