Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire

Copyright 2003. Keith Preston. American Revolutionary Vanguard. All rights reserved.

[Author’s Note: What follows is an effort, however humble, to apply traditional anarchist theory to the world situation we contemporary radicals currently find ourselves in, particulary the emergence of the New World Order, the ongoing dilemma of the Leviathan state, and the uniquely subtle form of totalitarianism that has caught the fancy of the elites of the First World nations, so-called “political correctness”. What I have tried to develop is a kind of “big picture” anarchism, an anarchism that confronts the aforementioned issues head-on, without the distractions that preoccupy most of those in conventional anarchist circles (“racism”, ecology, left-wing popular causes, particular economic positions, etc.) I have developed something of a reputation for myself as a staunch proponent of jettisoning the conventional “left/right” model of the political spectrum. In this essay, I attempt to carry this idea even further. Specifically, I reject the linear, “progressivist” view of history implicit in much contemporary political thought in favor of an approach that somewhat approximates the cyclical view suggested by Nietzsche. Additionally, I am increasingly drawn to the view that the most serious intellectual problem of our time, at least with regards to political philosophy and social theory, is the universalist presumption adhered to by virtually all modern political thinkers, whether they be of the liberal, Marxist, conservative, neoconservative, libertarian or left-anarchist variety. Additionally, the world’s two largest religions, Christianity and Islam, along with the increasing monistic humanism that dominates the intellectual culture of the West, include fairly powerful universalist strands as well. Lawrence Dennis considered the most negative attribute of the Enlightenment era to be the tendency to interpret the world from the perspective of abstract ideological principles regarded as above and beyond the lived experience of real world human beings. The influence of such thinking on the Jacobins during the period of the French Revolution, the perpetrators of the Napoleanic Wars, and the ideologies of the imperial powers that came to a head in the Second World War (liberalism, fascism, communism) has been previously noted by certain scholars. The French New Right theorist Alain de Benoist goes even further, arguing that the monotheistic orientation of the Judeo-Christian traditions, and the concurrent negating of all other gods and traditions, along with the supplanting by these of the earlier pagan views of divinity,  provided the historical foundation for the universalist conceptions of the modern era.(*) Whatever the case may be, it seems clear enough that the key to mounting an effective resistance to the New World Order is the cultivation of a cross-cultural ethic whereby a taboo is erected against the insistence that a specific world view be universalized. It would seem that philosophical anarchism is the political paradigm most compatible with the establishment of such a taboo.]

Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire

The history of human civilization can be divided into three primary phases when considering the evolution of political institutions. The first of these involves an idea that might be described as “the divinity of kings”.  In the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylon and Rome, the head of state, or emperor, was assigned a god-like status by custom, tradition, law, theology and popular folklore alike. The early Roman Christians were sent to the lions for the crime of “atheism” which, in the theology of the Roman state religion, meant denial of the divinity of the emperor.(1) When Christianity went on to conquer Greco-Roman civilization, a new political theology evolved in the form of the “divine right of kings”, meaning that the king ruled, not as a god himself, but as an earthly appointee of a Divine Other who had been providentially chosen to rule in the political realm just as the Pope ruled in the religious realm. A principal achievement of the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was the demolition of the notion of the divine right of kings. Beginning with the American and French Revolutions of the eighteenth century, a third political paradigm has come to dominate human political life.

Against Democratism

This paradigm that is now nearly universal, at least in the advanced countries, is the paradigm of liberal democracy. It might be said that liberal democracy discards the “divine right of kings” for the “democratic right of the state”. Most people in the modern world recognize the illegitimacy of fascist, nazi, communist, monarchical, theocratic, aristocratic or military forms of government. It is assumed by persons on all points of the political spectrum that a government is only legitimate if periodic elections are held, opposition parties are allowed to organize and something resembling a “free press” is permitted. For example, American political culture includes Christian fundamentalists, economic nationalists and anti-immigrationists on the “far right” and Marxists, radical feminists and post-modernists on the “far left”. Yet all of these parties claim the banner of “democracy”. Those who wish to censor speech that is deemed “hateful” or “obscene” do so under the guise of seemingly venerable democratic notions like “community standards”, majoritarian preference or social equality. Likewise, those who champion “free speech” do so under the seemingly democratic principle of free exchange of ideas and beliefs. Those favoring racial quotas or preferences cite the allegedly democratic principle of equal opportunity while those opposed to such preferences claim individual responsibility and merit are essential to democracy. Both socialists and “free market” economists claim to be advocates of “economic democracy”.

The underlying presumption behind all of these points of view is that virtually any course of action that the state pursues is acceptable so long as the state meets a few bare minimum standards of democracy like “free elections”, “free speech” and so on.(2) It is said that the state exists on the basis of a “social contract” and is a reflection of the “popular will”. For these reasons, it is widely believed that individuals have an obligation to comply with the decrees of the state, whether in the matter of the payment of taxes, military conscription, weapons confiscation, the prohibition of particular social or cultural practices, or whatever. This common notion is what is meant by the “democratic right of the state”. Behind the shield of “democracy”, the state may do what it wishes to its subjects, who in turn have no one to blame for their predicament but themselves as they comprise the state, an expression of “the general will”. The absurdity and illogic of this view ought to be obvious enough. Clearly, the dominant political paradigm of “democracy” is severely flawed. (3) A new paradigm is sorely needed.

Philosophical anarchism holds that the institution of the state is undesirable, unnecessary and should be eliminated in favor of voluntary association and cooperation among groups and individuals. A coherent anarchist would seek to replace the current political paradigm of liberal democracy with a new paradigm in the form of philosophical anarchism or, more specifically, a social order grounded on the principle of voluntary association. The traditional anarchist position regards the state as nothing more than a criminal organization that exists for no genuine purpose beyond the control of territory, the protection of an artificially privileged ruling class, the exploitation of its subjects and the expansion of its own power. This perspective is consistent with numerous philosophical, ethical and religious traditions. This was the position of both the classical anarchist theoreticians and modern libertarian-anarchists like Murray Rothbard.(4) The anarchist position on the state is also supported by the sociologist Franz Oppenheimer’s landmark study on the origin of the state and its roots in plunder and conquest.(5) Democratists have attempted to respond to the anarchist critique of the state by claiming that their preferred form of state is somehow different from older expressions of the state, usually rooting their claims in some sort of constitutionalist or majoritarian doctrine. Yet, the constitutionalist theory of the state has been comprehensively refuted by Lysander Spooner and his critique of “social contract” theory.(6)And virtually all reasonable political thinkers from Plato and Aristotle onward have recognized majoritarianism as nothing more than a form of mob rule.

The classical liberal economist William Graham Sumner once remarked that the day would come when men would be divided into only two political camps, anarchists and socialists, or, more descriptively of Sumner’s views, statists and anti-statists.(7) Sumner’s prediction is in the process of being realized as the statist ideology of mass democracy is becoming more and more universalized throughout the modern world. This process has produced some rather silly intellectual offshoots in the form of Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” theory and the “democratic imperialism” of the neoconservatives.(8) So pervasive is democratist ideology that even some anti-statists cannot separate “democracy” from their own critique of the state. For example, many left-wing anarchists claim “direct” or “consensus-based” democracy as their ideal.(9) So be it. The voluntary associations that would form the basis of an anarchist social order could indeed have democratic internal structures of some type. But anarchist theory no more mandates that an association have a democratic form of organization than it mandates an autocratic one. Similarly, aside from avowed anti-democrats like Hans Hermann Hoppe, many libertarians speak of “democratic processes” and “democratic ideals”, often going so far as to claim that the current system of electoral democracy is fundamentally legitimate but has only been corrupted by an excess of statism brought on by self-serving public interest groups, crooked politicians, a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of statist intellectuals, etc.(10)

Bob Black has noted that one of the foremost obstacles to the realization of anarchism is the anarchists themselves.(11) Frankly, many professed anarchists could not give a coherent description of anarchist theory or what an anarchist society, realistically speaking, might look like to save their lives.(12) If anarchism is to be defined by the principle of voluntary association, then a system of radical individual autonomy is implied. Individual autonomy of this type should not be confused with either licentiousness or egocentrism. Instead, individual autonomy involves a social order where individual persons choose for themselves the kinds of associations, communities and institutions they wish to be connected to. Persons with different values, beliefs, interests or needs will form different kinds of associations. Elitists will form elitist associations. Egalitarians will form egalitarian associations. Socialists will form socialist associations. Racialists will form racialist associations. A continuing theme of traditional anarchism is Kropotkin’s concept of “mutual aid”, whereby people cooperate with one another towards common ends.(13) But mutual aid can occur only among people with common values and objectives. Consequently, the overarching principle of voluntary association implies that individuals and groups with conflicting interests or goals will naturally separate themselves from one another and practice mutual self-segregation. This in turn implies a radically decentralized social system where different kinds of cultural and ideological groups achieve sovereignty within their own communities. Of course, a social order based on perfect voluntarism or sovereignty may never be achieved in the real world, which is why insightful libertarian theorists including Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Bertrand Russell and Paul Goodman have regarded “anarchy” as an ideal, like “peace” and “justice”, that humanity can only strive for.(14)

It is interesting to explore the objections that anti-anarchists raise against the anarchist positon and equally interesting to review the criticisms that different schools of anarchism have of one another. Most reasonable criticisms of the anarchist position are rooted, at least implicitly, in the ideas of Hobbes. In the classical Hobbesian view, human beings left to their own devices exist only in a “state of nature”, the essence of which is characterized as “a war of each against all”. The Hobbesian “solution” to humanity’s predicament is the establishment of a “sovereign” who wields absolute power for the sake of achieving order and making civilization possible.(15) One need not reject Hobbes’ overall view of human nature (and I do not) in order to recognize the circular nature of his argument for the supremacy of the sovereign. If human beings cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs in a non-predatory manner, how then is a state comprised of mere human beings to be trusted with power over others? Will not the state, whose members rule on behalf of “order”, not use its power for predatory purposes of its own? Of course it will. As Errico Malatesta noted:

“We do not believe in the infallibility, nor even in the general goodness of the masses; on the contrary. But we believe even less in the infallibility and goodness of those who seize power and legistlate.

.”..the government does not change its nature. If its acts as regulator or guarantor of the rights and duties of each, it perverts the sentiment of justice. It justifies wrong and punishes every act which offends or menaces the privileges of the governors and proprietors…If it administers public services, it always ignores the interests of the working masses, except in so far as is necessary to make the masses willing to endure their share of taxation…

“In all the course of history, as in the present epoch, government is either brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of the few over the many, or it is an instrument devised to secure domination and privilege to those who, by force, or cunning, or inheritance, have taken to themselves all the means of life…”(16)

Malatesta had no illusions that democracy was an improvement over any other kind of state and essentially agreed with George Bernard Shaw’s adage that “democracy substitutes selection by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few”.(17) Said Malatesta of democracy:

“…if you consider these worthy voters as incapable of providing for their own interests, how can they ever be capable of choosing directors to guide them wisely? How to solve this problem of social alchemy: to elect a government of geniuses by the votes of a mass of fools?”(18)

Democracy is simply a system whereby A and B conspire against C, B and C conspire against A, A and C conspire against B. As Max Stirner noted: “In a republic, all are masters, and each tyrannizes over the others.”(19)

Anarchists have never been able to agree among themselves on the question of what an ideal anarchist society would look like. The adherents of virtually all of the schools of anarchism accuse the other anarchist sects of statism and authoritarianism.  Anarchists of the leftist or socialist variation are accused of favoring what, in practice, would amount to little more than a decentralized form of social democracy or state communism (and some of this not so decentralized).(20) Libertarian anarchists are condemned for favoring a form of industrialized feudalism that would amount to little more than aristocratic rule by local elites by means of private courts, police and armies.(21) A newer school of anarchism called “national-anarchism” includes among its adherents believers in racial separatism (as opposed to racial supremacy) and resolute opponents of social practices dear to the hearts of leftists like abortion and homosexuality.(22) Consequently, national anarchists are accused by their leftwing counterparts of advocating a type of “village-fascism”. Those of the “primitivist” variant of anarchism are denounced for condemning the bulk of mankind to disease and starvation because of their rejection of modern technology and industrial civilization. (23)And traditional anarcho-syndicalists have long been attacked by individualists for promoting an alternative form of state where the government is simply replaced by labor unions.(24) All of the criticisms that these contending schools of anarchism have of one another are legitimate. Like any other philosophy or ideology, anarchism is imperfect and cannot provide universal solutions to all of mankind’s problems.

The differing schools of anarchism each bring to the table a valuable perspective often not found among the other schools. Classical anarchism continues to emphasize the class struggle against international state capitalism, and correctly so, but unfortunately often falls into the trap of economic determinism in the same manner as the Marxists and libertarians.(25) Also, many classical anarchist groups resemble nothing quite so much as history clubs or archivist societies, continually adorning their activities with the symbolism of European anarchism of a century ago, an action whose propagandistic value to the modern world is at best quite dubious.(26) Neo-anarchism of the post-New Left, post-1960s variety admirably opposes the mistreatment of traditionally disfavored or marginalized social groups-racial minorities, women, homosexuals, the handicapped and so on. Yet neo-anarchism has also adopted for itself the dogmatic “political correctness” of the liberal establishment with a fervor that approaches self-parody. Libertarian anarchism champions the individual against the state, a refreshing approach given the incipient collectivism and pseudo-statism often found on the left-wing of anarchism, but sometimes ignores the role of community, cultural and non-economic influences in shaping the human personality.(27) National-anarchism focuses on the long neglected matter of the plight of traditional racial, national or religious groupings under attack by the forces of modernist multicultural totalitarianism, yet often places a myopic emphasis on race as opposed to class, culture, the state qua the state and other such matters.(28) Primitivist anarchism of the Zerzanite variety points to the inherently totalitarian potential of advanced technology (as evidenced by such phenomena as the Echelon spy satellite program), yet ignores the potentially liberatory aspects of technology (as classical anarchists like Kropotkin pointed out) and, predictably, dogmatizes its critique to the level of absurdity.

Where anarchism differs from other political philosophies is in its provision, through its enduring principles of voluntary association and radical decentralization, of a means for unresolvable social or political disputes to be handled without tyranny or bloodshed. As this essay is being written, an ongoing controversy is taking place in the American state of Alabama concerning the placement of a monument to the biblical “Ten Commandments” in the lobby of a local courthouse by a religiously devout local judge. Secularists and “civil liberties” groups are insisting that such a gesture intolerably compromises the distinction between church and state while religionists are insisting that the mandatory removal of the monument amounts to religious discrimination and persecution.(29) As the courthouse is state property, owned in theory by religionists and anti-religionists alike, there is no objective or principled manner by which the conflict can be resolved. However, in an anarchist social system, individual persons would be free to join whatever associations or communities they wished with members of different communities adopting whatever laws or customs they desired. Some communities might require a particular form of religious observance while others might ban all references to or aknowledgement of religion. Still others might adopt a “live and let live” approach.

Separation of Politics and State

There was a time when nearly all states maintained a particular state religion that every subject was expected to conform to. Those who did not conform faced severe persecution, banishment, imprisonment, torture and death.(30) The social chaos that resulted from efforts to impose a uniform religious observance motivated some thinkers to consider such notions as “freedom of religion” or “separation of church and state”. America was one of the first nations to formally institutionalize such ideas. Today, virtually all religions are represented in the United States of America, and most of them conduct their affairs unmolested by the state most of the time. While some gray areas of controversy remain, such as the aforementioned matter of religious displays on state property, most people take for granted that religious pluralism is preferable to the theocratic absolutism of previous eras. Anarchism, properly understood, applies  the same principle to politics. Just as the classical liberals Francois Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson wished to separate religion and state, it might be said that traditional anarchism aims to separate politics and state. Instead of a uniform political system being coercively imposed upon all citizens alike, anarchism allows for individuals and groups to form their own voluntary political systems organized according to their own needs. The national-anarchist theoretician David Michael notes that the content of these voluntary political systems (or associations, or communities, depending on what one wishes to call them) might be quite diverse and include communities of a nationalist, communist, Christian, Islamic or some other variety.(31) It might be appropriate to think of anarchism as a type of meta-system capable of accommodating all sorts of political, economic and cultural subsystems. Anarchism offers certain political tools-individual autonomy, voluntary association, mutual aid, free federation, radical decentralization and community sovereignty-that provide diverse social groupings with the means of achieving self-determination.

An anarchist should be wary of teleological theories of society, whereby society is regarded as evolving towards some predeterminded or prescribed end. This, of course, is a common characteristic of Marxist views on socio-political evolution and, indeed, of much progressivist thought, rooted as much of this is in Hegelian metaphysics. Nevertheless, it is possible to make, with reasonable certainty, an elementary set of predictions as to what characteristics an anarchist social order would eventually display. Anarchist theory carries with it certain implications in the realm of economics, law, the fate of the nation-state system that has been predominate for the past five centuries and a variety of socio-cultural and demographic matters. The first order of business involved in the implementation of the anarchist program is an end to universalism. On this point, many anarchists, particularly those of the leftist-progressivist and, to a lesser degree, libertarian schools, miss the boat. The victory of anarchism would, by its very nature, coincide with the triumph of particularism. The absence of centralism would naturally strengthen attachments of a regional, local, family, ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic nature.(32) The marshalling of atomized individuals into a herd of identity-less masses at the mercy of the predations of whatever aberrant social engineering schemes the latest gang of thugs to achieve political power wishes to impose would no longer be possible. Particularistic attachments of the sort that serve as a vital bulwark against such predations would naturally blossom. A myriad of thriving communities would emerge, each with it own ideological, cultural and economic foundations, organically rooted in the aspirations and evolved norms of its members. The sham of mass democracy, which sets all sorts of varied sectional interests at the throats of one another, and herds these diverse sections into party hierarchies where they may be safely divided and conquered at the hands of rootless and predatory elites, would be rendered obsolete.(33)

The triumph of philosophical anarchism as a socio-political meta-system would likewise mean the simultaneous victory of an enormous variety of subsystems. Against the fake “diversity” and “multiculturalism” offered by the liberal and neoconservative establishments and the reactionary left, whereby the total state rules in the name of “progressive” platitudes like Equality, Social Justice and Humanity, in the place of more traditional platitudes like God, Family and Country, a victorious anarchism offers an authentic pluralism consisting not only of genuine diversity in matters of culture, religion or ethnicity but also in questions of politics and ideology. If the heart and soul of the anarchist ideal is a social order where autonomous individuals voluntarily choose those types of institutions, communities or associations that are most suited to their own needs or desires, then virtually the entire panoply of dissident factions stand to gain through the victory of anarchism. The enemies of the current international ruling class and its rapidly encroaching New World Order include among themselves followers of the teachings of Karl Marx, Murray Rothbard, Osama bin Laden, John Zerzan, Eduard Limonov, Saddam Hussein, Emilio Zapata, Bo Gritz, Israel Shamir, Muammar El-Qadaffi, Mao Tse-tung, Noam Chomsky, Russell Means, R. J. Rushdooney, Mikhail Bakunin, Adolf Hitler, Anton Szandar LaVey, Elijah Muhammed,  Julius Evola, Michael Oakeshott, Che Gueverra, Edmund Burke, V. I. Lenin, Hillaire Belloc, Thomas Aquinas, Michele Foucault, Barry Goldwater and many others.(34) Such a dazzling array of dissidents might be characterized as constituting a type of “diversity on steroids”. With the disintegration of centralized power, all of these (and other) dissident communities would gain greater opportunities for self-determination.

Some anarchist factions, particularly the leftist ones, will no doubt denounce the aforementioned program as “authoritarian”, “reactionary” or whatever. It is said by some in the anarchist milieu that a “true” anarchist must also reject “hierarchy”, “authority” or even “organization” and “structure” of any kind. While one could certainly be an anarchist and oppose all of these things as well (though it is doubtful a community of such anarchists would be very productive or enjoy much longevity), the insistence by some anarchists that rejection of “hierarchy” or “authority” is mandated by the anarchist position actually betrays the authentic anarchist ideal of voluntarism (althought it is necessary to distinguish between natural and artificial hierarchies and authorities). If one chooses to join a Tibetan Buddhist monastery and endure its accompanying rigors, then is it not authoritarian for an anarchist to denounce such a choice? If one, such as John Walker Lindh, decides for himself to adopt the ascetic ways of the Taliban, who is another, particularly an anarchist, to attack his choice? Which is more authoritarian: a Nazi community on the top of a mountain whose members voluntarily choose their way of life or a massive, centralist, “democratic” state that seeks to impose the narrow values of a self-serving elite on the whole of society? Of course, it is a near certainty that a world dominated politically by anarchist ideals would produce many, many types of communities beyond the narrowly “conservative” ones described here. There might also be thriving homosexual communities, even communities where homosexuals constituted a privileged social class of the type Foucault once speculated about.(35) Just as there might be associations or communities of such a puritannical nature as to put Calvin or Khomeini to shame, so might there be communities of libertines whose principal economic base involved the commercial trade in drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, cock-fighting, gladiatorial contests or whatever. Of course, this by no means implies that all value systems are equally “true”, valid or likely to produce desirable or equal results. Some of the institutions that would form in an anarchist world might be hallmarks in human progress and achievement, others might be hellholes of incomparable ghastliness. This is what authentic liberty and authentic diversity are all about.  Individuals and communities alike must be left to succeed or fail on their own terms.

The Economic Implications of Anarchism

It is important that the implications of such a decentralized and pluralistic political order for the realm of economics be properly understood if, for no other reason, to clarify the boundless  confusion that has often existed among anarchists on economic matters. Within the rich history of anarchist thought, one finds both “individualist” and “socialist” traditions as far as economic questions are concerned.  The spectrum of economic thought among anarchists includes “anarcho-capitalists” on one end and “anarcho-communists” on the other. Both sides often prefer to act as if the others are heretics and pursue their opponents symbolic excommunication. However, “socialist” and “communist” interpretations or applications of anarchism are not incompatible with “capitalist” or “individualist” ones. Anarchistic thought of the libertarian-individualist-capitalist variety frequently regards itself as the proper ideological heir of classical liberalism of the type espoused by Adam Smith or the Mills. However, as Noam Chomsky points out, the early classical liberals subscribed to many of the same criticisms of the bourgeoise state as the classical socialists.(36) Hence, Chomsky regards traditional socialist-anarchism, or “libertarian socialism”, as the logical outgrowth of classical liberalism. From the opposite end of the spectrum, the anarcho-capitalist godfather Murray Rothbard expressed sympathy for many of the criticisms of state capitalism advanced by the classical socialists, including Marx and Bakunin, but attacked them for blaming the market rather than the state qua state for the exploitation inherent in state capitalism. For Rothbard, the principal error of most of traditional socialism was its effort to achieve socialism by the reactionary methods of statism and militarism.(37)

Clearly, the conflicting economic tendencies within anarchist thought are sorely in need of some sort of reconciliation. Fortunately, the work of Kevin Carson in the field of economics provides a means of doing so.  Drawing upon both the Marxist and Austrian traditions within economics, Carson demonstrates that those who criticize the socialists for their carte blanche rejection of markets are correct in doing so.(38) After all, there is nothing inherently wrong, certainly not from an anarchist perspective, with the voluntary exchange of goods, services and labor in the marketplace. Indeed, voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of anarchist social relations. Anti-market socialists have thrown out the baby with the bath water. However, pro-market, anti-state thinkers have quite frequently erred in failing to comprehend the degree to which market distortions resulting from state intervention are the source of genuine class exploitation. A principal problem is that many pro-market and anti-market observers alike consider the present system of international state capitalism to be an authentic product of the free market. The “left” tendency among anti-statists abhors this set of arrangements while the “right” tendency applauds it. Yet an authentic free market economy would produce institutional arrangements of a vastly different nature from those currently in existence.

The end of liberal democracy as a dominant political paradigm, and its replacement with philosophical anarchism, would naturally generate a brand new economic paradigm in the place of the current paradigm of state capitalism. Liberal democracy and state capitalism are considered by virtually all “mainstream” political theorists to be the natural corollaries of one another. Indeed, one often hears talk of “capitalist democracy” or “democratic capitalism” as some sort of ideal among establishment ideologists, particularly among (who else!) neoconservatives. On one hand, it is not exactly true that state capitalism and liberal democracy are natural complements to one another, as state capitalism preceeded liberal democracy, and the mass democracy of the present era. Carson, following the lead of both Marx and Rothbard, explains how the declining feudal aristocracy of the latter Middle Ages sought to reverse its own fleeting fortunes by reinventing itself as a class of bourgeoise capitalists by means of state interventionist tools of the mercantilist variety in order to preserve the centralization of wealth. (39)Hence, the birth of the paradigm of state capitalism that has come to dominate all of the industrialized nations. However, it is true that liberal democracy came to power largely through the efforts of a mercantile class, a middle class in the traditional European sense, who resented having to share power with the monarchy, the church, the landed nobility and other relics of the feudal era. Subsequently, liberal democracy took the shape of mass democracy in order to justify the expansion of the state needed to effectively buy off and pacify newly emergent power groups (intellectuals, professionals, union bosses, political interest groups) who went on to comprise the “new class” of managerial elites of whom George Orwell and James Burnham provided penetrating critiques.(40) At the present time, the corporate elites of state capitalism and the bureaucratic elites of the welfare-warfare state (i.e., liberal democracy) have largely become intertwined with one another in the form of a state-corporate ruling class. This ruling class has become dominant in all of the advanced nations and is currently reconstituting itself on an international level in the form of the New World Order.

Conventional theories of political economy typically portray “Big Business” and “Big Government” as natural antagonists of one another. The “left” champions the state as the protector of the little guy from the predatory corporation while the “right” champions the corporation as the hapless victim of predatory government bureaucrats.(41) However, the present corporate system could not exist without the favors granted to corporations by the state in the form of subsidies, infrastructure, central banking, the state monopoly over the production of currency, tariffs, monopoly privilege, contracts, bailouts, guarantees, military intervention, patents, the suppression of labor, regulatory favors, protectionist trade legistlation, limited liability and corporate personhood laws and much else. Similarly, the state’s legistlative process and executive hierarchy is beholden to the corporate interests who fund the electoral system and provide the bureaucratic elite among the military, foreign policy and “international trade” establishments. Condoleeza Rice’s migration from Chevron to the National Security Council is no mere coincidence. The amalgam of Big Business and Big Government, consolidated on an international scale, represents a centralization of wealth and power of so great a degree as to jeopardize the future of humanity.

What sort of economic order would accompany the political victory of anarchism? Economic decentralization would naturally follow political decentralization. As the massive, bureaucratic nation-states currently being incorporated into the New World Order collapsed and disappeared, the corporate entities propped up and protected by these states would also vanish. Just as the dissolution of centralized political power would result in the sovereignty and self-determination of communities and associations, so would these entities be able to develop their own unique economic identities. Economic resources of all types, from land to industrial facilities to infrastructure to high technology, would fall into the hands of particular communities and popular organizations. Such entities would likely organize themselves into a myriad of economic institutions. It can be expected that workers would play a much greater leadership role in the formation of future economies as workers access to resources and bargaining power, both individually and collectively, would likely be greatly enhanced. The result would likely be an economic order where the worker-oriented enterprise replaces the capitalist corporation as the dominant mode of economic organization. (42)

The disappearance of massive, bureaucratic states would also result in the greater fluidity and dynamism of the market place, ushering in greater efficiency, more rapid innovation and, in the long term, rising living standards within the context of a more equitable overall distribution of wealth. Economic arrangements might include worker owned/operated enterprises, a proliferation of cooperatives and family businesses, mutual banks of the type envisioned by Greene, Proudhon and Tucker, communal arrangements of the type envisioned by Kropotkin (and practiced, to some degree, by the kibbutzers of Israel), co-determinded enterprises operating as a partnership between labor and management and industries operated by unions or workers councils in the manner envisioned by traditional anarcho-syndicalists, guild socialists, distributists or council communists. The Mondragon workers’ cooperatives of Spain have achieved some degree of success in this area.(43)  Of course, if some groups of workers or entrepreneurs wished to organize themselves into giant, hierarchical formations similar to the traditional corporate model, that would be their perogative. In addition, there would likely be an increase in the number of small to medium sized businesses of an individual or private nature, farmers, craftsmen, artisans and the self-employed. The culture of particular regions or communities would shape the emerging economic arrangements. Land would be worked communally in those locations, such as central Africa, where traditions of communal ownership are strong. Open marketplaces would abound in regions where cultural precedent existed. There might also be municipalized industries or enterprises in some quarters, as well as such endeavors being owned by political parties of a particular stripe and operated by party members. There may be communities run by the Revolutionary Communist Party or the National Socialist Workers Revolutionary Party, each with their own factories or farms, with adherents of party ideology providing the workforce. Still other communities might maintain economic arrangements modeled on the teachings of those figures their members find most inspirational, whether Ghandi or Qadaffi.(44) Kevin Carson provides a description of what a post-state capitalist economic order might look like:

“1) an economy of self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers cooperatives, and worker-controlled large enterprises, all dealing with each other through the free market.

2) a money system based on labor exchanges or mutual banks, in which the producers associate to transform their own products into money and credit without relying on usurious banking monopolies;

3)  a system of land ownership based on occupancy and use, with no enforcement of rights of absentee ownership;

4) government based only on free association without initiating coercion against non-aggressors. This means all expenses are met by user fees and membership dues charged to willing participants. My own picture is…local goverment, minus compulsory payment for or consumption of its services.” (45)

This vision is idealistic yet realistic, and Carson’s overall economic analysis and objectives effectively reconcile the Austrian and Marxist, left-wing and right-wing anti-statist, classical liberal and classical socialist traditions. Of course, much variation on this broader theme is likely, as previously noted. For example, different sorts of communities might define “just” ownership or use of property in different ways, and the structure of local political institutions might be highly varied. The collapse of the New World Order and the corporate-social democratic bureaucracies that govern its core provinces would inevitably lead to the coming to local power of  a good many political or cultural elements disagreeable to the liberal elites who dominate the current world order and those who ape their values. For example, the disappearance of the nation-states  across Europe would likely lead to the proliferation of a wide assortment of self-assertive communities and enclaves led by Communists, nationalists, monarchists, racialists, Catholic or Orthodox traditionalists, Islamic fundamentalists, neo-nazis, warlords or ordinary criminal gangs.  Similarly, an end to Anglo-Zionist imperialism  in the Middle East would inevitably lead to the removal of the region’s current regimes and national borders alike, as these are nothing more than a legacy of previous imperial eras. However, it is quite doubtful that the socio-political institutions that would evolve in the Middle East following the dissolution of the present order there would be of a particularly “progressive” nature, as far as Western definitions of progressive are concerned. Already, the embarrassment of the neoconservatives, who have discovered unexpectedly that the people of Iraq prefer an ayatollah to a Tony Blair, has been witnessed.

Just as political decentralization would naturally result in the greater influence of those socio-cultural and ideological elements most disagreeable to the values of modern liberalism, so would economic decentralization inspire a regeneration of those communitarian values that have been suppressed by the forces of global corporatism and its materialist/consumerist ethos. Although an end to the gargantuan bureaucracies of the current nation-state system and the overarching system of international state capitalism would on one hand result in a greater economic dynamism of the type sought by many “free market” libertarians, the absence of powerful corporate entities would have the consequence of the emergence of economic institutions that were much more rooted in organic local and regional cultures and therefore much more beholden to the values and norms of those cultures. Further, the wider dispersion of economic resouces involved in economic decentralization would allow greater opportunities for self-determination and self-sufficiency among the neo-proletariat and provide the traditionally beleagured classes with the means for self-emancipation.

The Death of the Nation-State System

The aforementioned predictions concerning what sort of politico-economic arrangements would follow the demise of the New World Order naturally assume an end to the five hundred year preeminence of the nation-state system. Simply put, the system of nation-states is one whose historical relevance has already expired. Traditional nations have largely devolved into provincial regions of the global order. Contrary to the sentiments of old-fashioned nationalists, this is not necessarily an unwelcome development. The principal function of the nation-state has been the greater concentration of political and economic power and the increased destructiveness of war and imperialism. Of course, the liberal “solution” to the horrors of international warfare has been even greater wars, imperialism and centralization culminating in a Wilsonian global state that makes the world safe for corporate-mercantilist totalitarian-progressivist “democracy”. Against this liberal perversion, an authentic anarchism offers the radical dispersion of power as an antidote to the total wars generated by the modern state. As Joseph Sobran explains:

“…in the year 1500 there were about 500 distinct political entities in Europe; by 1800 the number had been reduced to a few dozen, and was soon further reduced by the unification of Italy and of Germany…Certain words, ‘secession’ being one, are used in tones of horror that imply there is no point in discussing their possible merits. But, if secession is always bad, history can move in only one direction: toward a single global state, from which nobody must be allowed to withdraw, no matter how tyrannical it may become…In the twentieth century the great nation-states (which were also empires) collided in the two most terrible wars of all time.

The explosion began with the assassination of a single man in Sarajevo in 1914. The alliances among the European states drew everyone into war, including, within three years, Midwestern farm boys who had never heard of the Archduke Ferdinand.

This would have been impossible if Europe had still consisted of those 500 independent political entities of the year 1500. Europe had seen many wars, but they had mostly been local. The “Great War” was something totally new, dwarfing even the Napoleanic Wars.

We have far more to fear from the consolidation of states than from secession and dispersion. With small states, there are sure to be local conflicts at almost all times, but it would be relatively easy to flee them. With only a few huge states, the danger of a general holocaust is constant.

Secession, small states, limited government, dispersion of power-these are the real paths to peace. The more political entities there are, the more rulers are forced to compete with each other for subjects, who can migrate to less oppressive domains. But when only huge states exist, with  monopolies of power extending for thousands of miles, escape is difficult.”(46)

One of the few positive features of the New World Order is that the enemy is now much more clearly identified. (47)It is pointless for contending political, economic or cultural tendencies to continue to bicker among themselves when all are rapidly being subjugated by the forces of globalism. As there is now really only one government, the system of international state capitalism, the task of anarchists has become much more simplified. Globalism may well be the final stage in the historical evolution of the state. The global superstate represents the consolidation of conventional nation-states into an ever more powerful entity. The annihlation of the global superstate may well be the catalyst that ultimately leads to the realization of the reign of anarchism, just as the execution of the French monarch became the cornerstone of the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy and the supremacy of the bourgeoise.

Separation of Law and State

No discussion of what the end product of a particular political or economic order might be can ever be complete without substantial reflection on what sort of laws and legal systems such arrangements might produce. (48) Thus far, it has been argued that the practical effect of the full implementation of the anarchist program would be the proliferation of countless voluntary communities and associations whose primary function would be the provision of the means to sovereignty for many different types of ideological or cultural tendencies. The internal structures of such associations would likely span the entire spectrum of political preferences. There might well be communities of monarchists, fascists, communists, liberal capitalists, liberal multiculturalists, theocrats, black nationalists, white nationalists, “anarchists” of every possible stripe, neo-Aztecs, UFO enthusiasts, or whatever. Obviously, all of these elements would have very different views on the meaning of life, the role of the human species in the universe, the nature of human beings, the proper relationship between the individual and external institutions or collective entities, the proper means of reproduction and child-rearing, the methods of handling deviants from community norms and much else. Consequently, the laws and legal institutions would differ greatly from community to community.

Many anarchists claim to reject the concept of “law” categorically, but this is simply a matter of semantics. Most anarchists believe that such acts as murder or robbery should be socially disallowed, although there may be considerable disagreement on the causes of the evolution of such sociopathic personalities and how such persons ought to be handled. Unless one prefers a hermitic existence in the Artic or Andes (a reality that would be much more possible in an anarchist world), it is impossible for an individual to exist in the same manner as an asteroid floating about in the vacuum of space. As soon as a particular community is established, norms begin to develop concerning what is and what is not acceptable behavior. It is to be expected that the legal culture of a broader society organized along anarchistic lines would place a high emphasis on individual autonomy, or what the libertarians sometimes call the “non-agression axiom”. Such an emphasis would partly result from the prevalence of anarchistic thought in the broader society. However, it is to be expected, for reasons that will be explained below, that a radically decentralized politico-economic order would naturally evolve along such lines, regardless of the ideological inclinations of its inhabitants.

When surveying the history of past civilizations that eventually collapsed, it becomes clear political disintegration is rarely, if ever, accompanied by any sort of political liberation.  The anarchist anthropologist Harold Barclay notes:

“Periods of so-called cultural or organizational decay in history may suggest this sort of trend (toward decentralization). But what trends do occur in these situations is the creation of a number of petty despotisms out of one which had existed before. Decentralization is not accompanied by freedom. The revolutions and revolts of history and the decay of social systems have invariably entailed the replacement of one kind of despotism by another. Or what is a process of decay of one polity is the basis for the creation of another, so that, for example, the appearance of Clovis’ Frankish kingdom and of the Umayyad caliphate follow on the heels of the decline of Rome.”(49)

It may be expected, then, that the eventual collapse and disintegration of the global superstate of the New World Order will result in the emergence of “petty despotisms” of various kinds as the new basis of political organization. Indeed, the parallels between the current era and Rome in its twilight period are obvious enough. Just as the end of Pax Romana ushered in a whole new era of decentralized politics, technological regression (in the West but not quite so much in the East), and the coming to power of an apocalyptic other-worldly religious movement (Christianity), so might the end of Pax Americana usher in a new era of decentralized politics, technological regression (at least initially) and the expanded influence of an apocalyptic other-worldly religious movement (Islamic fundamentalism).  Just as it was the unwashed barbarians of the Germanic regions who sacked Rome, so it may well be the unwashed barbarians of the modern anti-globalization movement (accompanied by the barbarian hordes emanating from the trailer parks, ghettos, barrios) who eventually sack Washington, D.C.

What are the implications of all this for the matter of law in an anarchistic social order?  Following the collapse of the New World Order global superstate and the nation-states that comprise its provincial governments, the entire panoply of dissident factions who stand in opposition to NWO will naturally achieve superiority or sovereignty in those geographical areas where they are best organized and have achieved the greatest level of popular support. These factions will then proceed to reorganize their internal political structures according to their own ideological inclinations. Such inclinations will range from the highly “liberal” or “progressive” on one hand to the very “conservative” or “reactionary” on the other. Remants of the former system would likely continue in certain enclaves or be incorporated into newer systems in the same manner that elements of contemporary American law include remnants of earlier English law. The laws of the communities, associations and homelands that emerge following the demise of liberal democracy, state capitalism, the nation-state system and the universalistic synthesis of these manifested by the New World Order will reflect the preferences and prejudices of organic regions and localities to a much greater degree than what is found in contemporary systems of parliamentary corporate-social democracy.

Fortunately, there exists in the contemporary world a working model of this type of decentralized legal order. The East African nation of Somalia experienced in the early 1990s the type of disintegration of central government that the entire world is likely to experience at some point in the future. Following this political collapse, the sixty clans that make up the Somali “nation” became largely sovereign entitites unto themselves. The disappearance of the state has largely resulted in the resurrection of traditional society within Somalia. Political “leaders” are primarily the heads of extended families and religious leaders. Disputes among clans, families, businesses and individuals alike are handled largely on the basis of mediation and arbitration. Crimes are dealt with in a manner similar to the handling of torts in Western society, with the emphasis being placed on compensating the wronged party. Since the implementation (or restoration) of this system, both economic prosperity and social peace have multiplied considerably in Somalia.(50)

While the laws regulating the subsystems to be found within an anarchistic meta-system would be highly diverse, certain common characteristics would likely evolve into a formally or customarily codified common law for the entire meta-system. This would stem from two factors. One, under a radically decentralized socio-political order migration from one polity to another becomes more feasible. If one finds a particular community unattractive, the natural solution is to find another community. This in turn means that communities that wished to prosper and preserve themselves would find it necessary to retain the allegiance of their more competent, productive and valued members. Consequently, leaders of particular communities would be motivated to make their communities as attractive as possible to those whose loyalty they wished to obtain. Secondly, ordinary economic incentives would provide both individuals and collective entities with the desire to settle disputes in a cost-effective manner. Resolving conflicts through perpetual war is quite costly to polities that lack control over huge populations and resources that can be conscripted or taxed at will. Shifting the costs of obtaining advantages through political means (i.e., coercive legistlation) onto a broader tax-paying public is also considerably more difficult in the absence of a centralized, tax-supported “democratic” state that can be lobbied towards such ends. This means that the residents of an anarchistic order will have every incentive to find both peaceful means of settling disputes between communities and individuals and limiting their own petitioning of legal institutions to matters of urgent self-interest, such as cases of violent or invasive crimes and serious breaches of contract.(51)

Although individual communities might maintain strong codified laws or informal social taboos and sanctions against behavior that departs drastically from community norms or ideals, the cultivation of an environment of stifling oppression would likely lead to little more than the departure of the communities’ more desirable members. Consequently, the maintenance of communities as closed as those of the Nazis or the Taliban will take place only where ideological fervor is sufficient enough to trump virtually all other considerations, including prosperity and cordial relations with other communities. Likewise, communities would, out of the necessity of self-preservation, establish barriers to forms of social decay likely to be injurious to the overall stability and prosperity of the community. As an example, predatory street crime of the type that the Western nations are increasingly famous for would likely find considerably less toleration among most communities in an anarchistic order, save those organized for the beneficience of the criminals themselves, such as self-managed communities of exiles from other communities. (52)

It it likely that supra-community institutions or arrangements would eventually evolve for the purpose of resolving disputes between contending communities. This by no means implies the necessary reemergence of the state in the traditional sense. Instead, it is more probable that evolved traditions would come into being according to which inter-community disputes might be dealt with through a process of negotiation, mediation or arbitration. Such traditions might serve the same role as conventional “international law” in the current system. A process might also develop whereby individual citizens of one community would be able to effectively file grievances against citizens of another community. In traditional societies, such disputes are typically handled through the compensation of the injured party by the community of the offending party as a whole, thereby providing each community with the incentive to discipline their own members who act in injurious ways towards others, for the sake of preserving both the internal peace within their own community and external peace with other communities.

Disputes between communities or members of different communities would primarily involve ordinary conflicts over territory, resources or common crimes (such as violence and theft) that are prohibited by all cultures and political entities out of necessity. As for the matter of deviation from community norms in a broader cultural sense, different types of communities would obviously handle such questions in their own ways. There already exists in modern states an endless amount of controversy over all sorts of social or cultural questions. Controversy of this type would likely escalate in the absence of conventional states as more and more socio-cultural groups would begin to establish sovereign enclaves of their own. These enclaves might maintain wildly divergent cultural, religious or ethical norms. A seemingly endless list of questions arises. Is abortion a woman’s sacred right or the callous murder of an unborn child? Is homosexuality a natural, healthy expression of human intimacy or vile perversion? Should the ownership of weapons be allowed for all citizens or only for those charged with specific functions related to security and defense? Is the open criticism or even ridicule of leaders and authority figures a vital check on incompetence or malfeasance among leaders or simply an invitation to disorder and disrespect for natural hierarchies? Is the process of reproduction a matter of societal interests to such a degree that external authorities are to have a say in such matters or are these questions simply a private issue between consenting parties? What is to be the proper allocation of resources and how is the just possession and use of such resources to be defined?  Are religious expressions perceived of as blasphemous a simple matter of individual conviction or do these invite the wrath of supernatural powers towards the entire community? To what degree, if any, can be the individual be properly required to perform service towards the greater good of the community at-large?

The important issue for this discussion is not so much the matter of how different communities might answer these questions but rather the manner in which deviations from established norms in these and other areas might be handled. Although it is certainly possible, and indeed likely, that at the initial stages of the formation of various communities the sanctions enacted against deviants would be quite harsh, it is unlikely this will continue indefinitely without alteration or modification. Initially, religious fundamentalist communities might stone heretics or adulterers to death. Communities of political correctness lunatics might engage in the summary execution of racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-semites or vivisectors in a manner emulating the Red Guards of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution or the Khmer Rouge during the Return To Year One. In the polities that would follow the demise of liberal democracy and its institutional appendages, a wave of repression and bloodletting would likely accompany systemic collapse. However, the broader decentralized meta-system would allow the subjects of individual communities to once again “vote with their feet” in the absence of centralized nation-states or the global superstate. This arrangement would have a moderating effect on communities seeking to retain the allegiance of members and subjects. Decentralism, easy migration and a polycentric legal order rooted in negotiations between communities and associations would produce an eventual scenario whereby “diffuse” sanctions would serve as the primary method of enforcing community standards.  These might include everything from ostracism and economic reprisals (“discrimination”) to “private” forms of violence (such as fighting, duelling or vigilantism) to public censure and reprimand of a non-coercive nature (the so-called “bully pulpit”.)

The Death of Modernity

In the early period of the post-NWO world, occurrences resembling those that followed the collapse of Rome would likely transpire. During that period, roving bands of Christian zealouts traveled about destroying pagan monuments and artifacts.(53) Similar behavior on the part of various anti-NWO elements is likely as well. A case in point is the destruction of Buddhist monuments by the former Taliban government of Afghanistan. Another example might be the zeal for the destruction of monuments to the late Confederate society of the American South found among the left-wing elements in my own community of Richmond, Virginia. While revolution is usually accompanied by chaos, and followed by a period of reaction, eventually stabilization begins to take place and the ordinary process of natural social evolution resumes. Therefore, the purges, bloodletting and waves of repression that would naturally follow the disorder involved in the destruction of the NWO would eventually give way to the establishment of a new type of decentralized order such as that which developed in Western Europe during the post-Roman, medieval era. Indeed, the destruction of international state capitalism would in many ways be nothing more than the restoration of pre-modern traditional society with its emphasis on localism, regionalism, tribalism, particularism, religion,  polycentrism and the like. The rapid growth, on a worldwide basis, of Islam in general and Islamic fundamentalism in particular, and the corresponding explosion of Christianity in Asia, Africa and Latin America (and to a lesser degree, the growth of Christian fundamentalism is North America), attests to this.(54) The specific civilization that is commonly referred to as “modernism” is already approaching a stage of advanced decay. Therefore, the eventual disappearance of modernism in a way that parallels the disappearance of Greco-Roman civilization can be predicted with relative safety.

If current demographic trends continue, it can be expected that a “post-modern” (not post-modernism in the popularized sense) world would exhibit certain predictable characteristics. Islam may well become the world’s largest religion, and continue to dominate the Middle East and many other parts of Asia, and eventually come to dominate Europe and parts of North America as well. The future strongholds of Christianity will likely be found in the southern hemisphere and East Asia, particularly the Pacific Rim region. The particularly primitive form of Christian fundamentalism found in North America may come to dominate much of that continent. These expanded or revitalized religions, along with revitalized regional or local organic communities or ethno-cultures, will likely be the basis of the social structures of the future world. This too would be a development that paralleled the society of the medieval period. Once the stabilization of this order became seriously rooted, the foundation for further human social evolution of a genuinely progressive nature would be established. Substantial historical precedent can be found for this simply by looking at the progression of medieval society in the period leading up to the Enlightenment. If classical Greece at its height can be compared with the intellectual culture of the Renaissance, then contemporary modern civilization can be compared with Rome in it geriatric years.

The Enlightenment would have been impossible without the Middle Ages, for it was the decentralized and polycentric order of medieval Europe that inadvertently provided the cultural framework for the intellectual development that characterized the Enlightenment.(55) The most important characteristic of medieval society was the lack of a significant concentration of power. The monarchs had to share power with the popes and vice versa. Different manors, fiefdoms, feudatories, kingdoms, tribes and other political entities had to share power with one another as none were ever able to acquire the upper hand. This decentralization allowed the individual more latitude with which to “vote with his feet” and placed an enormous check on the power of rulers in the manner previously discussed, and so limited their predations. Perpetual negotiations and re-negotiations between kings and commoners and between rival kingdoms led to the intellectual conceptualization of such ideas as “freedom”, “liberty” and “rights” that eventually became intertwined with Enlightenment political culture.

The Demographic and Cultural Implications of Anarchism

It has been argued that the current world civilization (“modernism”) is on its deathbed in a manner resembling the expiration of Greco-Roman civilization. It has been argued that the dominant political paradigm of modernism (liberal democracy) is doomed due to its own fatal contradictions. Drawing on the past historical experience of the collapse of Rome and the emergence of the decentralized polities of the medieval period, it has been argued that a similar decentralization is likely to transpire following the demise of the New World Order, which is simply the final stage of modernism, liberal democracy, the evolution of the modern state and state capitalism. It has been argued that a principal characteristic of a post-NWO world will likely be the dramatic reemergence of particularism. It has also been argued that out of this world order of decentralization and particularism, now matter how retrograde it may be in its initial stages, there might very likely evolve a new politico-economic paradigm whereby philosophical anarchism or voluntary association replaces liberal democracy and worker-oriented productive institutions come to replace capitalism and corporatism. Likewise, a decentralized political order and a polycentric legal order would generate a high level of individual autonomy and responsibility. The removal of parasitical state bureaucracies from human economic life would, in the long run, generate greater economic prosperity and corresponding increases in health and living standards and wider dispersion of economic resources. This type of scenario would then lay the intellectual, cultural and material framework for the emergence of a new renaissance of human civilizational achievement in a manner resembling that of the classical Greek or classical Renaissance periods, and a new revolution in science, philosophy and politics of the type that occurred during the early stages of the Enlightenment.

There are still other interesting questions regarding sociological, cultural or demographic matters that are certainly worth considering. One of these involves the matter of immigration. (56) This is an issue that is becoming increasingly more controversial in the Western nations. Broadly described, immigration opponents regard unwanted migrants as a source of increased crime, competition for scarce employment opportunities, dilution and erosion of established culture, burdens on tax-financed social services and, in some instances, depletion of particular ethnic or regional identities. Pro-immigrationists regard immigration as a source of cultural diversity and enrichment, cheap labor for business interests, a source of strength for favored ethnic groups, humanitarian asylum for refugees from political oppression or deplorable socio-economic conditions, individual freedom of movement and travel and economic progress derived from the importation of foreigners possessing valuable skills. Both sides on this conflict have a habit of oversimplifying the issues involved. Whatever one’s views on the matter of immigration, it is interesting to look at how this issue might been handled under anarchistic institutions and what the results would be.

As for my own views on the subject of immigration, let me say that I am in favor of the free migration of peoples. I oppose border police, passport laws, visa requirements and customs inspectors. I regard the INS as just another police state organization of the same type as the FBI, DEA or BATF. However, I also believe that a system of genuine free migration would produce results more favorable to contemporary anti-immigrationists. The current international system is about as far removed from a system of free migration as it could possibly be. The existence of passport laws or border police is only a minor aspect of the overall statism that currently dominates international travel. Indeed, current migration patterns represent the influence of the broader imperialistic and social engineering schemes of international state capitalism. First and foremost, it must be recognized that many Third World immigrants into First World nations are in fact refugees from political and economic conditions created by the imperialist policies towards the Third World established by the First World. The legacy of the colonialism of Old Europe has been the disruption and destruction of organic social structures of the indigenous societies of the Third World. Africa is an excellent case in point. The strategy of the colonialists was to destroy indigenous forms of self-rule on that continent and play off different ethnic factions against one another in a classic “divide and conquer” maneuver, thereby eradicating any and all popular resistance to the pillaging of the continent. The enduring legacy of this has been perpetual instability, bloody ethnic conflict and terminal poverty on a continent with the greatest abundance of natural resources in the world. Similarly,  much Latin American immigration into the United States has been inspired by the poverty and civil war perpetuated or aggravated by nearly a century of American imperialism in that region. Persons in First World nations are justified in criticizing Third World immigration into their own regions only to the degree that they recognize and oppose imperialist efforts on the part of their own states toward the Third World. The best bet for those wishing to reduce Third World immigration into the northern hemisphere would be the achievement of political, economic and cultural sovereignty and eventual stability for the Third World.

It is also necessary to recognize the degree to which the domestic states of the First World encourage immigration into their own territories by means of social, as well as foreign, policy. As most Third World immigrants are poor and uneducated, their increased presence automatically necessitates the expansion of social and educational services, thereby justifying the further expansion of the state and higher levels of taxation. As poor immigrants are disproportionately prone to street crime, increased numbers of police, the construction of new prisons and the expansion of the state’s apparatus of control (the so-called “criminal justice system”) can be sold more easily to the general public. Immigrants create an expanded demand for social welfare-related entitlements and therefore a larger social welfare bureaucracy with greater employment security for welfare bureaucrats. Various ethnic lobbies understandably wish to increase the numerical ranks of their own constituents and push for increased immigration by members of their own ethnic/racial/national group. Corporate lobbies view immigrants willing to work for lower wages as a means of reducing labor costs and the overall individual and collective bargaining power of workers and push for pro-immigration policies along side left-wing “multiculturalists” who associate any and all opposition to immigration with fascism, nazism, slavery, genocide, ad nauseum. Additionally, the embarrassingly low quality of American education, particularly in the arts and sciences, virtually necessitates the importation of skilled technical and professional workers from other regions into the USA. The interests of the central state are served by the immigration of peoples possessing a drastically different cultural identity into the host nation. The standard tactic of states everywhere who rule over diverse populations-“divide and conquer”-can be employed must more easily and effectively in such a scenario. Of course, this can only work for so long. Eventually, such systems collapse and the ethno-cultural or religious antagonisms whose flames have been fanned by the prior ruling elite ignite.

Those who favor “liberal” immigration policies on civil libertarian or humanitarian grounds have a point. As the international power of the New World Order continues to be consolidated and the First World nations degenerate into ever greater authoritarianism, it is likely that attacks on those who dissent from the dictates of the Establishment will continue to expand. Being able to flee from one political jurisdiction to another is a vital means of countering such attacks. As the policing systems of the corporate-social democratic states of the West continue to more closely resemble paramilitary occupational forces, it can be expected that police units of this type charged with the enforcement of immigration law will be increasingly incorporated into consolidated state security units along with those charged with investigation or enforcement with regards to “terrorism”, “diversity”, “drugs”, “firearms”, “public morality”, “sedition” and the like. Whatever one’s views on immigration, it is not strategically advantageous to favor the expansion of the state’s current enforcement apparatus as a means of curbing it.

Opponents of the New World Order and the state-corporate ruling class include both staunch anti-immigrationists and stanch pro-immigrationists. Anarchistic politics offers a way of dealing with this conflict. The first order of business would be to deny state entitlements to non-citizens or require a long waiting period (say, fifteen years) before immigrants could become eligible for such entitlements. This would go a long way towards resolving the pressures on social services resulting from massive immigration. Such a policy would also be very likely to generate overwhelming popular support, although much of the radical left would falsely regard such an effort as racist or xenophobic. Cultural conflicts and social antagonisms generated by immigration could be handled more effectively simply by removing legal barriers to “discrimination” against immigrants. Forced integration only exacerbates hostility beween social groups. Allowing different groups to practice mutual self-segregation and sovereignty may be a partial way out of this predicament. Again, the liberal establishment and the reactionary left will regard such ideas as heresy, but this only demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of these elements. Another idea might be to decentralize the immigration and naturalization process to the local level, as is currently the case in Switzerland. This way, different communities could adopt for themselves immigration policies that were as restrictive or as permissive at they desired. Of course, such  a decentralized immigration policy could only work if politics in general were to be decentralized. Otherwise, different regions and localities would simply view immigrants as a means of expanding the voting block for their own territory in order to obtain more subsidies and favors from central government.

Economic decentralization would also help to stabilize international migration patterns.  An economy ordered on the basis of localized production for local use would not involve the relocation of productive facilities to regions with more easily exploitable labor. If workers owned or operated their own economic institutions they would not be particularly inclined to fire themselves in favor of cheap imported labor or to ship their jobs abroad. Also, solidarity and cooperation among workers on an international level against the corporate powers that be would improve the situation of workers everywhere by preserving the economic stability of First World workers and reducing the exploitability of Third World workers. International labor unions and cooperatives organized on the old anarcho-syndicalist model might be the proper path with regards to these questions. There is also the matter of the responsibility of communities and private groups in the broader sense. Those who champion immigration on humanitarian grounds should be prepared to put their time and money where their mouth is. During the 1980s, the “sanctuary” movement in the Southwestern United States, composed mostly of Catholic and evangelical churches, provided asylum to refugees from the wars that were then raging in Central America, largely as a result of the imperialistic policies of the US regime. This was often done in defiance of US law, and those being assisted were genuine victims of political persecution and military aggression. At the same time, “asylum” laws in some countries are simply a means of creating clients for social welfare agencies and granting safe haven to criminals who happen to belong to favored social groups. Such abuse might be curbed through the transference of responsibility for such matters to non-governmental organizations. Likewise, in some communities large scale immigration is the source of a genuine crime problem. Reliance on local militias rather than the state’s immigration enforcement and policing systems would likely prove to be more productive.

Immigration is only one issue in the broader “culture wars” that are currently being waged in the Western states, particularly America. Typically, the scenario is described as an impending showdown between “conservative” or “reactionary” forces on one end and “liberal” or “progressive” forces on the other. The stereotypical combatant on the liberal side is a tofu-munching, unkempt, unbathed neurotic railing hysterically against racism, sexism, homophobia, looksism, transphobia, producerism, et. al., with his conservative counterpart being a flag-waving, Bible-banging, pious prig who issues warnings to Middle Americans concerning the imminent homo-doper menace to their children by day, while cruising for teenage male prostitutes by night. Somewhere in between is the libertarian stereotype with his credit cards in one pocket and crack cocaine in the other. Stereotypes are usually derived from the generalization or exaggeration of perceptions that have some basis in actual facts. Unfortunately, the types of human waste material being discussed here are also very easy to find in various opposition movements from the Left and Right. I suspect one of the reasons that anti-Establishment elements in American politics enjoy so little success is the tendency of these to adopt the most small-minded perspective on cultural matters imaginable.  Populist-oriented tendencies have been more influential in European than American politics in recent times, probably because of the efforts of populist figures in Europe to transcend the conventional left/right cultural-ideological boundaries.  Whatever one thinks of Jean-Marie Le Pen, he comes across as an educated, worldly man unafraid to address working class issues and make common cause with the Left on such matters, as his attraction of considerable Communist cross-over votes demonstrates. The closest thing in American politics to Le Pen is Patrick Buchanan, a man who combines many sensible and thoughful ideas with the standard right-wing American hysteria over the alleged threat posed by dirty books, flag-burners and unisex toilets.

Even more interesting is the case of the late Pim Fortuyn, a truly original political figure who might have seriously shaken up the Establishment had he survived to do so.(57) It is indicative of the nature of the reactionary left that a man who sought to curb immigration from backward, feudal, theocratic Islamic nations into liberal Northern European nations, where gays and feminists enjoy considerable influence, would be assassinated, ironically, not by a Muslim but by a reactionary leftist, political correctness fanatic, who equated the gay libertarian Fortuyn with Adolf Hitler. This act as much as any other demonstrates that the guiding values of the reactionary left are absurdism, nihlism and masochism rather than socialism or liberalism. Nevertheless, the Left includes many sincere and reasonable people in addition to the riff raff, just as the Right includes many authentic populists alongside the Know-Nothings. A new political synthesis that transcends boundaries of Left, Right and Center is necessary if the international ruling class is to be successfully combatted. The first step is to begin to work around the cultural differences to be found among anti-Establishment elements. The key is to focus on issues that concern ordinary working people rather than the cultural fringes. Most people do not think that  Nazis or Commies or homosexuals or homophobes are hiding under every bed. Most of the current anarchist factions originate from extremist elements of one kind or another. This situation is not wholly undesirable as it provides fertile ground for the evolution of a Left-Right anarcho-fusionism. Yet, for such a synthesis to reach its full potential, the Centrist perspective, particularly on cultural matters, has to be included as well. Most people are cultural and social moderates rather than hard leftists or hard rightists. Any authentic populism has to appeal to the sensibilities of ordinary people and, as populism and anarchism are closely related, any authentic anarchism must do so as well.(58)

Anarcho-Populism: A New Political Force?

An effective political outlook or strategy requires the development of a certain hierarchy of priorities. Those issues that are the most pressing and on which there is the most common agreement should be the primary focus. Issues of this type come in two categories: those that are the most serious for the world as a whole but are often recognized only by the small number of people who are actually capable of independent thinking beyond the influence of peers and leaders, and those that are foremost on the mind of the common man.(59) The most important issue in the contemporary world is the consolidation of an international Leviathan in the form of the proto-state of the New World Order under the boot of American imperialism and its Anglo-Zionist allies. This is an issue that is more commonly recognized in the Eastern world and in those Western nations outside of the Anglosphere. Consequently, serious opposition to the New World Order will have to originate from those parts of the world. The international trend towards the universalization of American-style “capitalist democracy” (welfare-warfare corporate statism) should be countered by the emergence of an Eastern block whose members assert their common independence from Washington and are supported by an alliance of dissident forces within the Anglosphere itself. The American conquest and annexation of Iraq under direct colonial administration has been vehemently opposed by most of the world, particularly the nations of France, Germany, Russia and Belgium and the nations of the Islamic world. Therefore, the natural leadership of an international resistance to American imperialism should come from these nations. The question is the matter of what type of strategic-ideological formulation would get the job done.

Larry Gambone argues that a principal source of division between the Anglosphere on one hand and the nations of continental Europe and Asia on the other is the ideology of neoconservatism.  It is only in the Anglo nations that this peculiar tendency has thrived. This is a highly elitist ideology whose adherents are numerically small but whose core tenets have become standard policy for the Anglo nations, particularly the USA. Gambone attributes this to the “winner take all” structure of Anglo-American electoral systems as opposed to the proportional systems of the European continent.(60) This may be true, but I suspect the success of the neocons is more likely the result of their efforts to work their way into positions as court intellectuals and the close-knit, cult-like, often family and kinship based nature of the internal structure of their movement. Many in the paleoconservative milieu ( Paul Gottfried, for instance) argue that the globalist ambitions of the neocons originate from the Marxist or Trotskyist roots of some of their leading theoreticians.(61) According to this view, the neocons simply substitute global capitalist democracy for international socialism as the motivation for their messianic zeal. Larry Gambone argues that the neocons have more in common with another messianic ideology from the twentieth century: fascism. Says Gambone:

“In its eclectic nature, its authoritarianism, militarism, statism, hostility for real democracy, centralism, Jacobinism, mercantilism, corporatism and Big Lie propaganda, neoconservatism is very similar to fascism. But of course, it is not fascism in the true sense, with its ambiguity about nationalism, and the lack of the party-army, mass mobilization of the population, leader-concept and a popular corporatist ideology. It could be seen as a moderate substitute for fascism…”(62)

In other words, neoconservatism is as close to fascism as Anglo-American political culture will accept.

My own studies of the nature and origin of neoconservative ideology lead me to the conclusion that the Jewish ethnicity of most of the intellectual exponents of this perspective is essential to understanding their ambitions and beliefs. For the sake of avoiding the usual misunderstandings and accusations, let me say that I am not an “anti-Semite” and generally hold Judaism in higher regard than the other religions originating from the Near East.(63) Nor do I have any special objection to the nation of Israel, beyond its vile oppression of the Palestinian people and its maintenance of a fifth column within domestic American politics. Yet to avoid the discussion of real and immensely important questions out of fear of giving the appearance of impropriety is foolish. Considering the ethnic or religious motivations of those pursuing particular aims is indispensable to sound political analysis. If there is any issue on which the neocons can be counted on to behave with absolute consistency, it is their rabid Zionism. It seems relatively unimportant as to whether the neocons draw their greatest inspiration from Robespierre, Trotsky or Mussolini. Those who seek absolute power are likely to resemble all of these in certain ways. The more serious question involves the matter of why they seek such power in the first place (beyond ordinary pathology) and what they intend to do with it.

Since the neocons’ takeover of the foreign policy apparatus of the US, their political opponents have begun to examine the influence of Leo Strauss on the neoconservative world view. Virtually all of the leading neoconservative intellectuals, from Irving Kristol to David Horowitz, cite Strauss as a major influence. Some, like Paul Wolfowitz, are his former students. The left-wing scholar Shadia Drury describes Straussian thought as extremely elitist in nature, rooted in a belief in the unfitness of the masses for self-determination and the need for political authority to vested in Machiavellian leaders whose principal function is to preserve those myths and fairy tales, whether religious or national, by which the masses can be rallied to the defense of the state. The role of the intellectual is to serve as a court advisor to such leaders. Strauss’ adoption of such views seems to be rooted in his experience as a German-Jewish refugee from the Hitler regime. Strauss blamed the liberal political climate of the Weimar Republic for allowing the ascendency of the Nazis. In his view, this discredited political pluralism as a means of achieving sanctuary for the Jews. While he may not have said so directly (a not surprising fact given his taste for esotericism), Strauss seems to have developed the idea that the best course for Jews would be to develop authoritarian states that they would either rule directly, such as Israel (Strauss was a rabid Zionist), or serve as court intellectuals and thereby influence the practice of statecraft, as in America. Hence, the development of neoconservative ideology by his students and admirers.(64)

Of course, the neoconservatives could have never achieved their present level of power without accomplices, primarily the traditional right-wing of the US ruling class-oil barons, armaments manufacturers, elite banking interests, etc.-and the Christian Zionist dullards who serve as their ground forces and shock troops  It might be said that the neocons play the role of the NSDAP with Halliburton, Boeing, et. al. filling the position of Krupp and Farben. Perhaps the Christian Zionists are playing the role of the SA.(65) Just as the world united for the defeat of Fascism and National Socialism sixty years ago, so must the world unite for the defeat of the neocons and the New World Order of whom they are the most militant proponents. Outside the Anglosphere, the most successful opponents of the New World Order thus far have been adherents of what Kenneth Schmidt refers to as “populist nationalism”:

“In Europe, these days particularly, nationalism has replaced communism as the threat which unites the center-left and the center-right. In recent days, all one has to do is pick up a newspaper and the names jump out at you: Le Pen, Fortuyn, Haider, Kajarrlstad. What are the reasons for the rise of populist-tinged nationalism? In the so-called Western world, a great rift has developed between the ordinary people and the elites that rule over them. The fact that the elites and the common people have always had different world views is a given. I contend, however, that never in the history of European civilization has there been such a large gap in the way our elites see the world and how the common folk see the world.  The historian and social thinker Christopher Lasch had a term for this, he called it a “Revolt of the Elites”. The people that rule over us-the big business managerial elite, the media barons, the Zionists and the Manhattan intelligencia-adhere to values that are strongly at variance with those of the working and middle-class…”(66)

Schmidt notes that populist-nationalist parties in Europe have primarily eclipsed the radical left rather than the center-right. The center-right and center-left parties have essentially identical positions: neo-liberal economics and left-egalitarian cultural values. It is for this reason that, despite the relative vibrance of the anti-globalization movement, the far left will fail as a revolutionary force against the international ruling class. On cultural matters, the Far Left differs from the left-wing of capital only with regards to the question of degree.  The Libertarians are in a similar position, differing from the neo-liberal economics of the Establishment only on questions of degree rather than principle. Some have even gone so far as to endorse flagrantly mercantilist arrangements such as NAFTA. It should also be noted that most rank-and-rile supporters of “populist nationalism” throw their allegiance behind those whom they perceive as representing their own interests, rather than some grand principle. While “populist nationalism” may have its roots in the Far Right, its ability to attract sympathy from mainstream working people, crossover leftists and even some libertarians, such as those of the paleo variety, establishes it as a force with considerable potential.

I am not a nationalist and I regard the principal flaws in nationalism to be its tendency towards chauvinism and its usually inadequate critique of the state.(67) Leaders like Le Pen, Fortuyn, Haider and Buchanan may have laid an important foundation but much, much more work needs to be done. I have argued in this paper that philosophical anarchism represents a potential alternative paradigm to the contemporary paradigm of state-capitalist liberal democracy. Elsewhere, I have argued that populism is likely to be the proper means to anarchism.(68) Hence, what I am proposing is a new strategic paradigm and, to a certain extent, a new school of anarchist thought that I call “anarcho-populism”. This new brand of anarchism would draw on the other schools in various ways. The classical anarchism originally developed by Proudhon would be its foundation. Like anarcho-socialism, anarcho-populism would be anti-capitalist and pro-class struggle. Like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-populism would endorse property, markets and the independent sector as an antidote to statism, corporatism and welfarism. Along with leftist-anarchists, this new anarchist tendency would support political freedom and cultural self-determination for racial minorities, women, gays and the like but would not seek to mindlessly glorify or privilege these groups or demonize white males. Along with primitivists and eco-anarchists, anarcho-populism would seek to preserve the natural environment, but without the misanthropy and anti-tech hysteria of much modern environmentalism. Like national-anarchists, anarcho-populism would endorse the right of traditional racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups to self-preservation and political sovereignty and cross-cultural, cross-ideological alliances against the NWO, but would seek to branch out into “mainstream” society rather than seek out reclusive isolation from the modern world. Revolution rather than withdrawal. On cultural matters, anarcho-populism would endorse organic society, evolved and historic traditions and natural evolution in opposition to either “cultural conservatism” (which implies stasis or chauvinism) or “progressivism” (with its incipient universalism or utopianism). Our icons would be Aristotle, Burke, Jefferson, Stirner, Proudhon, Nietzsche, Mencken, Dennis, Hayek, Nisbet and Kirk rather than Rousseau, Marx and Adorno or William F. Buckley, Margaret Thatcher and Rush Limbaugh.(69)

Resisting the Empire

It has been mentioned that leadership in building a consensus and alliance against the New World Order and American imperialism would necessarily have to come from outside the Anglosphere. While admirably opposing imperial aggression against the Islamic nations, the nations of continental Western Europe are too influenced by American cultural values, political correctness being largely an American export, and their elite classes are too intertwined with American capitalism to initiate consistent leadership against these things. These nations are in a process of social and economic decay and are militarily weak. Also, their lengthy history of formal alliances with the US regime will be altered only with considerable struggle and difficulty. The Arab nations are too poor to lead such a resistance and the Asian nations are more interested in buying American consumer goods than resisting American imperialism. Ideally, leadership in the development of an anti-NWO, anti-Anglo-Zionist block would come from Russia. First, Russia is second only to the US in military strength. Second, Russia has a long history of serving as a counterbalance to Western, particularly American, imperialisms, even if it was done under the decaying, backward regimes of the czars or the political deformation of communism. Archonis, a national-anarchist commentator, observes:

“The Russian people and politicians must forge ahead in the ‘Red-Brown’ alliance of Left and Right populism and decentralization, and return Russia to a nation of small institutions, but with adequate defenses and an agrarian economy. The civil institutions must be made small…along the lines of farming and guild socialism. The military defenses including nuclear weapons must be built up.

“Russia should forge alliances with China and the Middle East, along with Europe, and be the center of power in a domain that embraces both the East and West…guard the resources of its former satellites…and…maintain control of the oil and mineral reserves…(T)he economic survival of Eurasia as a whole is predicated on the interdependence on all of the countries of Europe as well as China and India.   …Without Europe unifying with Russia and Asia, along with the Middle East, …(these nations) will end up being a ‘Client-State-Network’, dominated by U. S. hegemony.

“A united Eurasia could pressure (the Anglo-American-Zionist axis) with trade sanctions and disinvestment,…form an intra-net and cut off these countries from their portion of the Internet. The only recourse imperialist nations could turn to would be war, but as long as Eurasia has weapons of mass destruction this will not happen. U.S. imperialists…are greedy, decadent cowards who only care about keeping their wealth and nothing else. They cannot comprehend the honor-concept of war. They only understand war as a tool of ‘gunboat’ diplomacy….

“Even in conventional warfare, Russia and the large Eurasian landmass has an advantage over the balkanized sea-surrounded lands. Movement is quicker and there are more options for strategic deployment. There are hosts of areas with strange peoples and terrains in the former Soviet Asia, and Chechens and the Turkic peoples…have training in unconventional warfare. In the event of war against Eurasia by the imperialists, Russia and China and the peoples of the former Soviet Asia could provide the fighting forces, whereas the European flank can levy diplomatic and economic sanctions…”(70)

While the downfall and disintegration of the USSR was, for the most part, a positive occurrence, one of its negative side effects has been the creation of power vacuum that American imperialism has been all too eager to fill, thereby generating an even greater concentration of power on a global scale. The sort of revitalized Russia that Archonis hopes for, a Russia rooted in its own traditional culture, a culture that produced Tolstoy and Doestevsky and Bakunin and Kropotkin, and minus the crackpot ideology of Soviet communism and its accompanying bureaucratic monolith, might indeed be the force needed to successfully challenge the hegemony of the Anglo-American-Zionist triumvirate, the genuine “Axis of Evil”. Such as an effort within the Russian nation would require visionary leadership founded on recognition of the necessity of looking beyond conventional ideological, cultural or national boundaries towards the creation of an anti-imperialist block. The Russian philosopher and political figure Alexander Dugin postulates the concept of “Eurasianism” as the means to such ends. Dugin explains:

“To whom are we addressing the call to enter and to back our movement? To each Russian, educated or not, influential and the last of the dispossessed, to the worker and to the manager, to the needy and the well-off, to the Russian and the Tatar, to the Orthodox and the Jew, to the conservative and the modernist, to the student and the defender of the law, to the soldier and the weaver, to the governor and the rock musician….The movement ‘Eurasian’ is founded on the principles of the radical centre. We are neither leftists nor rightists, we are neither slavishly compliant to the authorities, nor oppositionists barking with a reason and without at any costs…

“Russia will seriously be faced with the purpose of rescuing itself and the rest of the world from the terrible threat which creeps from the West…

“In the religious sphere it means constructive and solid dialogue between the traditional creeds of Russia: Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism…In the sphere of foreign policy, Eurasianism implies a wide process of strategic integration…spread to wider areas-to the countries of the Moscow-Teheran-Delhi-Beijing axis…priority relations with the European countries…active cooperation with the countries of the Pacific region…active and universal opposition to globalization…

“Eurasianism defends the blossoming complexity of peoples, religions and nations…a combination of strategic unity and ethno-cultural (in definite cases, economic) autonomies. Different ways of life at the local level…Eurasianism is primarily addressed to the youth, to the people whose consciousness has not yet been spoiled by random leaps from one inadequate ideological pattern to another, even less adequate…”(71)

Dugin mentions a number of ideological tendencies that are involved in the struggle against New World Order imperialism. These include Orthodoxy, Islam, Traditionalism, Conservative Revolution, National Bolshevism, Third Way, Russian nationalism, Socialism, Islamic socialism, Eurasianism, Nationalism (in general), Anarchism (in its various manifestions), New Left, New Right and a good number of others.(72) While it is true that there is a vast array of tendencies struggling against the common imperial enemy, and that tactical alliances between these forces is necessary and legitimate, there remains the practical matter of how such differences within the revolutionary ranks can be accommodated. Fortunately, the “national-anarchist” theories of Troy Southgate and David Michael provide some clues as to how to proceed. (73)Whatever one’s views on the state, the ideal formation of the state, and the proper role of the state in human political or civil society, it is abundantly clear that, as a matter of expediency, statist centralization is simply incompatible with the formulation of solid tactical alliances against the common imperial enemy. The establishment of strong states in ostensible opposition to the NWO, but where the state is ordered on the basis of bitter factionalism with an ongoing danger of internal cannibalization, will inevitably have a corrupting effect on the resistance forces whereby one or another contending faction can be induced to stab the others in the back by means of bribery and offers of greater power on the part of the enemy. One need only look at the the ruling classes of the so-called “moderate” Arab nations to see a graphic illustration of this point.

The conventional nation-state system has been rendered obsolete by the consolidation of the NWO global superstate. Therefore, old-style nationalisms are irrelevant. The proper form of social organization to be offered in oppostion to the global superstate is the organic local, regional, cultural or ideological community. Within all traditional nations, many tendencies stand in opposition to the NWO, from the Far Left to the Far Right to the Radical Center to libertarians, anarchists, religious communities, Greens, “Beyond Left and Right” and others.  Single-issue unity on the part of these forces for the purpose of pulling their respective nations out of the imperial system seems to be the way to go. Points of contention can be dealt with more effectively through decentralization. For example, in the nation of France, opponents of American imperialism and the NWO include the Communists and Greens from the left, nationalists on the right along with Muslims and Catholic traditionalists. Yet there is considerable disagreement among these divergent forces on many issues, particularly immigration. Conversion to a decentralized political infrastructure, such as the Swiss canton system or the federalism of Old America, might allow different factions autonomy and self-determination within their own enclaves. There could be towns and cities governed by the National Front, the Greens, Islamists, Communists or whomever. In many nations, forces such as these constitute a majority against the center-left/center-right, pro-NWO ruling classes.(74)

What about the fate of those countries currently enduring the greatest assault at the hands of the imperialists? The resistance forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan are notoriously divided, persistently on the verge of internal civil war and include collaborators and traitors from all points within their ranks. How much different would the fate of Iraq be, if the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds each agreed to sovereignty within their own historic regions, with internal sovereignty for individual tribes and clans, and additional enclaves for minorites like the Assyrian Christians, and common unity and resistance to the imperial conqueror? If the contending tribes, religious and ethnic factions of Afghanistan adopted a polycentric order of the Somali variety, Afghanistan’s current status as a colony of Western oilmen might be drastically altered. Likewise, the relegation of the Palestinian people to the “One Big Concentration Camp” that the West Bank has become might be reversed if Anglo-Zionist imperial power had a decentralized but confederated Eurasian block, organized on the basis of a defensive, diplomatic and economic tactical alliance, to contend with.

What about the struggle within the “belly of the beast” itself, the nations of the Anglosphere? If, as Kenneth Schmidt argues, the ideology of the ruling class is “libertarian in its economic views and left-wing multiculturalist in its social policies”(75), then it stands to reason that the natural opposition would be the reverse: libertarian in social matters but “left-wing” (radical and revolutionary) in economics, i.e., “libertarian socialism”. By “libertarian”, I am not referring to utopian universalism of either the left-progressivist or liberal-consumerist variety. Rather, I am referring to an authentic cultural diversity rooted in such anarchistic principles as individual autonomy, voluntary association, mutual aid and decentralism. By “socialism”, I do not mean statism of either a Marxist or nationalist variety but something more consistent with the original meaning of socialism-an economy of the producers, by the producers and for the producers. “Producerism”, as the reactionary leftist Chip Berlet might call it.(76) The established schools of  anarchism each have something to offer, as I pointed out earlier. However, there remains the question of how anarchism is to break out of its various ideological ghettos and into mainstream society. From classical anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, we derive the class struggle. From libertarian-individualist anarchism, we champion the individual against the state. From enviro-anarchism, we approach material and technological development with a watchful eye. With neo-anarchism, we champion the downtrodden and marginalized. With national-anarchism, we seek the preservation of indigenous cultures and ideological diversity. But the point remains that most people care little, if anything, about any of this.

To develop an effective anti-ruling class strategy, the structure and tactics of the ruling elite must first be understood. The Anglo nations, particularly America, are dominated by two largely identical parties that represent contending factions of the corrupt elites. The right-wing of the ruling class consists primarily of “old money”, i.e, banking, oil, agricultural cartels, arms merchants, etc. The left-wing of the ruling class consists of newer, high-tech, capital intensive industries such as media, entertainment, medical and computer related corporate interests. Both principal factions cement their support base by appealing to contending cultural factions-“social conservatives”, the dominant ethnic group and religious fundamentalists on one end and elite members of minority groups, union bosses, public sector workers and environmentalists on the other. Zionists appear to be rather influential within both camps. The key to building any sort of successful opposition would be to disrupt and neutralize existing ruling class coalitions.(77)

For An Anarchist Vanguard

It is interesting to note that existing ruling class factions and their constituencies include some rather bizarre alliances. What exactly do aristocratic country clubbers have in common with backwoods religious fundamentalists? Yet both are a part of the Republican coalition. What do traditional working class union members have in common with militants from the homosexual counterculture? Yet both are a part of the Democratic coalition. An effective oppositional coalition would draw away certain elements from both of the enemy coalitions, yielding them ineffectual. To achieve this objective, several strategies might need to be simultaneously employed. First, there is the question of leadership. Mark Gillespie postulates the idea of an “anarchist vanguard” whose primarily function is the construction of an anti-ruling class coalition. Says Gillespie:

“Anarchists can work to foster alliances between disparate groups. As mediators and vision-holders, we can help each group to see that uniting for the common goal of freedom, trumps their own agendas. After all, once the government is gone, no one will care if you set up an all-black, all-white, all-Jew, all-Muslim, all-socialist, all-capitalist community. We should pick up the torch of unity and educate people into respecting the diverse views of others. I may like what you’re doing, saying, being, etc. but I will defend to the death your right to do, say or be it.”(78)

This kind of modern Voltairian outlook might serve as the core principle of the anarchist vanguard. In a sense, we should seek to emulate our deadly enemies, the neoconservatives, in an effort to become a highly influential element in great disproportion to our actual numbers. David Michael suggests that such an effort might be done through non-traditional political strategies such as resource acquisition, alliance building and community formation.(79) This could include the establishment of self-sufficient intentional communities, alternative media, alternative economic institutions and even alternative legal institutions or defense organizations as some in the U.S. militia/patriot/constitutionalist movement have sought to do. Such communities and institutions might eventually develop a cultural presence and identity of their own in the same manner that the divergent ethnic groups in large cities currently do. These could in turn be the building blocks of localized political movements and, eventually, full-blown local and regional secessionist or autonomist movements.

Hans Hoppe argues that the proliferation of independent or semi-independent free cities, such as those that emerged in the latter Middle Ages, might be the core institutional foundation for the subversion of modern centralist, imperialist states. (80)A core idea within the national-anarchist milieu is the creation of anti-establishment communities functioning on a largely autarchic basis, highly diverse in their cultural and ideological orientation, but mutually supportive of one another against the common enemy.(81) In this way, a common alliance of those wanting out of the System could develop. Divergent forces might form a common agreement to work to gain political preeminence in their own areas of influence with each agreeing to support the others in their efforts to do so as well.  Thus, communities formed by the All-African Peoples’ Revolutionary Party in the inner-city regions might be tactically aligned with similar communities formed by the Militia of Montana in rural areas.

While efforts of these types might go along way as far as dealing with “extremist” elements within the ranks of various oppositional tendencies, and such elements might form the core consitutencies of an anti-ruling class coalition, there remains the question of how to reach mainsteam working people not inclined towards any sort of clearly articulated ideological structures or any particular aspect of peripheral cultures. Troy Southgate argues that a tactic known as “entryism” might be appropriate as far as creating an organizational infrastructure that can be utilitized as a political vehicle goes. Says Southgate:

“Entryism is the name given to the process of entering or infiltrating bona fide organizations, institutions and political parties with the intention of either gaining control of them for our own ends, misdirecting or disrupting them for our own purposes or converting sections of their memberships to our cause….So what are we looking for? Any organization with a weak, apathetic or elderly leadership. An organization that has a youth section or a youthful membership…What we need is an organization that has idealists, people motivated by ideology and an organization that has-or could have-some sort of influence, given the right leadership in the community…It is the case that many organizations currently dominated by both Left and Right simply need turning away from their present ideology…”(82)

Organizations of this type might include dissident or minor political parties, neighborhood or grassroots community organizations, single-issue pressure groups, territorial secession movements, labor unions and educational institutions, particularly university humanities departments. Cadre of anarchists sitting on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association or the American Civil Liberties Union, the executive committees of “third-parties” or local civic organizations,  teaching the history of the United States during the twentieth century from the perspective of Murray Rothbard, William Appleman Williams or Lawrence Dennis rather than Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. at the local university or sitting on the advisory boards of local business associations, churches or charities would do much more for the broader struggle than anarchist agitators who throw rocks through Starbuck’s windows currently do, although this is not necessarily without its place as well.

It is through achieving control of the kinds of institutions being described here, using the methods that Troy Southgate suggests, that anarchists could work their way into positions to influence the broader public. Indeed, a precedent for this does exist. In an excellent essay on the ideas of the classical anarchist godfather Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Larry Gambone describes how the values of libertarian socialism had at one time begun to enter mainstream society:

“The newspaper editors Charles Dana and Horace Greely were sympathetic to (Proudhonian) ideas…Proudhon’s criticism of the credit and monetary systems were an influence upon the Greenback Party. His concept of mutual associations and the Peoples’ Bank were forerunners of the credit union and cooperative movements….Support for labor and even ‘socialism’ was found among the upper classes. The British Prime Minister, Disraeli, expressed sympathy for the workers, Lincoln corresponded with the International (Working Men’s Association) and the editor and publisher of the world’s largest newspaper, the New York Tribune,…Dana…and…Greely, were followers of Proudhon and Charles Fourier.”  (83)

Beyond Left and Right

The initial way for this new, modernized, revitalized version of traditional anarchism to publicize itself, once it has secured its position in the manner previously suggested, would be to vocally proclaim itself to be an alternative to the liberal establishment, the reactionary left and mainstream “conservatism” alike. First, the matter of the culture wars has to be dealt with. This seems to be more of an issue in America that in other Anglo nations like England or Canada and, as I am an American and most familiar with the political landscape of my own country of origin, I will address this question from the perspective of the internal politics of America. A mainstream “conservative” commentator, Dennis Prager, describes some of the controversies that define the culture war:

“The Left believes in removing America’s Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing ‘under God’ from the Pledge, ‘In God We Trust’ from the currency…The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount is to destroying America.

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave-welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values, the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism-that are worth fighting and dying for.

The Left believes multiculturalism should be the ideal for American schools and American policy. The Right believes that the Americanization of all its citizens is indispensible to the survival of the United States.

The Left believes that ‘war is not the answer’. The Right believes that war is often the only answer to governmental evil.”(84)

Prager goes on to describe other aspects of the whole moronic “liberal-conservative” divide including condoms in schools, silicone breast implants, gays in the Boy Scouts, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Some of his Prager’s assertions are absurd to the point of comedy, such as his claim that “capitalism” is worth fighting and dying for. Yes, we can all envision the troops marching into battle singing: “If I die, at least I know, I gave my life for Texaco.” Then there is the assertion that America is “the last best hope for humanity”. Yes, an ethos of materialist-consumerism, false egalitiarianism and totalitarian therapeutic statism is most assuredly the road to Paradise.

Essentially, these culture wars are between those who prefer that the New World Order take on a distinctively “Americanist” identity and those who prefer a global superstate with a more overtly internationalist face. Should the U.S. rule the world through the United Nations or through the Pentagon? The discrepancies are not nearly as significant as the partisans to this intramural battle insist. Joseph Sobran points out that the constitutional order that the allegedly “right-wing” or “conservative” Bush regime seeks to impose on Iraq includes provisions for “…democracy, non-violence, diversity and a role for women”.(85) This sounds like something out of the mouth of Morris “Dildo” Dees or Hilary “It Takes a Police State to Raise a Child” Clinton. This is to be the conservative “solution” for a highly patriarchal, religious, militaristic society? Even Trotsky, who claimed that under Marxism the average man would reach the level of an Aristotle,  would likely have been more practical.

The relevance of all of this for those of us who are involved in the struggle against the U.S. regime is the question of which side in the “culture wars” will eventually win and, therefore, be our greatest enemy in the long run. I predict that the liberal-internationalist-multiculturalist wing of the US ruling class will win hands down. Even some of the proponents of the “Americanist” perspective agree. For example, John Fonte, a columnist for “Front Page Magazine”, edited by the arch-propagandist for Anglo-Zionist imperialism David Horowitz, speculates:

“Thus, it is entirely possible that modernity-thirty or forty years hence-will witness not the final triumph of liberal democracy, but the emergence of a new transnational hybrid regime that is post-liberal democratic and, in the American context, post-Constitutional and post-American.”(86)

The simple reason that the “Americanists” are destined to lose is that their ideology is even more utopian and constructivist than that of the “progressives” whom they so ardently despise. There is not, and can never be, an authentic American nationalism. Nationalism must be rooted in the organic culture of the people. This is impossible in a state whose common identity is rooted in abstract ideological concepts, with the debate being over how these concepts are to be applied, and where whatever passes for a common culture is simply an ever fluctuating amalgam of all sorts of fractitious and contradictory tendencies.(87) The so-called “melting pot”.  Some “Americanists” at least implicitly understand this. Robert Locke, a cynical but candid expositor of Straussian jingoism, observes:

“(T)he Constitution…is a curious mixture of Greco-Roman ideas, Christian ideas, Lockean natural-rights ideas, plus a few other odds and ends from Montesquieu and other sources…The idea that America was founded foursquare on liberty and inalienable rights is the Platonic noble lie of our republic, and as such is entirely appropriate for schoolchildren and most of the rest of us. It is not, however, the truth.”(88)

Locke regards the ideological nationalism promulgated by most “Americanists” to be inadequate as a source of national cohesion and prefers to attempt to construct an American nationalism rooted in more conventional nationalist concepts like ethnicity (in a nation where nearly a third of the population are minorities), Judeo-Christian religious traditions (where did the “Judeo” part come from?), language (in an increasingly bilingual society) and “middle class values” (when most of the consituents of political correctness are middle class professionals and intellectuals). Like most crackpot reactionaries, Locke wants to return to an America that may have existed briefly in the early nineteenth century, if it ever existed at all.  Modern America is an imperial empire, not a nation. Even the American state itself more closely resembles the old USSR than anything-a continent wide regime composed of all sorts of subcultural and subnational groupings absorbed into a bureaucratic monolith ordered on the basis of  imposed ideology. Like the Soviets, the Americanists wish to impose a regime of ideological homogeneity on a society ordered on the basis of extreme cultural diversity. It doesn’t work that way.

It is likely, then, that the prevailing future ideology of the U.S., and therefore international, ruling class will be overt liberal corporatism, globalism and multiculturalism. All contemporary trends point in that direction. Consequently, the primary target of the anarchist intellectual vanguard should the liberal establishment and the reactionary left. The David Horowitzes and Ann Coulters are an amusing sideshow to the main event, the professional wrestling of the political/media elite. The liberal orientation of the supposedly “conservative” Bush administration-Keynesian economics, nationalized education, massive subsidies to “curing AIDS in Africa”, the liberal “constitution” to be imposed on Iraq, proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants- attests to this. A interesting parallel might be invoked from certain pages in classical anarchist history. The classical anarchists fought for generations against the capitalists, only to be stabbed in the back by their Marxist archenemies when the “socialist” revolution actually came. This is the primary fight that authentic anarchists are in today. Old-style capitalism no longers exists. Modern societies are ruled by the “new class” or “managerial elite” observed by Burnham, Orwell and Dennis. This class has long since made its peace with both capitalism and socialism (in the form of corporate-social democracy and neo-mercantilist “free trade”) and has adopted “cultural Marxism” (whether of the neo-conservative or neo-liberal variety) as its social outlook. It is this element that is our principal enemy.

Tradition, Revolution and an Anarchism Without Hyphens

Whatever else could be said about the Straussians, one thing they get right is their understanding of the utility of national and cultural myths as a potent force for political mobilization. Although an actual American nationalism is contradictory and impossible, an appeal to classical American revolutionary ideals is entirely appropriate for opponents of the current American regime. Such venerable notions to be derived from historic Americana as inalienable rights, criticism of state power, decentralism, anti-imperialist revolution, authentic cultural and ideological pluralism (mythically personified by the “First Amendment”), anti-taxation protest, self-reliance, agrarianism, populism, “the right to bear arms”, “give me liberty or give me death” and symbolized by such events as the Boston Tea Party, Lexington and Concord, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Confederate secession, the Underground Railroad, Haymarket and much else provides a virtual fountain of cultural resources for modern enemies of the state to draw on.  Larry Gambone provides instruction on how to begin:

“Anarchists should organize at the local level, i.e., neighborhood, village, municipality or county, around issues that affect the population…A city-wide organization could fight to decentralize the city government to the neighborhood level and gain greater autonomy for the municipality.”(89)

In such an effort, we might look to the example of Norman Mailer’s 1969 New York mayoral campaign. Mailer remembers:

“I ran for mayor of New York in the hope that a Left-Right coalition could be formed and this Left-Right pincers could make a dent in the entrenched power of the center…So, we called for Power to the Neighborhoods. We suggested that New York City become a state itself, the fifty-first. It citizens would then have the power to create a variety of new neighborhoods, new townships, all built on separate concepts, core neighborhoods founded on one or another of our cherished notions form the Left or the Right. One could have egalitarian towns and privileged places, or, for those who did not wish to be bothered with living in so detailed (and demanding) a society, there would be the more familiar and old way of doing things-the City of the State of New York- a government for those who did not care-just like old times.”(90)

A number of localist and regionalist movements have emerged in the United States in recent years. The ideological and cultural content of these is quite diverse. Some from the Left have suggested secession by the city of San Francisco, the Northeast corridor and other bastions of “liberal” cultural values. The libertarian-capitalist Free State Project is working to become politically dominant in New Hampshire and radically scale back that state’s government. Similar independence, separatist or autonomist movements exist in the South, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, New England, the Northwest, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere, including many localities. Some within the patriot/constitutionalist milieu have sought to set up an alternative infrastructure, usually based on localist or populist themes, that can be put into place once central power is eradicated. Anarchists should get involved with these kinds of tendencies, and seek to influence the intellectual content and ideological orientation of such movements. It is of the utmost importance to recognize the need for authentic cultural and ideological diversity within the ranks of such resistance efforts. In the tradition of Voltairine de Cleyre, Larry Gambone calls for an unhyphenated anarchism where particular cultural, economic or theoretical differences are subordinated to the struggle against the common enemy:

“Read even the most superficial book on anarchism and you will discover that many forms of anarchism exist-anarchist-communism, individualist-anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, free-market anarchism, anarcho-feminism and green-anarchism. This division results from people taking their favorite economic system or extrapolating from what they see as the most important social struggle and linking this to anarchism….The hyphenation presents a danger. Like it or not, everyone, without exception, compromises, modifies or softens their beliefs at some point. Where they compromise is what is important. Do they give up on the anarchism of the other aspect? You can be sure that most hypenated anarchists will prefer to drop the libertarian side of the hyphen. There are plenty examples of this occurring .”(91)

Most existing anarchist tendencies tend to promote their preferred set of socio-cultural, economic or issue-based views over the broader struggle against the state. For example, anarchists with leftist cultural views to be be more interested in anti-racism, feminism and “gay liberation” than anarchism. At the other end, anarchists with nationalist or racialist tendencies are often likely to emphasize the latter rather than the former. Eco-anarchists are typically environmentalists first and anarchists second, or last. Anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists usually put socialism or capitalism before anarchism. To some degree, this is understandable. Most people, including anarchists, tend to identify more strongly with their own culture and others who share their personal values than with ideological abstractions. One anarchist tendency, the national-anarchists, has attempted to deal with this problem. David Michael distinguishes between “core” issues and “peripheral” issues. Core issues involve the common struggle against the New World Order global superstate and the regional/national elites who are its benefactors and beneficiaries. Peripheral issues involve one’s preferred cultural, intellectual, economic or lifestyle interests.(92) These could include communism, capitalism, black nationalism, white nationalism, environmentalism, socialism, feminism, Christianity, Islam, monarchism, Satanism, injecting heroin or whatever. Divisions of this type are certainly important, and cannot merely be swept under the rug for the sake of some fracticious “unity”, yet nothing will ever be achieved if these sorts of differences allow the opposition forces to be divided, conquered or coopted by the international ruling class. David Michael provides us with one poignant example after another of how the NWO imperialists have done just this to nations, cultures and religions all over the world including the communist countries of Eastern Europe, the Islamic nations and the peoples (both white and black) of southern Africa.(93) As Larry Gambone says:

“…try as much as you like, you can’t ignore the big one-Leviathon-the central state. Eventually it must be  tackled head on and this can only be done by a nation-wide mass movement’ (and in the case of the NWO, a global movement).’This does not mean an opposition between local organizations and the larger movement, on the contrary, the latter must be based upon the former. This must be a single issue movement, uniting everyone with a grievance against the state into a movement for the decentralization of power. It must not be allowed to be bogged down by secondary and therefore divisive issues, these can be dealt with by other groups.” (94)

Indeed, domestic American politics tends to be driven by single-issue movements and organizations rather than ideological ones. Raw ideology pushers tend to find little success in US politics. With this consideration in mind, the question becomes one of how to best formulate a successful single-issue anti-state movement. Several possible constituents for such a movement have already been discussed. The emergence of a single issue anti-state party or organization that included the agendas of each of the various localist and regionalist movements would likely be a good start. There is no reason why there cannot be a party, or alliance of parties, that simultaneously favors the independence of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Texas, the South, numerous local communities, and religion/ethnicity based separatists like the Nation of Islam, Christian Identity, Aztlan, indigneous peoples and others. Such advocacy of regional/local autonomy should be accompanied by an emphasis on populist structural changes. Norman Mailer’s suggestion of decentralizing the governments of large metropolitan areas down to the neighborhood level coincides nicely with the objective of sovereign townships or county supremacy found in the patriot/constitutionalist milieu.

The efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union to defend the civil rights of all sorts of groups who come under attack from the state, ranging from neo-nazis to pornographers, might also be emulated. There are many such groups who are currently ignored by mainstream political organizations. These include home schoolers, “cults” or marginal religious denominations, intentional communities, so-called “hate” groups, prisoners and their families, opponents of the war on drugs, gun rights militants, tax resisters and many others. It is important to remember that a movement for political decentralization should employ a decentralized strategy. This means that the same tactics will not be appropriate in all situations. For example, anarchists working in urban or metropolitan areas should naturally take a political line that is considerable further to the left than anarchists working in rural areas or among more conservative population groups. The anti-racist/feminist/gay rights cultural paradigm that dominates the modern left might well be applicable in those communities that it is suited for, such as large cities with huge minority populations and where the prevailing values are cosmospolitan in nature. However, this would clearly not be an appropriate model for rural Kansas. For anarchists to persistently push “the right to bear arms” in liberal Connecticutt would probably be a waste of time. For anarchists to agitate for gay causes in small Tennessee towns would likewise be rather futile.

So-called “extremists” from all points on the political spectrum might be rallied as the core constituents of the anti-System forces. It is essential to remember that the anarchist movement itself (properly and constructively organized) is not necessarily a mass movement per se but only the intellectual and activist vanguard of a broader populist movement containing many different tendencies. The role of the anarchists is serve as the coordinating mediators conceived of by Mark Gillespie or the principled militants envisioned by Mikhail Bakunin. The decentralized organizational efforts of the anarchists would necessarily involve a scenario where the character of the anti-System movement varied considerably in its specific ideological, cultural, religious or ethnic orientation on a geographical or institutional basis. Across the American heartland, in the Deep South and in the mountainous regions, the anarchists might assemble a coalition of tax resisters, home schoolers, gun nuts, conspiracy theorists, pro-lifers, Christian fundamentalists, common law enthusiasts, farmers rights advocates, land rights advocates, “cults”, racists, libertarians, militiamen and other elements common to the political culture of rightwing populism. In large metropolitan centers, inner-cities, border areas and coastal regions, a similar coalition might include militants and separatists from the various minority groups, advocates for all sorts of class based social issues (gentrification, housing, environment), gays and other “sexual minorities”, all sorts of countercultural groups, students, street gangs and other official outlaws, communists, left-wing “anarchists” and others.

Among the affluent elements of American society, such as the realm of suburbia, it is probably best if the ranks of the revolutionaries draw heavily from the youth population. Opposition to the great oppressor of youth-the state’s school systems-might be the key issue. It is also important to note that class distinctions in modern liberal democratic states are somewhat more blurred than they may have been in previous times. Any authentic populist revolutionary movement would naturally have to include persons from all class levels. The task of the genuine anarchists, who will always be a small minority, even in Official Anarchist circles, is to coordinate and guide formal and informal alliances among such disparate groups. The kinds of issue and ideology based constituent groups being described here would provide the grassroots base for the broader anarchist agenda. But there remains the question of how to appeal to the broader public. A party/organization that combined local and regional autonomy, defense of social groups under attack by the state, recruited disparate elements from the cultural fringes as its activist/support base and maintained a decentralized infrastructure would also have to develop a populist program for the masses.

Popular Front Anarchism and the Defense of Culture and Civilization Against Nihilism

It is essential to remember that not everything the state does is equally pernicious or equally in need of abolition. The most important issue is the need to defeat the New World Order internationally and the creeping police state domestically. All other considerations should be subordinated to these concerns. The ultimate objective is to bring down the corrupt, tyrannical US regime and to consequently implode the New World Order. The issues that motivate those on the margins-radical environmentalism,  gun rights absolutism, racial nationalism, socialism, radical feminism, queer power, religious fundamentalism-mean nothing to most people. The ordinary citizen is concerned only with his own day to day business. His issues are unemployment, housing, taxes, health care, provisions for old age and education.(95) Some people may also have one or two social issues, like abortion or the environment, that they are interested in or have strong opinions about. Most Americans have received something of a libertarian education from the Jeffersonian strand of traditional American politics. For this reason, populist rhetoric denouncing “big government” resonates well with the commoner. A populist movement that combined both libertarian and socialist themes, without explicitly describing itself as such, would likely go over well with the broad American working class.

Populist structural changes with a libertarian bent might be the first item on the agenda. Larry Gambone comments:

“In order to make significant structural changes to society, one must have a program consisting of, say half a dozen or so key items which the majority of the population might support. The most important point, and the point upon which all populists agree, is the need to empower the ordinary person and their communities and the concurrent weakening of the authority of the politico-economic elite. This can be done by combining the traditional populist structural political reforms of proportional ballot, referenda, initiative and recall with radical decentralization of political power down to the natural community. The power of the economic elite can be clipped by the abolition of corporate welfare and all other government-granted privileges. All populist groups either do or would agree with these principles. Once empowered, the people and their communities could then seek any other social, political or economic reforms they chose, since they would now have the ability to make those decisions.”(96)

This proposal seems to be as cogent as any. As the recent recall of the governor of California illustrates, populist fiscal reforms are also quite popular, even in havens of leftward-leaning politics. As taxes are the lifeblood of the state, and as the average American is familiar with the partial origins of the American Revolution in anti-taxation protest, a radical assault upon the state’s taxing system seems warranted. Depiction of Establishment politicians as corrupt squanderers of the public treasury is a tried and true American political tactic, and could almost certainly be utilized to the advantage of anarchists.

Kevin Carson provides us with a possible economic program. (97)On economic matters, an anarcho-populist, libertarian-decentralist, left-right, radical-center alliance should assert itself as a populist alternative to both the neo-liberal economics of the Anglo-American New Right (as opposed to the more populist New Right of the European continent) and the New Class welfare statism of the reactionary left. Carson offers three principal targets for such an alliance: the state’s monopolistic currency and banking legistlation, the monopoly privilege imposed by patent laws and the concentration of control over land through the enforcement of absentee ownership. Elimination of barriers to the formation of credit unions, organization of tenants of public and private rental housing into unions organized on the old anarcho-syndicalist model, demands for the recognition of squatters rights, establishment of the right of local and regional political units and “private” groupings to issue alternative units of exchange, and the establishment of mutual aid societies for the provision of unemployment, medical and old-age insurance might be a first step. These can be followed by the elimination of licensing regulations designed to prevent competition with established corporate or professional monopolies from small businesses and the self-employed and to concentrate control over the media. The elimination of all corporate welfare and the establishment of worker cooperatives as an antidote corporatism and the conversion of social or municpal services to consumer cooperatives should accompany the dismantling of the corporate-social democratic welfare state.(98) Measures such as these have been proposed by a wide variety of radical thinkers and would be fairly consistent with both the ideals of the “small is beautiful” social activist left along with the “anti-big government” right. Furthermore, the emerging presence and popularity of radicals advocating such a program would have the effect of further discrediting the common left/right divide. The reactionary left would be forced to abandon any populist or decentralist pretensions it might otherwise display and position itself as the defenders of the welfare state. Likewise, the reactionary right would be forced to abandon its libertarian pretensions and become the open, unabashed defenders of corporatism. Also, if the anarchist/populist forces included a genuine cross-section of the cultural spectrum, from patriarchal, fundamentalist, racialists to gay/feminist, countercultural, anarchists and communists, each seeking sovereignty within their own communities, then the totalitarian multicultural left would be pushed towards  the corporatists. The ruling class enemy would be more greatly consolidated in the form of the corporate-social democratic welfare-warfare state, with reactionary multiculturalism and totalitarian progressivism as its ideological orientation, and would therefore be more easy to identify and attack.

There remains yet another consideration regarding programmatic concerns. Any movement that aims to break up ruling class coalitions needs to recognize the importance of “wedge” issues to such an efforts. These involve issues for which there is a constituency but where all established parties are committed to the other side.(99) Probably the most significant wedge issues in American politics are drug prohibition and the relationship between the US and Israel. A growing and militant opposition is brewing on both of these matters, yet the political establishment cannot budge a bit as the “war on drugs” is an essential component of the police state apparatus, and involves a vast array of vested interests, and the Zionist lobby has a firm grip on both the center-left and the center-right. Anti-Zionism and anti-prohibitionism both have a considerable number of enthusiasts from across the spectrum of opinion and on the Far Left and Far Right alike.

The one-time US Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill once remarked that “all politics” is local. Localism as both a means and an end seems consistent with a broader anarchist perspective. Ideological and programmatic considerations aside, there remains the immensely complicated question of how the US regime is to be effectively challenged. Most of the “third-party” formations in the US are oriented towards some particular ideological or cultural constituency that is sizable enough to form a minor party but not large enough to actually challenge the status quo. Examples of this include the theocratic “Constitution” Party and the highly ideological “Libertarian” Party. These types of  party formations ultimately fail because of their inability to transcend ordinary cultural, ideological, ethnic or religious boundaries. For an example of how to best proceed with this task, we might look to a nation with a long tradition of authentically progressive politics, the Netherlands, and the phenomenon of Pim Fortuyn. A Dutch commentator, Tjebbe van Tigen, observes:

“The shake up…had its first expression in local elections, with many locally initiated parties-often called Leefbar (Livable) followed by the name of a village or town. The issues raised by these parties varied depending on the particular area. But in general they focused on ‘quality of life’ issues: recurring elements were environmental, housing and traffic problems, and sometimes also questions about ‘foreigners’, be it the influx of refugees or lamentations about the lack of adaption of other nations, religions and cultures to Dutch society. After the success of such Leefbar parties in some bigger cities in the mid-1990s, an initiative was made to try to bundle this locally dispersed force into a national Leefbar Nederland party.

The bundling of loose parts implies the use of a binding element, and little coherence could be found in the diverse assembly of many of those local parties….So…they started looking for a leader…in the person of a commentator on Dutch social and economic affairs, a former professor of sociology, a…homosexual, and a provocative public debater: Pim Fortuyn.”(100)

It should be noted that Fortuyn’s primary significance was rooted in his role as a symbolic figurehead of a grassroots, authentically populist movement. His appeal seems based on the fact that, as a gay, Marxist, social liberal opponent of immigration, he found a hearing among both the liberal cultural elite and the instinctively nationalist and xenophobic common people as well. Some might argue that Fortuyn’s subsequent assassination by a reactionary leftist ideologue is indicative of his political failure. However, the martyrdom of John Hus did not prevent the Protestant Reformation.

Anarchist militants should begin to assemble diverse coalitions in local communities across the USA, tailoring their specific programs to the culture of the local community. Anarchists, as the intellectual and activist vanguard, should maintain communication with one another irrespective of local boundaries and formulate a common agenda and plan. The first goal is to become the dominant force at the local level, whether by electoral means, strikes, boycotts, armed insurrection or whatever. Once established in local communities, the next step would be to issue formal declarations condemning central government as some communities have already done regarding such matters as the US invasion of Iraq and the USA PATRIOT Act. Alliances between such communities should then be formed with the eventual goal of secession from the national regime. Larry Gambone describes how such a revolution might take place:

“People begin taking control at the local level, developing or re-instituting forms of self-government and ignoring the state. Certain politicians at the national level become cognisant of the anti-statist sentiment, and for genuine or opportunist reasons, will help prevent the regime from attacking the decentralists. They may also pass certain ‘de-fanging’ legistlation which will weaken the state. Demonstrations accompanied by mass strikes will occur on an almost daily basis in the capital cities in support of the local movements and as means to keep up the pressure on the politicos. (Allies)…in other countries will also be developed to insure a massive outcry should the state choose to repress the libertarian upsurge. The outcome will be the development of genuine federal institutions.” (101)

If history is any guide, such an insurgence is likely to occur following both an unpopular and failed war and a series of scandals leading to the loss of perceived legitimacy on the part of the state in the eyes of the public. One need only to look at the loss of prestige suffered by the US regime following the combined Vietnam/Watergate fiasco and the fall of the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the disasterous Afghan war. The US regime is currently moving into such a scenario once again, thanks to the imperial ambitions of the neoconservatives, brewing scandals in the Bush administration and impending economic collapse resulting from currency devaluation and outrageous levels of both private and public debt.  In the likely scenario that armed confrontation with the regime becomes necessary, popular militias formed at the community level combined with defector units from the state’s military forces will become the basis of the armed struggle. The task of anarchist and populist leaders will be to redirect the apparent natural zeal for war among the commoners towards the war against the illegitimate ruling class, appealing to American revolutionary traditions, and to redirect the natural patriotic inclinations of the masses towards the struggle against the state in defense of their own communities, regions, cultures and religions.(102) Such efforts are apparently not as impossible as they may seem. After all, if a former “National Review” conservative like Joseph Sobran can be converted to the anarchist position, who couldn’t be?(103)

The struggle against the Anglo-American-Zionist empire, the authentic Axis of Evil, is not simply a matter of idealism, advancing one’s own social or political aesthetics or humanitarian concern. Rather, it has become a matter of planetary survival (in a human, rather than eco-doomsday, sense). The conservative commentator Paul Craig Roberts points to the real agenda of the Empire and its neoconservative court intellectuals:

“…influential advisors at the Pentagon are backing the development of a new generation of low yield nuclear weapons…In the place of bad old nuclear weapons, the new good nukes will be easier to use and more ‘relevant to the threat environment’…The Pentagon report designates ‘terrorists’ as the targets of the mini-nukes. New nuclear weapons are said to be necessary in order to destroy deeply buried biological weapons caches, terrorist cells and hidden weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons caches will exist wherever neoconservatives declare them to be. Obviously, nuclear weapons of any size are too destructive to use against terrorists…The only purpose of the ‘small nuclear weapons’ is to incinerate Muslim cities. It looks as if the neocons intend a final solution to their ‘Muslim problem’ and are organizing genocide for Arabs.”(104)

The use of such weapons by the US regime will necessitate the development, deployment and use of such weapons by other states, and the provision of such weapons to free-lance military organizations by states. The neoconservatives’ ambitions amount to little more than world wide nuclear holocaust.  Larry Gambone perceptively describes the neocons as “an American version of the Khmer Rouge…The possible roots of neocon nihlism? A mad desire to revolutionize the world, not for socialism, but for global corporatism, the Zionazi hatred of everything Arab, and the ‘Christian’ fundi’s world-hating lust for an apocalypse.” (105)

Whatever one’s perception of Islamic “terrorists” and “suicide” bombers, the Muslims are fighting for the defense of their culture, religion and homelands. The neocons have no excuse. Eminently destructive weaponry in the hands of such fanatics constitutes the greatest danger to the world yet to emerge, surpassing even the looming nuclear holocaust of the Cuban missle crisis and the apocalyptic showdown between the imperial powers during World War Two. Therefore, the defeat of Empire and the development of a new political paradigm that is antithetical to Empire has become an imperative. Hopefully, philosophical anarchism will help to show the way.


(*) Some clarification on this point is needed. While the term “Judeo-Christian” has become fashionable in modern times, Judaism and Christianity are two separate and distinct traditions. With regards to the question of universalism, Judaism is far less so than Christianity. Foundational Torah Judaism, the type still practiced by some sects like the Neteuri Karta, is a profoundly particularistic religion-of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews. Although Gentiles are allowed to convert, Judaism in this form is frequently regarded as being in many ways irrelevant to outsiders. Also, evidence exists that the early Hebrews were henotheistic rather than monotheistic, but simply recognized Yahweh as their ethnic god, in the same way that other eastern Mediterranean peoples recognized Baal. It was the apostate Jew Saul of Tarsus (later known as Saint Paul the Apostle) who brought overtly universalistic conceptions into Judaism, apparently against the wishes of some of the earliest disciples of Jesus.(The Bible, Galatians 2:11-14) It could also be argued that the current showdown between Islam and the West, the “clash of civilizations” referred to by Huntington, is best understood as a religious war between two apostate off- shoots of Judaism and Christianity-Islam and Humanism. Says Tomislav Sunic: “Undoubtedly, many would admit that in the realm of ethics all men and women of the world are the children of Abraham. Indeed, even the bolder ones who somewhat self-righteously claim to have rejected the Christian or Jewish theologies, and who claim to have replaced them with ‘secular humanism’, frequently ignore that their self-styled secular beliefs are firmly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics. Abraham and Moses may be dethroned today, but their moral edicts and spiritual ordinances are very much alive. The global and disenchanted world, accompanied by the litany of human rights, ecumenical society, and the rule of law-are these not principles that can be directly traced to the Judeo-Christian messianism that resurfaces today in its secular version under the elegant garb of modern ‘progressive’ ideologies?” (“Monotheism vs. Polytheism, by Alain de Benoist, Introduction and translation by Tomislav Sunic, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, April 1996)

1) Mosheim says of second century Christians: “The simplicity of the worship which the Christians offered to the Deity gave occasion to certain calumnies maintained by both the Jews and the pagan priests. The Christians were pronounced atheists because they were destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and of all that pomp in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to consist. (Mosheim, “Ecclesiastical History”, Book One, Chapter 4, paragraph 3)

2) For example, the renowned British historian Paul Johnson, a darling of neoconservatives, says of Jean Paul Sartre: “Sartre never showed any real knowledge of or interest in-let alone enthusiasm for-parliamentary democracy. Having the vote in a multi-party society was not at all what he meant by freedom. What did he mean then?” (“Intellectuals”, by Paul Johnson, p.243) It is interesting that a figure as eminent as Johnson apparently cannot conceive of any form of freedom greater than run of the mill parliamentarianism. Has he ever read Mill, Spencer, Stirner, Proudhon, Mencken, Rothbard, Rand, or even Milton Friedman? Sartre’s views could be muddled and inchoate at times, to say the least. But Johnson, a former Laborite journalist who went to neoconservatism in the 1970s, seems to have no more capacity for independent thinking than the typical Soviet commissar.

3) Hans Hermann Hoppe virtually destroys the intellectual house of cards that modern democratist ideology is built on in “Democracy: The God That Failed”. See my review of Hoppe at

4) During the late twentieth century, Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) developed a highly consistent and systematic version of “free-market” anarchism. The pillars of his outlook are Lockean natural rights theory, the Austrian school of economics developed by Ludwig von Mises and others, nineteenth century individualist anarchism as espoused by Benjamin R. Tucker, and the isolationist foreign policy views championed by the America First Committee in the period leading up to the Second World War. Rothbard was a brilliant thinker and painstaking logician, though he tended towards dogmatism at times, and his insights into political economy carried with them implications even more radical than even he seemed to realize. The best introductions to Rothbard’s outlook would likely be his “Man, Economy and State” (1962), “Power and Market” (1970), “For a New Liberty” (1974) and “The Ethics of Liberty” (1982). See also Justin Raimondo’s biography of Rothbard, “Enemy of the State”.

5) “The State”, by Franz Oppenheimer

6) “No Treason” and “The Constitution of No Authority”, by Lysander Spooner

7) “Give Me Libertarianism”, by Pierre Lemieux, Financial Post, August 29, 2002

8) “The End of History and the Last Man”, by Francis Fukuyama. “Remaking the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives”, by Joshua Micah Marshall, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2003. “The End of Conservatism”, by Lee McCracken at

9) I am consistently amazed at the large number of left-libertarians who somehow believe that “decentralized direct democracy” would be the realization their own socio-cultural ideals. In many communities, such a system would likely result in the establishment of theocracy or a racialist or nationalist enclave, just as the establishment of conventional parliamentary democracy in contemporary Iraq would no doubt result in a Shiite fundamentalist regime. It is important that anarchists work to develop a critique of modern societies whose depth surpasses that of conventional leftist or left-liberal analysis and emphasis. “Democracy” is not a universal cure-all or absolute, nor is “peace”, “justice”, “freedom”, feminism, environmentalism, anti-racism or any other left-wing shibboleth. These ideals and tendencies are defined in different ways by different people, many times arising in response to specific historical or cultural situations that are inapplicable to other situations.

10) It should not take a genius of political science to understand that mobocracy and individualism are incompatible, but many libertarians make a tortured effort to reconcile these two.

11) “Anarchism and Other Impediments to Anarchy” by Bob Black at

12) “Anarchism or Anarcho-Social Democracy” by Keith Preston at

12) For most contemporary anarchists, “anarchism” is a muddled utopian ideology implicitly influenced by Rosseauan or Fourierist ideas, often mixed with bits of Da Da nihlism or a romantic attachment to the Old Left. Contemporary left-anarchism is also heavily influenced by Gramscian cultural Marxism, whereby racial minorities, feminists and homosexuals take the place of the proletariat as the focus of the class struggle.

13) One of the founding fathers of classical anarchism, Peter Kropotkin was a sociologist before there was a term for such a thing. Although a formidable social scientist and philosopher, he had a strong inclination towards the delusionary utopianism that characterizes much nineteenth century political thought. His best works are “Mutual Aid”, “Conquest of Bread” and “Ethics”.

14) Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the first thinker to call himself an anarchist, in many ways had more in common with Jeffersonian liberals or Burkean traditional conservatives than the revolutionary socialist tradition that classical anarchism is typically identified with. His application of anarchism was entirely practical, favoring decentralist confederations of local communities, each retaining their own cultural identity, and an economy ordered on worker cooperatives and mutual banks. Bertrand Russell, an unceasing radical during his nearly a century long life, sometimes expressed sympathy for the ideals of the classical anarchists, but regarded them as impractical. Instead, he clung to the Old Liberalism of his godfather, John Stuart Mill, and the Guild Socialism of Cole and Tawney. Paul Goodman called himself a “conservative-anarchist”, believing anarchistic revolution to be a gradual, evolutionary process.

15) “Leviathan”, by Thomas Hobbes.

16) Errico Malatesta, “Umanita Nova”-September 2, 1922, “Anarchy”

17) George Bernard Shaw, “Major Barbara”

18) Malatesta, “Anarchy”

19) Max Stirner, “The Ego and His Own”

20) A particularly embarrassing example of left-wing anarcho-statism can be found in the “Northeastern Anarchist: Magazine of the Northeastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists”, a publication that favors a global communist government with a central planned economy, which will allegedly be anarchistic because the central planners will be delegates chosen by local communities. Even this last point is not exactly clear. Apparently delegates from factory floors from all over the world are to meet in one big workers’ parliament to plan production for the whole planet.

21) Hans Hoppe even goes so far as to claim that feudal society was stateless, a dubious proposition at best.

22) For some in the national-anarchist milieau, the ideal community would be a Nazi-like racialist homeland, an arrangement that might be acceptable so long as membership was voluntary, but characterizing such an arrangement as anarchistic would certainly cause confusion on the part of outsiders. Such arrangements do indeed exist, such as the former Aryan Nations compund at Hayden Lake, Idaho. One of the interesting things about national-anarchism is its ability to accommodate everything from neo-nazis to radical leftists to Jewish separatists. See my article on national-anarchism at

I believe national-anarchism to be, in many ways, the most advanced form of contemporary anarchist thought. Classical anarchism positioned itself as the most radical wing of the international labor movement, the dominant social struggle of the day, and incorporated a lot of quasi-Marxist ideas into its overall analysis. Neo-anarchism, emerging in the heyday of the New Left of the 1960s, similarly attached itself to the black power movement, feminism, environmentalism, and the gay movement. Yet, today, these currents have become safely mainstream and, to some degree, a reactionary force. Libertarian-anarchism makes the same mistake as the Marxists with its narrow economic determinism, its often rigid focus on bourgeoise class values (much libertarian thought amounts to replacing the proletariat and the bourgeoise with the bourgeoise and the regulatory welfare state as the antagonists in the class struggle) and its universalist and moralistic tendencies rooted in Enligtenment rationalism. National-anarchism properly focuses on the most crucial issue of the era-the New World Order-and rejects the universalism common to both the liberal and socialist traditions in favor of particularism and traditionalism, sort of a mixture of Bakunin and Joseph De Maistre.

23) The classic “Unabomber Manifesto” is as good an introduction as any to the primitivist perspective.

24) Unions have shown themselves to be just as oppressive when they come into state power as any other type of organization or institution. The British trade unions that include print workers have been known to censor newspaper articles critical of union activities.

25) For an interesting discussion of the weaknesses of economic determinism, see M. Raphael Johnson, “Economics and Nationalist Theory”, The Idyllic, August 1, 2003 at

26) An experience I had some years ago serves as an illustration of the level of silliness this sometimes involves. I was at a continental anarchist conference in San Francisco in the summer of 1989 and sitting in on a workshop on labor organizing. The program broke down into a shouting match between members of the Industrial Workers of the World(IWW) and the Workers Solidarity Alliance(WSA) over the question of which group was most qualified to lead a workers revolution. The IWW is a historical relic composed mostly of students, bohemians and post-1960s New Leftists. The WSA, which had less than forty members at the time, is the US section of the International Workers Association, which also includes the Spanish CNT described in Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”.

27) It should be pointed out that there is a branch of libertarianism called “paleolibertarianism” (after “paleoconservatism”) that attempts to pay greater attention to the role of non-economic and non-state, so-called “intermediary” institutions in social development. While unfortunately holding to a rather narrow bourgeois, Euro-Christian outlook, this tendency admirably works to fills in the gaps in the reductionist materialism and utilitarianism to be found in much libertarian thought. For a critique of paleolibertarianism, see my “Why I Am Not a Cultural Conservative” at and “I’m Still Not a Cultural Conservative” at

28) National-Anarchists are often criticized, quite unjustly in view, for simply being crypto-nazis in disguise. Actually, national-anarchism is a quite substantive outlook. For a discussion of the important differences between national-anarchism and the traditional right-wing, see David Michael, “On a Decisive Break With ‘Far Right’ Ideology”, at

29) For a comprehensive review of this event, see

30) See Stefan Zweig’s classic, “The Right to Heresy”.

31) “National Anarchist FAQ”,

32) This is a point Hans Hoppe effectively argues in “Democracy: The God That Failed”.

33) Hoppe, “Democracy…”, ibid.

(34) It goes without saying that someone, somewhere will use this passage as evidence that I endorse the particular views of all of these figures. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, I am simply trying to give reality its proper reverence. The elimination of a power structure, in this case the New World Order, automatically results in the filling of the power vacuum by those opposition groups that are the most well-organized. I believe that a real-world society influenced by anarchistic ideas would amount to a collection of decentralized social systems spanning the entire cultural, ideological, ethnic and religious spectrum, with enormously divergent political and economic systems. Therefore, anarcho-communist, mutualist, syndicalist, Objectivist, Maoist, neo-nazi and Baath Party communities might all exist within the broader decentralist framework.

(35) I once came across an interview with Foucault where he challenged the legitimacy of the cultural Marxist view of homosexuals as a social class within the bourgeoise order. He went on to speculate about a type of society where homosexuals might be a social class, althought without much elaboration, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate a transcript of this interview for reference.

36) Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian, “Secrets, Lies and Democracy”, p. 17-18.

37) Murray N. Rothbard, “Left and Right: Prospects for Liberty”, at

38) “Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly Capital: A Mutualist Synthesis” by Kevin Carson at

39) Carson, “Iron Fist…”

40) Carson, “New Class…”

41) Keith Preston, “Reply to Brian Oliver Sheppard’s ‘Anarchism Vs. Right-Wing Anti-Statism’ ” at

42) Keith Preston, “What Would An Anarcho-Socialist Economy Look Like?” at

43) “Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex”, by William Foote Whyte and Kathleen King Whyte. “We Build the Road as We Travel”, by Roy Morrison.

44) “The Green Book”, by Muammar El-Qadaffi.  “Ghandi’s Swadeshi: The Economics of Permanence” by Satish Kumar.

45) Kevin Carson, “The Left Libertarian Vision of the Good Society” at

46) “Small States Are Path to Peace”, by Joseph Sobran, Wake-Up Call America, January/February 1999

47) As Eduard Limovov says: “There’s no longer any left or right. There’s the system and the enemies of the system.”

48) “Anarchist Law: Some Hard Questions”, by Keith Preston at

49) “People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy”, by Harold Barclay, p. 148

50)”From Nation-State to Stateless Nation” by Michael van Notten, Liberty, April 2003.

51) “Enterprise of Law”, by Bruce Benson. “Structure of Liberty”, by Randy Barnett.

52) “Dealing With Crime in a Free Society”, by Keith Preston at

53) “The [Christian] zealouts for conversion took to the streets or criss-crossed the countryside, destroying no doubt more of the [pagan] architectural and artistic treasure of their world than any passing barbarians thereafter.” Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, p.119

54) The disparity in birth rates alone render it virtually certain that Muslims will outnumber indigenous Europeans within a century. For an interesting look at the growth of Christian fundamentalism in North America, see “Why Conservative Churches Are Growing” by Dean M. Kelley. For a look at African Christianity, see “Drums of Redemption” by Harvey J. Sindima.

55) For a discussion of traditions of decentralization in Western culture, see “Devolution”, by Clyde Wilson at

56) For a discussion of the implications of anarchist theory for ethnic matters, see my “A Calm Anarchist Look at Race, Culture and Immigration” at Interestingly, within contemporary anarchist thought two diametrically opposed schools have developed concerning the question of race. One of these, situated on the Far Left, has adopted neo-Leninist doctrines rooted in the latter New Left of the 1960s  such as “white skin privilege”, “whiteness” theory and other similar perspectives of questionable intellectual character. On the other end, national-anarchism (or at least a subset of it), originating from the European Far Right, maintains a belief in racial separatism and ethnic “identity” theories more commonly associated with neo-nazis and certain fundamentalist religious perspectives such as British Israelism. As to which side is more authentically anarchistic, it would appear that national-anarchists are more strongly committed to the practice of voluntarism, wishing to set up their own sovereign ethnically homogenous enclaves and allowing for similar communities among other ethnic groups and non-racial ideological tendencies.  Left-wing anarchists frequently seem to have no conception of the principle of voluntarism when it comes to questions of social relations and often seem committed to eliminating those who oppose their rabid integrationist/left-multiculturalist agenda by violence. In many ways, these two diametrical opposites may be necessary counterparts to one another within the broader realm of anarchist theory. This conflict also illustrates the degree to which most contemporary anarchist factions are derived from the cultural fringes. Most people are neither racists, racial separatists or “anti-racist” multicultural fanatics. Presumably, once the New World Order is defeated and modernism disappears, communities and regions will emerge that reflect the entire panoply of racial/ethnic belief. There will likely be homelands for racial separatists and/or supremacists, authoritarian multiculturalists, militant integrationists and racially neutral persons such as myself alike.

57) For background on the Fortuyn phenomenon, see “The Sorrow of the Netherlands”, by Tjebbe van Tijen at

58) Keith Preston, “It’s Time For Anarcists to Can Reactionary Leftism”, at

59) The adoption of some pseudo-Nietzschean concepts may be useful here. Nietzsche tended to categorize persons as slaves, masters and”ubermenschen”. A heterodox adoption of these categories may provide us with certain insights into modern social psychology. Most people appear to fall into the category of the “slaves”, demonstrating an inability to think or act independently of group norms, directions provided by authority figures and the values of their particular culture of origin. The dominant instincts for this category are those of survival and the herd. They are concerned primarily with obtaining their own day-to-day sustenance and look to peers and leaders for a sense of security and identity, hence the reflexive, non-reflective and often quite irrational attachment of those in this category to particularistic notions like religion, tradition, “morality” as defined by their culture of origin, nationality, ethnicity, family, the orthodoxy of the official ideology of the state to which they are subjects and so on. The category of the “masters” are those who are more intelligent and perceptive than others, and are also more ruthless and cunning. This element tends to see through established cultural, political, religious, national or moral myths and instead devote themselves to the pursuit of power, wealth and pleasure. It is from this category that societal leaders in the political and economic realms are typically drawn. The final category, the Nietzchean “ubermenschen”, are those genuinely superior individuals who find base concerns like the pursuit of wealth and power for its own sake to be unsatisfying. For this element, knowledge, creativity and discovery are the highest values. It is from this category that the greatest achievers in the arts, sciences and philosophy are drawn. It is those in this category who become the innovators and instigators of genuine human progress.

60) Larry Gambone, “Neocons, Parts 2 & 3” at

61) Paul Gottfried, “The Trosky Hour” at

62) Larry Gambone, “Neocons In A Nutshell (Where They Belong)” at

63) Ancient Hebraic religion seems to me to be more closely related to pre-biblical paganism than either Christianity or Islam. First, it is considerably more particularistic, the Jews having their god, Yahweh, with each of the other ethno-cultures having theirs, whether it be Shawmesh, Baal, Moloch, Zeus or whomever. Also, biblical Judaism in considerably more “this-worldly” than its two off-shoots, with this life and the nation of Israel being where the action is. Christianiy seems to me be little more than an apostate, apocalyptic spin-off from Judaism intertwined with various ideas lifted from paganism-virgin births, savior-gods, resurrections from the dead, etc. Islam has always seemed to me to be a cheap imitation of Christianity, albeit one with superior warrior traditions.

64) “Leo Strauss and the American Right”, by Shadia B. Drury (1997)

65) Preston, “Reactionary Leftism…”

66) “Populist Nationalism Developing Across the Western World”, by Kenneth J. Schmidt, The Barnes Review, at

67) Keith Preston, “Conservatism Is Not Enough: Reclaiming the Legacy of the Anti-State Left” at

68) Preston, “Reactionary Leftism…”

69) From Aristotle, we derive the core principles of logic against mysticism and irrationalism. From Burke and Jefferson, we understand the relationship of community to anti-statism. From Stirner and Nietzsche, we recognize the importance of the superior individual in the shaping of history. From Proudhon, we adopt the classical anarchist alternative to state-capitalism. From Mencken, we understand that no totems should be spared attack. From Lawrence Dennis, we know the importance of operational as opposed to ideological thinking. From Hayek, Kirk and Nisbet, we champion evolved traditions, organic society and natural social evolution against centralist social engineering schemes of any kind.

70) Archonis, “Onward Eurasia” at See also Archonis, “The Hammer of Nihilation” at

71) “The Eurasian Manifesto” by Alexander Dugin

72) From the “Arctogaia” web site at

73) For a look at the works of David Michael, visit his web site at For an overview of national-anarchism, visit and

74) Jaroslaw Tomasiewicz, “An Alternative to the American Empire of the New World Order” at

75) Schmidt, “Populist Nationalism…”

76) For an unintentionally comical discussion of “producerism” by a reactionary leftist, see “Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close For Comfort” at

77) Noam Chomsky has developed an interesting “investment theory” of US politics. The central idea behind this is that the US political system operates on the basis of shifting coalitions of investors, who have previously acquired enough private wealth and power to become politically feasible, seeking to control the state. See Anthony Gancarski, “Does Noam Chomsky Hate America?” at

78) Mark Gillespie, “The Vanguard Idea” at See also Keith Preston, “Smashing the State: Thoughts on Anarchist Strategy” at

79) David Michael, “On Strategy” at

80) Hoppe, “Democracy…”

81) David Michael, “Unity in Diversity” at

82) Troy Southgate, “The Case For National-Anarchist Entryism” at

83) Larry Gambone, “Proudhon and Anarchism: Proudhon’s Libertarian Thought and the Anarchist Movement” at

84) Dennis Prager, “The Second American Civil War: What It’s About” at and “The Second American Civil War: What It’s About-Part II” at

85) Joseph Sobran, “A New Constitution-Coming Up!” at

86) John Fonte, “The Ideological War Within the West” at

87) Joseph Sobran, “The Empire and Its Denizens”, The Wanderer, May 15, 2003.

88) Robert Locke, “Why America Is Not a Propositional Nation”, Front Page Magazine, June 4, 2002 at

89) Larry Gambone, “Sane Anarchy”, Red Lion Press (1995), p. 12.

90) Norman Mailer, “I Am Not For World Empire”, The American Conservative, December 2, 2002, p. 18

91) Gambone, “Sane Anarchy”

92) David Michael, “National Anarchist FAQ” at

93) Michael, “Unity…”

94) Gambone, ibid.

95) Gambone, ibid.

96) Gambone, ibid.

97) Kevin Carson, “Political Program For Anarchists” at

98) Carson, “Political Program..”

99) Opposition to the drug war as a wedge issue has been repeatedly suggested by R. W. Bradford of “Liberty” magazine.

100) Tijen, “The Sorrow…”

101) Gambone, ibid.

(102) One thing that will certainly be necessary in the broader struggle against the New World Order, particularly in the Western countries, is the cultivation of a warrior ethic appropriate to the battle at hand. Thus far, most Western radicals are heavily under the influence of the delusions of liberalism, humanism, pacifism, democratism and other perspectives that look askance at any sort of warrior ethic. Traditions and cultural phenomenon we might look to for inspiration include the gladiators of ancient Rome, the Spartan warriors, the chivalry of medieval knights, the New Model Army, the Taiping rebels, the bushido warrior ethics of the samurai and the kamikazi and, of course, modern Islamic jihadists. Perhaps Karl Schmidt’s conception of politics in the highest form as two polarized opposites prepared to battle to the death provides us with a clue pointing to the right direction. See Karl Schmidt, “The Concept of the Political”

103) Joseph Sobran, “The Reluctant Anarchist” at

104) Paul Craig Roberts, “A Holocaust in the Making” at

105) Larry Gambone, Porcupine, May 17, 2003

Leave a Reply