I sometimes get asked, “You criticize and attack everyone and everything. But what are you actually for?”
Good question. I’ve written half a dozen books, hundreds of articles and essays, given dozens of lectures, and done hundreds of radio, television, and internet interviews related to this question.
I reject the legitimacy of states, ruling classes and empires everywhere, in the grand anarchist tradition.
My ideal anarchist mass movement would be something like this:
We would have organizations, federations or parties (like Hezbollah, the CNT-FAI configuration in Spain, or the international Pirate Parties in Europe today, to cite a few potential models) that would be an umbrella for all anarchists, and related cousin ideologies and movements. Its principal focus would be opposition to Atlanticist imperialism with support for self-determination and indigenous peoples’ movements worldwide. It would push actual anarchist economics and not the other bullshit (neoliberalism, “free market conservatism,” social democracy/Fabianism, or Marxism/Leninism). And it would take authentically libertarian positions on “social issues” (i.e. individual sovereignty, free association, and decentralized pluralism) rather than SJW crap. It would “attack the Left from the left” while reaching over to the center with class politics, and to the “far right” with libertarian-decentralist-populist issues (e.g. gun rights, ‘political correctness,’ religious liberty, homeschools, alternative medicine, the right to form voluntary ethnic and religious communities, etc). And it would cultivate a federation or network of fraternal organizations worldwide for the purpose of global revolutionary struggle against the “globalists,” imperialists, international capitalism, banksters NWO, ZOG, Illuminati, lizard people, or however one wishes to classify the common enemy.
As for the alternative, as Hans Hermann Hoppe says:
“Rather than supranational political integration, world-government, constitutions, courts, banks, and money, global social democracy, and universal and ubiquitous multiculturalism, anarchist(s)… propose the decomposition of the nation-state into its constituent heterogenous parts. (Unlike) their (classical liberal and Marxist) forbears, (anarchists) do not seek to takeover any government. They only want to be left alone by government, and to secede from its jurisdiction to organize their own protection. Unlike their predecessors who merely sought to replace a larger government with a smaller one, however, (anarchists) pursue the logic of secession to its end. They propose unlimited secession, i.e., the unrestricted proliferation of independent free territories, until the state’s range of jurisdiction finally withers away. To this end-and in complete contrast to the statist projects of ‘European Integration’ and a ‘New World Order’-they promote the vision of a world of tens of thousands of free countries, regions and cantons, of hundreds of thousands of independent free cities…and even more numerous free districts and neighborhoods, economically integrated through (voluntary association and temporary autonomous zones). If and when this alternative…vision gains prominence in public opinion, the end of the… ‘End of History’ will give rise to a …renaissance.”
