“The Bay Area National Anarchists site recently proposed a tour of Vietnam, the idea being to live among the rural population there for a short while and give at least rhetorical support to their efforts to resist globalization and other upsets to their traditional lifestyle.”

Thats right (although technically it was an announcement for the New Right Australia/New Zealand). We believe it is respectful and good manners to help people in their own countries. We are opposed to internationalism and multiculturalism that destroys the integrity of all. We view mass immigration as a tool of the ruling class to divide the workers into ethnic conclaves separated by language, religion, culture, and custom so as to further exploit all people more effectively.

@Daniel Owen

“Yes, the Bay Area lot seem to have brought together the two most disgusting ideologies that parade under the name of “anarchism” — primitivism and the Third Position.”

No one in our group is primitivists, please do not slander us by saying that we are. What exactly do you not like about Third Positionism? (I’m personally not a TPist but I do advocate gild socialism). You may call us “primitivists” in our opposition to globalization or advocation for decentralized political power but that is a gross misuse of the word primitivism that refers to a specific ideology.

For revolution,
BANA

Would default insurance cost more than the cost of incorporating? In some states, especially New York, incorporating costs over $3,000. For a small firm (let’s say a small web design firm with just 5 people) it’s hard to imagine that the default insurance would cost more than the cost of incorporating.

For those people who negotiate complicated partnership structures when setting up an LLC, legal costs can sometimes go up to $10,000, or possibly even more. This seems like more than default insurance would cost (though, of course, such agreements also touch on some issues that aren’t directly related to default).

That’s Jacobinism, the very foundation of the modern totalitarianism you represent so well.

Flavio Goncalves: “Races are different and cannot be compared nor labeled. What is good for one race does not necessarily mean that it is good for another race. [...] N-A recognises that races exist and that their differences can and should not be fanatically eliminated, as most of the anti-racists believe.”

I stick with the old rallying cry that libertarians have always had: Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood.

*National-Anarchism: The Way of the Future*

*by Flavio Goncalves*

WHAT led me to write this short essay - through which I will try to
explain how National-Anarchism first arose and what it stands for and why -was the fact that whilst involved in a discussion regarding the Unabomber with other comrades I came to realize that in Portugal, and in Portugal alone, there is a huge lack of knowledge regarding this vanguard’s ideological current, a
current that at least from the perspective of those who run Wikipedia, although very reluctantly, has finally been included as a valid current of Anarchism.

It’s common for National-Anarchists (N-A) to be frowned upon with
distrust by the whole political spectrum – both from the right-wing and the left-wing– and even fought back by both mainstream Nationalists (pro-State, supremacist and racist) and mainstream Anarchists (anti-State, egalitarian and anti-racist). Why? Because N-A, even though they agree partially with a few common goals, repudiates the majority of the dogma upheld by both
movements. N-A stands out as a revolutionary third way.

*The repudiated dogmas*

*State* – N-A, like any other Anarchist current, does not uphold the existence of a ruling state; all decisions must be taken by the local communities, not by a central government and politicians that are not aware of the realities of the people. N-A is also anti-totalitarian, by extension that means it is anti-fascist and anti-communist.

*Racial supremacy* – N-A does not recognize the superiority of any race, whatever it may be, by doing so it does not uphold that Nationalist dogma. Races are different and cannot be compared nor labeled. What is good for one race does not necessarily mean that it is good for another race. What some consider as evolution and civilisation, others find to be abomination and barbarism.

*Racism* – N-A is not racist, it does not discriminate against anyone because of their race, creed or culture. N-A works with
revolutionaries from all races, ethnic backgrounds and creeds.

*Equalitarian* – N-A is not egalitarian, it defends the fact that
every person is different unto himself, meaning that if I am different from my own brother or my own family it’s only due to an act of imbecility that I would not consider myself to be different from members of other sexual, racial and cultural groups. Each person is an individual, with different capacities; equality does not exist in the real world. Nonetheless, N-A stands for the
equality of opportunity.

*Anti-racism* – N-A, even though not being racist, does not uphold the anti-racist dogma that discriminates “positively”. N-A recognises that races exist and that their differences can and should not be fanatically eliminated, as most of the anti-racists believe.

*Left/Right* – N-A has attracted since it’s conception both former
leftists and rightists, it is a third way ideology and as such it is beyond left and right, considering both concepts to be surpassed realities. Some of the N-A propaganda upholds that today it’s not an issue of Left versus Right but of the State versus the citizen, of people that support the System and people that fight the System.

*What it stands for*

N-A stands for something that many believe to be pessimistic and/or
defeatist, and considering the degree of social degradation that is
so deep
and rooted we see no way of turning this boat around, if you will
allow me
to use an analogy from “Ship of Fools”. Drugs, alcohol, MTV and sexual
degradation have affected our society in such a way that it is
impossible to
return to the old days, some even consider those things as a
fundamental
part of our society.

N-A stands for the termination of nation-states, has a necessity for
survival and upholds the need of a rebirth of our tribal spirit. All
national territories should be regionalised, fragmented, reduced to
small
territories and within those territories people with common ethnic or
cultural affinities will gather together. Our notion of Nationalism
is very
strict: it covers solely the racial group closer to us (Azoreans,
Galicians,
Flemish, for example) and also covers the cultural aspects of that
group (we
also uphold autonomous communities for homosexuals, hippies,
vegetarians,
Muslims, pagans, etc.) or even the political aspects (autonomous
communities
for Anarchists, Ecologists, Social Democrats, etc.). N-A above all
stands
for the right of any individual to live among those whom he feels more
comfortable with ideologically, racially and culturally, or by any
other
identitarian concept that may define him and his people as a group.

We should have autonomous and independent communities for each ethnic
and
cultural group. N-A believes that the racist formula upheld by most
Nationalist parties, proposing the expulsion of all ethnic and
cultural
minorities from our territories is completely unrealistic and
surpassed by
the real world: there are millions of citizens from other races and
cultures
living in Europe and, believe us, they are here to stay!

So being, the regions where a large concentration of different
populations
live will have to right to create their own communities and that is
nothing
new, even the Greeks in old Hellas lived in this way, in autonomous
city-states that had different cultures (let us compare Sparta to
Athens,
just to exemplify this example).

This N-A stance angers particularly the mainstream Nationalists, but
we hope
that they might gift us with any other more realistic solution, or
would
they prefer a total civil war or maybe even a policy of genocide?

*Utopia?*
This being said, you are free to consider National-Anarchism as an
Utopian
ideology. N-A is not an ideology for the present time, it is
something that
has been created to prepare the ground for tomorrow, when today’s
System
disintegrate amid all the wars and natural disasters that have
started in
the last few years. It’s not with joy that we behold today’s world, N-
A may
very well be the only valid future for the time when it all gets even
worse
and, believe us, it will get much worse. National-Anarchism, at
least, tries
to be a more realistic option.

I consider myself to be a single-issue activist, and that single issue is overthrow of the present US ruling class. Those who are interested in this objective are welcome into my circle, irrespective of the rest of their views. Yes, Neo-Nazis, Commies and other left-wing totalitarians, theocratic religious movements and the like would be dangerous if they had real power, which they’re not going to get, at least not in the USA. The real danger here is authoritarian liberalism. All who oppose this are welcome. National-Anarchists, welcome. Black Panthers, welcome. Evangelical Christians, welcome. So-called “eco-terrorists”, welcome. Anti-Zionist Jews, or even pro-Zionists with anti-imperialist foreign policy views, welcome. Gays, welcome. Marxists, welcome. Paleoconservatives, welcome. Members of the criminal underclass, welcome.

Bigoted assholes like you, Daniel, who are more interested in attacking other groups who are out of power and against the system, are even welcome once you get your thinking straightened out.

The alternative system I postulate is based on a simple idea: Dissolving the present regime into regional federations of micronations and intentional communities (sort of Liechtenstein meets Christiana). Everyone gets a piece of the pie. Even unsympathetic jerks like you.

As for Austrians and mutualists, some of you might be interested in this debate between Bastiat and Proudhon on interest, brought to us by Roderick Long.

No, you do. I don’t. Frankly, extremist scum like you make me ashamed to be human, let alone European.

“Dain — Yeah. I’ve argued elsewhere that psychical-force antifascism should be extended to apologists for mass murder under other banners , such as Stalinists and Maoists.”

Then you should be kicked in the bollocks. Oho, the irony.

“As far as I’m concerned — Nuff said. Make up your own minds people.Ddo you have principles or just big mouth?”

I have principles - freedom of thought and association, and eternal war against those who attempt to limit that, like religious fundamentalists, neo-Nazis, and people like yourself. Now do the human race a favour and fuck off and die.

“I bow out of this discussion.”

An honourable surrender, old boy.

I’m actually fairly enthusiastic about Rothbard’s “New Left entente” period, and on good terms with a lot of Austrians in that tradition (Roderick Long, Rad Geek, Brad Spangler, Joseph Stromberg, etc.). Nothing inherently vulgar about Austrianism, although I do differ with them on rent and interest.

Keith Preston — We in Europe have a “No platform” policy as regards fascists, which sees ethno-nationalism as beyond the pale. Not having experienced fascism, Americans can be as wishy-washy as you like. I use “lefty” in an ironic manner — as the average boots n braces neo-nazi at least has the guts to hold to certain principles.

Dain — Yeah. I’ve argued elsewhere that psychical-force antifascism should be extended to apologists for mass murder under other banners , such as Stalinists and Maoists.

Anyway

Keith Preston: “As for the views on racial miscegenation, holocaust denial, etc. some of them are into, it’s a matter I’m indifferent to as well. I see this as no more significant than Black Muslim opposition to pork or alcohol, conventional Christian opposition to adultery or abortion…”

As far as I’m concerned — Nuff said. Make up your own minds people.Ddo you have principles or just big mouth?

I bow out of this discussion.

And the denial of the excesses of the Cultural Revolution? A punch in the gut and slap in the face, or perhaps half a slap? How about denial of the Islamic contribution to the slave trade? Stomp on the foot?

But if you say he’s a racialism and I say there’s very little difference between racialism and racism, how do you read that I would agree with him or be one of his compadres?

Also, for the comparison of right-wing libertarianism with the Third Reich, I was thinking of something along these lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r78Ib1n69MM

I’ll venture an answer on his behalf: Hell Yes. I myself have been fascinated by people ranging from Carl Schmitt (christ lord almighty!) to Slavoj Zizek (holy hell on wheels!).

“Ok, Mr. Preston, but there is a tad of a difference between recognizing Zionism as a powerful and negative force and going on about “the Jews.” Note that many of the best anti-Zionist scholars and activists are Jewish. Many Jewish fundamentalists see Zionism as heretical.”

Absolutely! I, for one, am a big fan of leftist anti-Zionist writers like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein and am very sympathetic to the Neteuri Karta. So, I might add, are many in the N-A milieu.

“But your emphasis on Zionism seems to go beyond mere support for the Palestinians.”

You’re damn right it does. This is a situation where US foreign policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by a foreign state.

“Oil companies, neocon geopolitical think-tanks, old-guard Colonel Blimp types, Christian fundamentalists, ex-Trotskyists, etc. also have their say in the running of the American state. ”

Agreed. These are in fact the allies and accomplices of the US Zionist lobby.

“The fact that you’re mates with Troy Southgate says it all. He’s ex-NF, supports “left Nazis” such as the Strasser brothers, and has a major hardon for Nazi mystics like Julius Evola (who worked for the SS). ”

Troy is probably a purer anarchist than I am, having opposed the Ron Paul campaign on anti-electoralist and anti-reformist grounds while I supported Ron Paul. Troy can speak for himself, but as one who has read many of his writings, I find him to be a much more sincere as well as practical anarchist than what is frequently found in the anarcho-leftoid milieu. I’ve also found him to be a tolerant person who welcomes gays like the late Alisdair Clarke into the N-A circle. Not a Nazi at all.

“Your mate Bill White isn’t exactly friendly towards non-Zionist jews — unless his astute reading of “Mein Kampf” told him otherwise. ”

I supported Bill when he was an anarchist. When he renounced anarchism for George Lincoln Rockwell Nazism, I stopped supporting him. That’s all there is to it.

“Apparently you were a member of the Love & Rage Federation? Everything I’ve heard about it sounds terrible. White guilt, sub-Trotskyism, etc. ”

I was at their founding conference but disassociated myself from that project afterwards.

“But you seemed to have had some kind of knee-jerk reaction against so-called “left-anarchism” and become the mirror image of Chuck Munson. (Seriously, you’re both “Big Tent” strategists — he’s more open to eco-terrorists, paedos, and drop-out parasites, and you’re more open to neo-nazis, post-fascist “Third Positionists”, etc.)”

Munson holds me in no higher regard than you do, and I’ve certainly had my criticisms of him, but I would agree with him on his question.

“Your stuff on “cultural Marxism” isn’t bad, but you’ve picked some mighty dodgy friends. I’m also critical of multiculturalism, but from a different angle. Check out these articles:

http://libcom.org/library/seperatism-accident-or-design-red-action
http://libcom.org/library/redistribution-recognition-left-critique-multiculturalism-aris-shivani
http://libcom.org/library/multiculturism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism-zizek
http://libcom.org/library/time-dump-multiculturalism
http://libcom.org/library/race-attack-red-action-multiculturalism”

Thank you

“p.s. I’m not Irish. I’m English. I have celtic ancestry.”

My mistake

Daniel, whenever I encounter people like you I’m reminded of Alexandra Kropotkin’s observations about all of the Bolshie-wannabes among the ranks of the Russian anarchists.

While not personally sympathethic to so-called “holocaust denial”, I believe all historical questions should be open for investigation, inquiry, debate, disagreement, revision, etc. and I most certainly do not believe in assaulting or killing people for getting historical facts wrong.

“If you’re really that “broad church” you’re just a demagogue with no moral standards or basic humanity.”

I’m a moral skeptic in the tradition of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Stirner, Nietzsche and the Social Darwinists. Life is war. Survival of the fittest is the law. Period. Sorry if that shatters your illusions.

“I think there’s a great deal of naivety and “playing politiks” in your attitude, because for me people who worship Julius Evola are people who worship one of the strategists behind the “strategy of tension” in Italy that killed many anarchists — many, I’m sorry, individuals.”

Well, I admire Thomas Jefferson. Maybe I’m just a closet wannabe-slaveholder.

“The people that died in the holocaust were real — not something you can ignore to further “political alliances.” People going on about the evils of “race mixing” are relating their theories to real people — people who may be physically harmed by those that hold these racist ideas.”

Well, you might have a point if National-Anarchism were about building gas chambers and crematoria, which it is not. Instead, it is a nativist movement interested in preserving indigenous European identity, in the same way as indigenous peoples’ movements all over the world.

” You’re just like the Trotskyists who “critically support” murdering thugs in Third World countries because of “in the greater dialectical picture” it furthers “the development of the means of production” so as to one day “free the proletariat”, or some such bollocks. ”

I am for supporting the independence of Third World countries from imperialism. Nothing more, nothing less. How they organize their own societies is none of my business. While not agreeing with Trotskyism as an ideological system, I know a few Trots who are decent people.

“I’m not a lefty, Mr Preston. I agree with your critiques of how New Left “cultural Marxism” has subverted anarchism. I’m not some little berk whose picked up Emma Goldman and decided I was an anarchist — I’m a third generation socialist and a second generation anarchist and I’m proud to say that three members of my family died in WWII fighting fascism. ”

Good for you and good for them.

“Keith Preston: “maybe we’re simply able to look past all this secondary stuff and focus on the real issue at hand: resistance to the empire.”

Take a fucking hike you lefty demagogue.”

So, first I’m a fascist, and now I’m a lefty. Daniel, you simply don’t make any sense.

“Ok, Mr. Preston, but there is a tad of a difference between recognizing Zionism as a powerful and negative force and going on about “the Jews.” Note that many of the best anti-Zionist scholars and activists are Jewish. Many Jewish fundamentalists see Zionism as heretical.”

Absolutely! I, for one, am a big fan of leftist anti-Zionist writers like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein and am very sympathetic to the Neteuri Karta. So, I might add, are many in the N-A milieu.

“But your emphasis on Zionism seems to go beyond mere support for the Palestinians.”

You’re damn right it does. This is a situation where US foreign policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by a foreign state.

“Oil companies, neocon geopolitical think-tanks, old-guard Colonel Blimp types, Christian fundamentalists, ex-Trotskyists, etc. also have their say in the running of the American state. ”

Agreed. These are in fact the allies and accomplices of the US Zionist lobby.

“The fact that you’re mates with Troy Southgate says it all. He’s ex-NF, supports “left Nazis” such as the Strasser brothers, and has a major hardon for Nazi mystics like Julius Evola (who worked for the SS). ”

Troy is probably a purer anarchist than I am, having opposed the Ron Paul campaign on anti-electoralist and anti-reformist grounds while I supported Ron Paul. Troy can speak for himself, but as one who has read many of his writings, I find him to be a much more sincere as well as practical anarchist than what is frequently found in the anarcho-leftoid milieu. I’ve also found him to be a tolerant person who welcomes gays like the late Alisdair Clarke into the N-A circle. Not a Nazi at all.

“Your mate Bill White isn’t exactly friendly towards non-Zionist jews — unless his astute reading of “Mein Kampf” told him otherwise. ”

I supported Bill when he was an anarchist. When he renounced anarchism for George Lincoln Rockwell Nazism, I stopped supporting him. That’s all there is to it.

“Apparently you were a member of the Love & Rage Federation? Everything I’ve heard about it sounds terrible. White guilt, sub-Trotskyism, etc. ”

I was at their founding conference but disassociated myself from that project afterwards.

“But you seemed to have had some kind of knee-jerk reaction against so-called “left-anarchism” and become the mirror image of Chuck Munson. (Seriously, you’re both “Big Tent” strategists — he’s more open to eco-terrorists, paedos, and drop-out parasites, and you’re more open to neo-nazis, post-fascist “Third Positionists”, etc.)”

Munson holds me in no higher regard than you do, and I’ve certainly had my criticisms of him, but I would agree with him on his question.

“Your stuff on “cultural Marxism” isn’t bad, but you’ve picked some mighty dodgy friends. I’m also critical of multiculturalism, but from a different angle. Check out these articles:

http://libcom.org/library/seperatism-accident-or-design-red-action
http://libcom.org/library/redistribution-recognition-left-critique-multiculturalism-aris-shivani
http://libcom.org/library/multiculturism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism-zizek
http://libcom.org/library/time-dump-multiculturalism
http://libcom.org/library/race-attack-red-action-multiculturalism”

Thank you

“p.s. I’m not Irish. I’m English. I have celtic ancestry.”

My mistake

“All of this said, I find it interesting that you say these are ‘contemptible’ people but they are ‘at least not racist’. So, it’s less ‘contemptible’ to espouse mass murder, terrorism and the like provided they aren’t ‘racist’? This is characteristic leftist thinking - the crime of racism outweighs all other thought-crimes.”

No, I meant I’d kick Steve Booth in the bollocks if I ever met him but as far as an expose of “national anarchism” goes they are reliable as they, for all their other huge faults, not actually racist (though some of their stuff on population would indicate that a minority of them are).

“Apparently you were a member of the Love & Rage Federation? Everything I’ve heard about it sounds terrible. White guilt, sub-Trotskyism, etc. But you seemed to have had some kind of knee-jerk reaction against so-called “left-anarchism” and become the mirror image of Chuck Munson. (Seriously, you’re both “Big Tent” strategists — he’s more open to eco-terrorists, paedos, and drop-out parasites, and you’re more open to neo-nazis, post-fascist “Third Positionists”, etc.)”

Keith Preston: “As for the views on racial miscegenation, holocaust denial, etc. some of them are into, it’s a matter I’m indifferent to as well. I see this as no more significant than Black Muslim opposition to pork or alcohol, conventional Christian opposition to adultery or abortion…”

I guess there we differ. 6 million people seems significant to me. I think the denial of the holocaust is reason enough for a severe beating or worse. Nuff said. If you’re really that “broad church” you’re just a demagogue with no moral standards or basic humanity. I think there’s a great deal of naivety and “playing politiks” in your attitude, because for me people who worship Julius Evola are people who worship one of the strategists behind the “strategy of tension” in Italy that killed many anarchists — many, I’m sorry, individuals. The people that died in the holocaust were real — not something you can ignore to further “political alliances.” People going on about the evils of “race mixing” are relating their theories to real people — people who may be physically harmed by those that hold these racist ideas. You’re just like the Trotskyists who “critically support” murdering thugs in Third World countries because of “in the greater dialectical picture” it furthers “the development of the means of production” so as to one day “free the proletariat”, or some such bollocks.

I’m not a lefty, Mr Preston. I agree with your critiques of how New Left “cultural Marxism” has subverted anarchism. I’m not some little berk whose picked up Emma Goldman and decided I was an anarchist — I’m a third generation socialist and a second generation anarchist and I’m proud to say that three members of my family died in WWII fighting fascism.

Keith Preston: “maybe we’re simply able to look past all this secondary stuff and focus on the real issue at hand: resistance to the empire.”

Take a fucking hike you lefty demagogue.

With all respect, you seem to have trouble mustering up the required attention span to actually find out about the things you rail against, before you dismiss them as “fascist” or “contemptible” without any serious discussion as to why. For instance, you claim that Green Anarchy has supported Timothy McVeigh, the Aum sarin attacks, AIDS, etc, etc but this is inaccurate - you are thinking of the British publication Green Anarchist, which ran an article in the mid-90s supporting terrorist atrocities like the aforementioned (incidentally, the author has since retracted his views). I too am less than keen on both Green Anarchy and Green Anarchist, but this is because they retain their irrational leftist dogmatism.

All of this said, I find it interesting that you say these are ‘contemptible’ people but they are ‘at least not racist’. So, it’s less ‘contemptible’ to espouse mass murder, terrorism and the like provided they aren’t ‘racist’? This is characteristic leftist thinking - the crime of racism outweighs all other thought-crimes.

http://attackthesystem.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-i-believe-jews-control-world.html

My views on race?

It’s a matter I’m mostly indifferent to on a personal level. Politically, I’m in favor of “separation of race and state” along the lines of present day separation of religion and state. I see neither racial separatism or racial integrationism as an ideal unto itself. I’m simply for removing the state from race relations and letting the chips fall where they may. I’ve written about this issue elsewhere:

http://www.attackthesystem.com/libertypopulism.html
http://www.attackthesystem.com/race.html

As for the national-anarchists, I share their emphasis on decentralized autonomous communities spanning conventional ideological, cultural or national boundaries as an alternative to the global system and US imperialism. Are they fascists? As a general rule, no, they are not. In fact, many of them are closer to being genuine anarchists than many in the anarcho-leftoid milieu are. I’ve encountered a few individuals in the N-A milieu who carried some residual “fascist” influences just as I’ve encountered left-anarchists with residual Bolshevik influences, but that’s about it.
As for the views on racial miscegenation, holocaust denial, etc. some of them are into, it’s a matter I’m indifferent to as well. I see this as no more significant than Black Muslim opposition to pork or alcohol, conventional Christian opposition to adultery or abortion, feminist opposition to pornography, or Noam Chomsky’s downplaying the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge.

Am I a dupe for N-As? Maybe. Or, LOL, maybe they’re dupes for me! Or maybe we’re simply able to look past all this secondary stuff and focus on the real issue at hand: resistance to the empire.

Btw, there are indeed Maoists and other leftwing “extremists” in my circle. In fact, one of my very best friends of 20 years is an unreconstructed commie who participated in the May-June ‘68 Paris uprising and was a Maoist in France in the 70s.

I have political associates from the Christian Exodus Project but anyone who knows me knows I’m about as much of a Christian as Friedrich Nietzsche. I have many black political associates whom I’ve collaborated with on various projects. I count many blacks, Jews and other “non-whites” among the ranks of my personal friends. Just as I have Christians and Muslims among the ranks of my personal friends.

As for Bill White, I was a peripheral associated of his during his Utopian Anarchist Party and later N-A phase, but I ceased all contact with him when he became a Hogan’s Heroes Nazi.

Daniel Owen,

You remind me of myself during my leftoid phase. You make the kinds of claims and arguments I would make if I were still of that mindset. I invite you to further discussion of these matters.

Burnt out crust punks?

Also, I fully admit to linking to racists, fascists/authoritarians, fundamentalist Christians, Stalinists and so on. Make of it what you will. If you know of a good radical Islamist blog a westerner can easily make sense of, point it out to me.

But we digress.”

Ouch, ok then. So then they’re not anarchists as far as I’m concerned. I was thinking more along the lines of a hippie commune committed to bare, organic living.

But we digress.

Harsh words for those who desire a different system FOR THEMSELVES.

I enjoy his critiques of “cultural Marxism” and the New Class. He’s probably a nice guy. Again, so what? The issue isn’t him as an individual — it’s the wider picture of attempted infiltration and hijacking of anarchism by fascists.

Cheers,

This conversation grows tiring though. Read the Green Anarchy article. ‘National anarchism’ is a recruiting front for fascism. At most, Keith Preston is an unwitting dupe.

Dain — Yes, the Bay Area lot seem to have brought together the two most disgusting ideologies that parade under the name of “anarchism” — primitivism and the Third Position.

Your part on libertarianism’s fall from non-vulgarity leans pretty heavily on the Ricardians and seems to posit that things went wrong after the abandonment of the labor theory of value. Wouldn’t it still be possible for libertarians coming from the more predominant Austrian School to still arrive at the similarly anti-plutarchic conclusions, even without rejecting interest, profit and rent per se? I was wondering whether you think that suggests a different in kind between mutualists and Austrians, the latter being inherently vulgar due to their “capitalist” rather than “socialist” economic views.

I’m sure you’re aware of Rothbard’s detente with the New Left, as well as the really brilliant analyses coming from him and Hess during this period. And modern left-Rothbardians and Agorists often apply their ideas to similar arguments, critiquing rent-seekers in ways atypical of the average Catoite. To the extent that vulgarity prevails among Austrians, I think it has more to do with cultural biases with the libertarian movement than anything essential to Austrian economics.

“One has to only look at his friends to see beneath the sugar coating. Keith Preston is a Third Positionist, which evolved out of classical fascism.”

Oh, THE HORROR! And the F-word too.

” Keith Preston’s “national anarchist” buddies promote causes as varied as anti-miscegenation, holocaust denial, and “anti-Zionism” (antisemitism posing under the banner of those who justifiably criticise the terrible Israeli regime).”

Ah yes, and we all know that your complete mindset can be known from fragments of the mindsets of only some of your acquaintances, right?

“Mr Preston is, in short, a neo-nazi — a racialist national-socialist.”

Lay off the drugs when you post on public forums, it’ll save you some egg on the face.

IF they are referring to themselves as Fascists then you’re on point, and I take it all back. And I damn them for muddling up the terms “Fascism” and “Anarchism”.

This hardly seems to suggest fascism, and especially nazism. (Yes I know the Nazis had a particular affinity for India, but that was rooted in the Aryan superiority complex and its ancient “homeland”.) In fact it sounds exactly like the agenda of a third-world celebrating anarchism of the common sort. Of course the crucial difference is that North American anarchists don’t typically assign much respectability to their own white heritage. These folks do.

Yes it’s all very collectivist, wrong in its notion of cultural “preservation”, etc., but I would echo Kevin Carson’s point above about strategic alliances for decentralization.

Well, I’m a friend of his. We disagree on some things and agree on others. I defy you to draw any conclusions about my beliefs simply because we’re friends.

It’s not just wrong and insulting; it’s intellectually lazy. I do so enjoy your writing when you’re not making wild, unsupported accusations of guilt by association.

There’s an article on them from “Green Anarchy”, who are similarly contemptible people but at least not racist, here:

http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=viewwritingdetail&writingId=150

At the bottom are links to “national anarchist” websites.

I confess it’s a little more like work than I want to do for a four-day-old comment thread, when I’ve got new stuff to write. But my earlier post “Libertarian Self-Marginalization” was about a specific example at the Mises blog. Most of what appears there on Wal-Mart is a celebration of that company as embodiment of the “free market.” At Cato, likewise, just about everything that appears on trade issues manages to conflate corporate mercantilist trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., with “free trade.”

If you go to the topical heading “Vulgar Libertarianism Watch” at my blog, you can find three years worth of specific examples.

dhex,

I base the distinction largely on Thomas Hodgskin’s argument in Natural and Artificial Rights of Property Contrasted. Possession of land and moveable objects follows directly from the individual’s self-ownership and ownership of his labor product. The concept of “mine,” in the context of possession, is as old as human history. Copyright, on the other hand, is just a few hundred years old and started out as one of the monopolies granted by the Stuart monarchs.

Brutum Fulmen,

The problem I have with the idea of an enforceable property right in someone’s idea is that it requires invasive monitoring and restrictions on what someone else does with his hard drive, pen and paper, guitar, etc.