Anarchism had its explicit philosophical origins in France, when Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, son of an artisan and peasant, declared, “I am an anarchist […] I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist.” This seems shocking to those unfamiliar with anarchism, as it seems, at first, plain loony to oppose government, but Proudhon had experienced something that he could not unexperience. The mutualists, led by Pierre Charnier, had formed themselves into mutual protection societies and had begun to develop their own voluntary republic. That the people could organize their own affairs, as Proudhon had observed, suggested that there was no purpose for government other than to tyrannize the people. Proudhon would go on to give a philosophical explanation of mutualism as an economic corollary to political federalism moving toward anarchy. Mutualism was the very foundation that enabled anarchy to become a politically viable idea. While there had long been communists, and while followers of French liberalism such as Gustave Molinari and Paul Emile de Puydt would start in their own anti-state directions, neither the communists nor the liberals had produced any viable infrastructure capable to managing social affairs through civil society rather than the state. The mutualists had done just this. Mutualism was “for craftsmen and artisans, for smallholders and shopkeepers, for professional men and specialists, for people who like to stand on their own feet,” as Nicolas Walter says, in “About Anarchism.” Thus would begin classical anarchism.
By classical anarchism I am speaking of anarchism as it has tended to have been rooted in the thought of thinkers surrounding Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his writings on mutualism. This includes especially the mutualists, including in the widest sense the fraternal and cooperative movements at-large as well as individualists involved in American individualist anarchism, early anarcho-syndicalism, as well as anticipants such as associationalism, Ricardian socialism, and, though perhaps less so, the thought of William Godwin, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Spence, Gerrard Winstanley, and on back in time to free thinkers such as Matthew Tindal, John Toland, and Baruch Spinoza. Even Nicholas Walter is apt to agree, despite his own affinity for communism, that “nearly all anarchist proposals for the reorganisation of society have been essentially mutualist.”[1] At least, so far as they are truly anarchist! In a secondary sense, however, it includes early deviations from mutualism, or proto-neo-anarchism, in the forms of collectivist and communist varieties.
Classical anarchists were in wide agreement about some things, at least in sentiment, most important of which was that the state was a monopoly on violence established and maintained through aggression such as taxation, and correlating with a system of economic monopoly whereby surpluses such as profit, interest, and rent were derived, an injustice which was considered exploitation. As Iain Mckay, who is sympathetic to anarcho-communism, holds, in An Anarchist FAQ, “[a]ll anarchists view profit, interest, and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the state.”[2] Classical anarchists were fairly unanimous in this, but— particularly among the mutualists and the proto-neo-anarchists, but also within them— disagreed on the details of the solution and what it should look like. In particular, among the mutualists, there was an Anglo tendency especially from frontiers Americans toward individualization and anti-institutionalism, whereas the French and Italian, entrenched in millennia of Roman and Frankish civil law, felt the need to address their centralized states with counter-centralization in the form of worker syndicates. Nonetheless, an anarcho-communist, Errico Malatesta, in “Individualism and Communism,” sees no fundamental difference between the split tendencies that would emerge within anarchism, the individualist and communist, even going so far as to recommend a book by Emile Armand, the mutualist who described himself as an “individualist” similar to Benjamin Tucker, saying “one wonders why on earth Armand insists on referring to ‘anarchist individualism’ as a distinct body of doctrine when in general he is setting out principles common to all anarchists of whatever tendency.”[3] He clarifies the dispute between the communists and individualists, saying that the
individualists presume, or speak as if they presume, that the anarchist communists wish to impose communism, and that this would actually place them beyond the anarchist pale.
The communists presume, or speak as if they presume, that the anarchist individualists reject any idea of association, looking instead to the struggle of individual against individual, the dominion of the strongest (and there are those who, in the name of individualism, have supported such ideas and worse, but these people cannot be called anarchists) — and this would place them not only beyond the anarchist pale but beyond human society too.
In reality the communists are communists because in freely accepted communism they see the fruits of solidarity and a better guarantee of individual liberty. And the individualists, the truly anarchist ones, are anti-communist because they fear that communism would subject individuals to the tyranny, nominally, of the collectivity and, in practice, to the party or cast, and that this, on the pretext of having to administrate, would manage to invest itself with the power to dispose of things, and consequently of the people who need those things. They want every individual or group to be able to freely carry out their own activities and freely reap the fruits of their equality with other individuals and groups, conserving relations of justice and equity between one another.
If this is so, clearly no fundamental difference exists.[4]
Malatesta does apparently feel the need to stress “the truly anarchist ones” regarding the individualists, showing that even among those who could agree about the major points of anarchism, there was still contention as to the solution, as he does not feel the need to clarify the same of the communist side. Similarly, Benjamin Tucker would admit that Peter Kropotkin’s vision for communism was compatible with anarchism, but he too had his limits, as the violence of anarchists such as Johann Most and Emma Goldman was unconscionable to him. While Tucker continued in the tradition of mutualism, the non-mutualists split from that. The proto-neo-anarchists, as I call them, followed especially the libertine egotist Max Stiner; anti-Germanic, Slavic collectivist and nobleman, Mikhail Bakunin; and the French and Russian communists, such as Joseph Dejacque, Peter Kropotkin, and Elisee Reclus.
Max Stirner, a predecessor to Nietzsche, a strongly Counter-Enlightenment thinker, was inspired, in part, by the Marquis de Sade— a rapist from whom sadism gets its name— toward a libertine egotist sophism that would come to be confused for philosophy and mistakenly called egoism. Stirner had trained in philology, a favorite discipline of sophists. His “philosophy” amounted to skeptical or cynical disregard for principles and a subjectivistic and solipsistic embrace of narcissism. He had basically turned the free thinkers’ ideas, such as that freedom coincides with necessity, on their head, suggesting instead that freedom is the capacity to ignore natural law, to not be “a slave to duty” as his follower, John Badcock, jr., would put it. While the free thinkers also acknowledged the power of passions, they stressed the inability of the passions to supply reward outside of their capacity for realization, which required that they not contradict necessity. The “egoist anarchists” fatally stopped at acknowledging the passions, and from there dismissed anything that did not forward their ends, including Nature.
Mikhail Bakunin had been influenced by a number of revolutionaries of his time, including Proudhon and the nihilist Alexander Herzen, but also Stirner, as well as revolutionary neo-Babouvists such as Louis Blanqui, who supported secret revolution by way of coups, not entirely unlike Mazzini, Garibaldi, and the Carbonari. Bakunin, too, was a proponent of revolutions undertaken by secret societies. Indeed, as Erica Lagalisse writes, in Occult Features of Anarchism, “Bakunin espoused the notion of a secret revolutionary organization” that would be “directed by a secret collective force” [5] and that the “‘dictatorial power’ of this secret organization only represents a paradox if we do not recognize the long tradition and larger cosmology within which Bakunin is working.”[6] This, of course, followed after her section on the Illuminati and Babouvism, revolutionary communists of the Counter-Enlightenment around whom much conspiracy theorizing occurs; in fact, they are said to run the world. We’ll get to them in a bit!
Proto-neo-anarchists and neo-anarchists agree that Bakuninism was a progression from mutualism. Nicholas Walter, for instance, apparently a relict proto-neo-anarchist, says, the “type of anarchism which goes further than individualism or mutualism […] is what used to be called collectivism,” and the “first modern anarchists—the Bakuninists in the First International—were collectivists.”[7] This follows in the proto-neo-anarchist tradition of negating mutualism from the founding of the anarchist “movement.” He acknowledges, also, that this was a “reaction against the”—apparently— “reformist mutualists and federalists.”[8] It doesn’t matter to him that Proudhon’s book was called The General Theory of the Revolution and not The General Theory of Reform. In debates with Marx, Bakunin had managed to wrestle anarchism away from the mutualists, who had organized the International Workingmen’s Association, while Marx wrestled socialism out of their hands, as well as the International itself. From then on, anarchism (then libertarian socialism) was increasingly associated with Bakuninism and socialism (then authoritarian socialism) with Marxism. Marx himself has been popularly associated with connections to the Rothschild banking family, and was certainly a communist, which affiliates him with the thought of the Illuminati and Babouvism by extension, similar to Bakunin. Comparatively, Lagalisse acknowledges that, “Bakunin […] founded his own secret ‘International Brotherhood’ […] which mirrored Weishaupt’s vision almost exactly one hundred years later,” and that the “main difference was that Bakunin’s […] was meant to infiltrate the First International,”[9] she says, from the Marxists, leaving out what happened to the mutualists. She reminds us that occultism includes “both pyramid and leveling schemes, as well as pyramid schemes for leveling.”[10]
Collectivism and Marxism would not be the end of the problem. Nicholas Walter writes that the “type of anarchism which appears when collectivism is worked out in more detail is communism […] the view that it is not enough for the instruments of labour to be held in common, but that the products of labor should also be held in common.”[11] Communist “anarchism” had developed from out the of the thought of Sylvain Marechal and Theodore Dezamy, themselves coming from the neo-Babouvist tradition of revolutionary communism that came from out of the original Babouvism, associated itself with the Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt and Adolphe Knigge, as Nesta H. Webster makes clear in World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization. Alright, so what is all of this about?
The Illuminati had been affiliated with Jacobinism, and supported a communist society led by a secret council of bookkeeping and linguistic philosophers, among others, who would manipulate society by way of statistics and sophistry. Indeed, Babeuf—whom the Babouvists take their name from— held that economy “is only a simple affair of numbering things and people, a simple operation of calculation and combinations and consequently susceptible of a very fine degree of order.” This was apparently, according to Nesta H. Webster, derived from Diderot.[12] The Illuminati, as with thinkers such as Rousseau, professed an Enlightenment philosophy, but, like him, were in fact proto-postmodernists attempting to put scientific knowledge under traditional religious hierarchy in order to go “beyond enlightenment.” They were what I call the Radical Counter-Enlightenment, because their Traditionalism was willing to adjust itself to a sort of futurism, and, in this, it was getting back to the traditional foundations of hierarchy, capable of infiltrating scientific societies and governing them in a religious manner.
As with the Illuminati, and coming from a shared tradition, if not from the Illuminati itself, Joseph Dejacque opposed Proudhon and his mutualism, instead supporting what he called the “humanisphere,” a communism governed by way of a statistics book! In “The Humanisphere,” Dejacque writes that it has
a bureau, as usual. Only, at this bureau, the only authority is a book of statistics. The humanispherians find that it is an eminently impartial president, of a very eloquent terseness. And they want no others.
It would be the Russian royal or high noble, Prince Peter Kropotkin, however, who would become the major popularizer of communism in an anarchist guise, and, in this, he was followed by people such as Elisee Reclus, Errico Malatesta, Nestor Makhno, Alexander Berkman, and Emma Goldman, to name only a few, as “anarcho”-communism would become a major hysteria of the working class, rivaling Marxism. As with Bakunin and his collectivism, Kropotkin has been claimed as the real father of modern anarchism, particularly by some “anarcho”-communists.
Anarchism became increasingly influenced by Jewish and Slavic elements, both in Europe and in America, and, in America, also by Italian ones, which were ever more gravitating toward violence driven by Stirnerist egotism and Russian nihilism, which was being embraced by illegalists and insurrectionists. Along with Italians following in the footsteps of Luigi Galleani, the Jews Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were also supporters of the tactic of propaganda of the deed, or, in this case, political assassination. This was a tactic that had its origins among Ismaili Sufis, hashashins, hash smokers to whom assassin is etymologically traced. In contrast, the mutualists favored a gradualistic revolution facilitated by the development of economic institutions of civil society. The contrasts between the mutualists and the proto-neo-anarchists was increasing, and was highlighted in many conflicts, such as those of Benjamin Tucker and Johann Most. As Wendy McElroy writes, in “The Schism Between Individualist and Communist Anarchism,”
[b]y insisting upon peaceful agitation within the United States, the individualist anarchists placed themselves at odds with the communist anarchists, many of whom, as immigrants, had imported political strategies of violence from Russia and Germany. For example, communist anarchist leader Johann Most left Germany […] [and] he openly called for workers to commit acts of violence against the State. Liberty offered a sense of the urgency with which Most called for insurrection[13]
Unfortunately, proto-neo-anarchism was also having its influence on the mutualists, which I refer to as later mutualism’s “Romantic faultlines,” where it started to drive ever further away from its own foundations in the Radical Reformation and Scientific Revolution, truth seeking and free thinking, and toward Counter-Reformation and Counter-Enlightenment elements such as egotistical atheism and anti-theism. Nowhere is this more present than in Proudhon’s odes to Satan— an influence from the emerging fin de siècle, such as in the Satanic poetry of Decadent and Symbolist artist Charles Baudelaire— despite his genuine interest in religion as well, in Gustave Courbet’s dealings with Baudelaire including painting his portrait, or in Tucker’s need to express his anti-theism on his deathbed. Stirnerism had also started to creep into both American and French mutualism by way of Benjamin Tucker and Emile Armand, among others. It must be remembered, in contrast, that the free thinkers that had inspired the mutualist sentiments early on, Tindal, Toland, and Spinoza, were religious naturalists who saw Christianity has having some worth, though being fallible expressions of God’s real work, “The Book of Nature,” Creation itself. It was from their pantheist or deist theologies of the Radical Enlightenment that these proto-mutualists drew the natural, moral foundations upon which mutualism could be built. Matthew Tindal, for instance, said that all
“moralists” agree, that human nature is so constituted, that men can’t live without society and mutual assistance; and that God has endowed them with Reason, speech, and other faculties, evidently fitted to enable them to assist each other in all matters of life; that, therefore, it is the will of God who gives them this nature, and endows them with these faculties, that they should employ them for their common benefit and mutual assistance.[14]
The egoism of Spinoza, too, in contrast to the egotism of Stirner and the egoist anarchists, was a rational egoism that would give birth to the rational self-interest behind Enlightenment thought. Atheism and anti-theism represented, in contrast to free thought, full acceptance of the mechanical philosophy of the Moderate Enlightenment, itself a version of the Radical Enlightenment that was compromised by the infiltration of Radical Counter-Enlightenment interests, such as those of Rousseau and his proponents of ochlocracy in the Reign of Terror.
For whatever flaws they incurred by falling victim to it themselves, the anarchists were keen to pick up on the patterns that would point to a worldwide conspiracy corresponding to the existence of the state. In Anarcho-Pessimism, for instance, Chord acknowledges that, though anarchism “is generally considered a ‘fringe’ body of ideas,” “seldom is the anarchist condemnation of government associated with conspiracy theory,” but that
the American individualist anarchists were forerunners of modern conspiracy theory and the pages of Tucker’s lively journal Liberty overflowed with animated discussions analyzing land ownership, money issuance, inflation (and other economic cycles), taxation, rent, interest, centralized banking and war as various conspiracies of privilege. Behind every political party and system stand a group of shadowy oligarchs who have been made rich through this conspiracy of privilege and who secretly control the machinery of the State, directing it through stealthy undercurrents and seeing to it that no legislation is enacted hostile to their interests and privilege. Acutely sensitive to the dangers of the not-so- invisible partnership between high finance and the various prostitute levels of government (whereby certain business empires have utilized the State in a conspiracy against competition in order to concentrate and control wealth), the American individualists associated with Benjamin Tucker saw that capitalism never has (and never will) functioned without the State […] The American individualists were also some of the first radicals to discuss communism and state socialism, stripped of all pretenses, as constituting a conspiracy against the proletariat.[15]
Great changes took place in the era of the worldwide wars, and as anarchism became increasingly associated with the violence of demographic change resulting from incoming Italians, Russians, and Jews. In Europe, dictatorships were spreading, and anarchist revolutions were breaking out, most prominently in Spain, Ukraine, and Manchuria. Various episodes of Red Scare would occur, with unions and various associations of even Anglo-Saxon anarchists being attacked in the name of rooting out insurrectionists and illegalists, and various acts of Congress such as the Sedition Act and Criminal Anarchy Act were put into place. Anarchists, being mostly middle class, were also among those sent to die in the wars, and anti-German figurehead anarcho-communists such as Peter Kropotkin of Russia excused accepting such a duty in the “Manifesto of the Sixteen.” Most anarchists, including anarcho-communists and syndicalists such as Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker, as well as individualists in general, were opposed to the war. Alongside Jews, Gypsies, and certain Freemasons, anarchists were some of the top targets of Nazi Germany. By the end of the wars, the efforts of the anarchists had basically been dissembled. The union movement, the cooperative movement, and mutual finance had all been hindered by the focus on war, drafts, and revolts, and many of the anarchists had been imprisoned, deported, or killed off. As Larry Gambone writes, in “Sane Anarchy,” “there was no longer a libertarian movement, but a number of isolated individuals.”[16] Among these isolated individuals would be people such as Laurence Labadie, who is considered the keeper of Tucker’s flame. As Mildred Loomis and Mark Sullivan write, “[i]t was during the dark age that began with the Great Depression that Laurance Labadie was to take up the torch of Liberty which had earlier been held aloft by Jo Labadie, Benj. R. Tucker and his circle of champions.”[17] As Larry Gambone suggests,
[t]hose who formed the new anarchism came out of the New Left, people dissatisfied with the Stalinist takeover of the movement, who saw anarchism as the logical outgrowth of their beliefs. What was in reality a neo-anarchism, synthesized traditional anarchism with ideas taken from the New Left. Both the New Left and neo-anarchism (also called anti-authoritarianism) influenced the “New Movements” (Feminism, ecology, anti-nuke) of the 1970’s and 1980’s, and anarchism was in turn’ influenced by these movements.
Certain attitudes derived from the New Left and the so-called counter-culture. permeated neo-anarchism and had a deleterious effect upon it. Chief among these was elitism. It was the common belief among the New Left that the majority of the population were “co-opted”, “sold-out”, “racist” and “sexist”. For the hippie-left, most people were considered to be beer-swilling, short-haired rednecks […] Such contempt is in complete contrast to classical anarchism, which even at its most vanguardist, saw itself as only a catalyzer or spokesman of the masses.[18]
The proto-neo-anarchists were to neo-anarchism as Marxism was to neo-Marxism, or cultural Marxism. Economic Marxism, or Marxism-proper, had basically stayed loyal to the economic focus of pre-Marxist socialists such as the mutualists, but cultural Marxism, also known as neo-Marxism, took the focus off of economics and put it onto cultural matters, such as art, literature, linguistics, and “identity” issues such as racism, sexism, and so on, typically conflating concepts as they went, as in the tradition of sophistry. Neo-anarchism, or cultural anarchism, like cultural Marxism, would take the focus off of economic justice, and instead focus on cultural matters. But proto-neo-anarchism had been a necessary first step to this, because collectivism and especially communism were necessary to obfuscate the mutualist solution to the social problem (mutual finance and economic cooperation), egotism was necessary to create pessimism about contractual society, and early efforts of “anarcha-feminism” from Emma Goldman (a Stirnerite and Nietzschean) and the like were needed to place the focus increasingly toward subjective or personal matters of liberation, as would occur with neo-anarchism.
Neo-anarchism is distinguished by a transition away from classical anarchist consensus about the nature of the state and capitalism, and toward a redefinition of terms. While the proto-neo-anarchists and mutualists disagreed about economic arrangements, they nonetheless tended to agree that there should be an absence of state, and what constituted a state, as well as that the surpluses of capitalism were unjust and helped to support the state, with cultural matters being of generally secondary consideration excepting for when they were a matter of legal right. The neo-anarchists would reject this consensus. Sometimes their focus can remain economic, but in the case that it does, sophistries are used to redefine language. Otherwise, economic issues are altogether avoided in favor of cultural or even political matters of focus. Anything other than class matters would become the major focus of neo-anarchism. As Larry Gambone puts it,
[r]ooted in the Leninist notion of the “correct line”, and further developed by feminist and black nationalist extremism, political correctness has plagued neo-anarchism like fleas on a dog. How anyone can reconcile censorship with anarchism is hard to imagine, yet this is precisely what some “anti-authoritarians” have done to the point of fire-bombing video shops that sell pornography. Contempt for the masses, misrablism, sectarianism, Third Worldism, political correctness and the love of violence are all aspects of authoritarianism hidden behind the libertarian mask. The so-called anarchists are just members of one more authoritarian leftist sect, the only difference being they pretend to be anti-authoritarian — a kind of soft-core Leninism, if you will.[19]
Among the early traces of neo-anarchism, authors such as Alex Comfort followed Emma Goldman in having a sexually liberating focus to anarchism, while Paul Goodman focused on daily matters eschewing “grand narratives” in the fashion of postmodernism, which would come to really drive the move to neo-anarchism. Murray Bookchin, a Marxist, would become popularly known as an anarchist despite his shift to city-statism called “libertarian” municipalism. Among these authors, the general flavor of classical anarchism was still present, especially that of proto-neo-anarchism, but the emphasis on economically-organized labor was nullified by an emphasis on sex, psychology, and politics, especially identity politics, among other things. Murray Bookchin, for instance, in “The Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism,” says that “present-day anarchism” has
a relevance that no other form of communistic or socialistic movement has advanced in recent memory. Its concept of emancipation and community speaks to the transclass problems of gender, age, ethnic, and hierarchical oppression — problems whose scope reaches beyond the dissolution of a class-ridden economy and that are resolved by a truly ethical society in which the harmonization of human with human leads also to the harmonization of humanity with the natural world.[20]
For the neo-anarchists, who tend to suggest that language is flexible, in the tradition of sophism and post-structuralism, or else fooled by those who are, it may be allowable to have such oxymoronic outlooks as “anarcho”-capitalism, such as that fathered by Murray Rothbard and his band of stooges. While communism is just as much a problem for the concept of anarchism, because anarchism opposes absolutes of preference imposed on society, communes themselves, and even communal economic arrangements within them, are not necessarily counter to mutualist arrangements if contractual, an area that the communists would exploit in their infiltration of anarchism! Capitalism, on the other hand, ran directly counter not only to anarchist rationalism, which held that, absent a state, private exploitation would not be enabled because competition, cooperation, or communalism would outcompete it in the interests of free workers, but against an established century-long tradition. For capitalism to receive the prefix anarcho– was an even bigger jaw-dropper than communism, since communes could in fact be voluntary while natural law itself saw private exploitation as counter to consent. This was pure sophistry, fitting for an era that would produce ideologies such as “absurdism.” Increasingly, political movements such as those of racial nationalisms of the Black Panthers, Zapatistas, and later Rojava would affiliate themselves with the corpse of anarchism as well, eventually bringing about further absurdities such as “national anarchism.”
Neo-anarchism would really set its foundations, however, in thinkers such as the neo-Marxist Situationists, Bob Black, Hakim Bey, and then John Zerzan, Crimethinc, the Anarchist People of Color, David Graeber, and plenty of others. This was a highly subjectivistic approach that placed the focus on experiential elements, such as those of advertising and architectural displeasure, hatred for responsibilities like work, sophistry and pirate culture with acceptance of pedophilia, disregard for technology, living out of dumpsters and hopping trains, racism against white men, and ignoring common sense about the equivalencies people form in their exchanges. In its later phases as self-acknowledging forms of neo-anarchism, neo-anarchists would begin to drop political correctness and moralisms altogether in favor of strict Stirnerite egoism, a tendency called the post-Left, or even the basic premises of anarchism itself, such as in Saul Newman’s so-called post-anarchism. What a mess!
With the appearance of postmodernity, and probably influenced by it too much themselves, the remaining mutualists became very pessimistic themselves. Laurence Labadie, for instance, is the subject of the book called Anarcho-Pessimism, in which Chord relays that, “[b]edeviled by feelings of his own worthlessness, Laurence considered most of mankind pretty worthless as well.”
He concluded, toward the end of his life, that he had had no influence whatever. He attributed the destruction of his health and spirit mainly to “the frustration coming from lack of communication.” [21]
Indeed, this was a period after all of the worthwhile associations had been destroyed, suburbanism was starting to develop around car culture, and “third places” were basically disappearing. Not to mention that the growing themes in college centered on poststructuralist and indirect realist claims about the failure of language in the effort to communicate meaning and the apparently violent nature of modernist tendencies such as deductive thinking and ideology-formation. Still, “Laurence enjoyed a high status among the renegade minds associated with Ralph Borsodi’s School of Living (such as the young Robert Anton Wilson […]) who enjoyed the provocation and stimulus of his brooding fatalism and stayed amazingly committed to his echoless ‘scribblings’”[22] Unfortunately, Laurence himself was a Stirnerite as well, and this probably had something to do with his defeatism. Fellow Stirnerite author of Anarcho-Pessimism, however, make it a point to praise Laurence’s pessimism and to trash Laurence and dismiss his views on money on the basis that he was a conspiracy theorist, mentioning that Labadie’s “Why Americans Need To Kill Vietnamese or Somebody,” was “another discarded treasure” from Anarcho-Pessimism “that didn’t survive this book’s final edits owing to its simplistic deductions.” Showing their true Illuminati side, they continue, saying that “to place final judgment” for the Vietnam War “on ‘banking interests’ is a ridiculous and useless conclusion.”[23] Sounds like they’re up to bat for the banksters! Of course, they allow criticism of bankers themselves, but disallow for a “grand narrative” about them, because that would actually take us somewhere.
To understand what happened to the mutualists, it is necessary to understand the shift toward “progressivism” during the postmodern era, which included a shift also toward totalitarianism and dictatorship, both Communist and fascist. You see, around the time that the followers of Marx and Bakunin were dividing the spoils of mutualism between one another, the elites of the ruling class had also began work on establishing their own international movement, which would lead us to globalism. This movement was called synarchism, and it was a direct reaction by the international bankers and other elite interests against anarchist internationalism, a documented conspiracy against anarchism. Synarchism, the brainchild of Alexandre Saint-Yves following after the prior thought of Fabre d’Olivet, had itself come from out of the fin de siècle, the cultural milieu that had been characterized by Satanic imagery and occultism, such as that of Theosophy, as well as from out of the same Rite of Strict Observance within Templar Freemasonry that had given rise to the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati. Synarchism, like the Illuminati, desired to run the world through statistics in a planned economy, but instead of favoring aristocratic communism, like the Illuminati had done, the synarchists favored a mixed corporatist economy governed in secret, and allowed capitalistic as well as communistic economic elements to be assimilated into it, including elements of the Illuminati itself, but also liberals or capitalists and apparent anarchists. Synarchists, such as Papus and others, were also directly involved in the development of proto-fascism and fascism-proper. Some of the anarchists, such as Robert Michels, had developed fascist sympathies, particularly after Michels’s formulation of the “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” which was used to explain the lack of participation by the rank-and-file in anarchist assemblies and the correlating tendency for an executive committee to become much like a government.
The synarchists had taken advantage of the vices of the working class in Europe and America, particularly their difficulty in organizing. Organization was essential to anarchism, as odd as that may sound after the development of neo-anarchism! As the classical anarchist Errico Malatesta had said, however, in “Anarchism and Organization,”
[w]hen a community has needs and its members do not know how to organize spontaneously to provide them, someone comes forward, an authority who satisfies those needs by utilizing the services of all and directing them to their liking […] This is what has happened in our midst; the less organized we have been, the more prone are we to be imposed on by a few individuals. And this is understandable. So much so that organization, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each one of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in the collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders.[24]
And,
[i]f it is true that organization creates leaders; if it is true that anarchists are unable to come together and arrive at an agreement without submitting themselves to an authority, this means that they are not yet very good anarchists, and before thinking of establishing an anarchist society within the world they must think of making themselves able to live anarchistically. The remedy does not lie in the abolition of organization but in the growing consciousness of each individual member. In small as well as large societies, apart from brute force, of which it cannot be a question for us, the origin and justification for authority lies in social disorganization.[25]
The synarchists had another plan. A development of synarchism, called planism, or neo-socialism, as developed by Henri de Man and Marcel Deat, was specifically focused on establishing “revolutions from above,” meaning that the central planners would appeal to revolutionary sentiments in the disorganized population through spontaneous leadership in order to destabilize society, such that a coup could take place. And that is what the synarchists did in events of racial tension such as the Zoot Suit Riots, for instance, but especially in 1968-69 by inciting race riots, wildcat (spontaneous, non-union organized) strikes (in France especially), and queer riots (Stonewall). Increasingly, a new Reign of Terror would be unleashed, wielding crowd psychology and behavioralism, to play on irrational sentiments of the population. This was driven through the Civil Rights movement and the New Left, which had adopted cultural Marxism from the scholars of Frankfurt, who themselves had been influenced by Chinese synarchism’s, or late Maoism’s, Cultural Revolution, as spearheaded by his Manchurian wife, Jian Qing. The Qing Dynasty has been understood as having been minoritarian rule of China through synarchy by the Manchu. Maoism was an expression of this synarchism against the Republic established by Sun Yat-Sen. It was not alone in this, as Communism in the rest of Eurasia was developing into Red Fascism after its co-option by the synarchy. Nazism and Communism were, at the top, just two sides of the synarchy. Anarchism would face a challenge of its own, as it too had been sucked up into the fin de siècle.
Perhaps the strongest indication of outright synarchism, the esoteric project, and not just cultural Marxism, the exoteric one, can be seen in the likes of the Discordians, led by Kerry Thornley and Robert Anton Wilson, and the Immediatists, led by Peter Lamborn Wilson, or “Hakim Bey.” Of the two founders’ relationship, Hakim Bey said, in “Robert Anton Wilson,” that
For all we knew, Robert Anton Wilson and I were related. On an intuitive basis–i.e., after several rounds of Jameson’s and Guinness–we decided we were cousins. Subsequently we came to believe ourselves connected to the Wilsons who play so murky a role in the “Montauk Mysteries” (Aleister Crowley, UFOs and Nazis in Long Island, time travel experiments gone awry, etc.). Our plan to co-edit a family anthology (including Colin, S. Clay, and Anthony Burgess, whose real name was Wilson) never materialized–although we did collaborate in editing Semiotext(e) SF, together with Rudy Rucker.[26]
The Wilson family has been a major player in politics. Woodrow Wilson, for instance, led the United States into World War I and was a “chief architect” of the League of Nations, a project that has been traced to the synarchists. Aleister Crowley was certainly a part of the fin de siècle and a fellow traveler of Theosophy, also associated with the synarchists, and UFO incidents such as the Battle of Los Angeles have been connected to the synarchists as well. The rest is easy to imagine as connected also. The Montauk Project there is associated with UFO, black helicopter, and “men-in-black” activity (which the Patriot movement associates with a federal coup), has been blamed for faked Apollo moon landings, and is said to have led the Philadelphia Experiment (which apparently sent a battleship halfway into another dimension), while the Montauk Club hosted presidents such as McKinley and JFK, among others. Kerry Wendall Thornley, who started Discordianism, knew Lee Harvey Oswald, a fact around which many rational-sounding conspiracy theories have been based, implicating him in the event. The work named Semiotext(e) SF involves some highly suspicious connections to the present technocracy, as well as to MK Ultra (the Monarch Project)! William Gibson, another contributor, and who coined cyberspace, writes “lowlife high tech” sci-fi and has a book, Neuromancer, that cryptically has a butterfly on it (a known MK Ultra-related phenomenon) and is about an artificial intelligence dataspace called the matrix. This was long before the cinematic hit, The Matrix, which involves a digital world in which humans are trapped. Bruce Sterling, who also worked on Semiotext(E) SF, coined a term for nano-carbons. Rudy Rucker was a thrice great grandson of Hegel. And, if that’s not enough, Hakim Bey openly acknowledges a shared interest in real-life synarchist efforts, such as the Propaganda Due, between himself and Robert Anton Wilson, saying that they “got too much enjoyment” out of their “shared interests: the Propaganda Due, Freemasonic Conspiracy, science fiction […] occult and lost history, pirates […]”[27] Bey says further, that he is “proud to say” that he appears
under several guises, alter egos and noms de plume in one of Bob’s last books, Everything Is Under Control (1998), a sort of encyclopedia of his favorite conspiracies. Unlike some of his admirers, Bob never believed in any one conspiracy as more (or less) real than another. He simply took a chaote’s delight in humanity’s occasional talent for genuine mystery; and for him, Imagination was a form of reality. Was he playing or was he serious? Exactly.
The Discordians appeal to the myth of the Trojan War surrounding the Apple of Discord for their quasi-religion. As the story goes, the goddess Eris was not invited to a banquet because she was not considered to be good fun, so she threw a golden apple, picked from the Garden of Atlantides (Venus), with the message “to the fairest one” on it, into the banquet, leading to a dispute between three goddesses over who was the most fair. This discord was to be resolved by Paris of Troy, who gave it to Aphrodite after she promised him Helen of Sparta in exchange. This led to the Trojan War, wherein the Trojans used their famous wooden horse.
Interestingly, another connection to Big Tech is made obvious, as there is a popular chat site also called Discord (that has a piece of pizza on the front page) and Apple has long used the apple for its logo, originally in the colors of a gay rainbow. Even Elon Musk has suggested that he has an affinity for anarchism. Gross.
The Discordians were an atheist pseudoreligious cult of Dadaistic or Surrealistic[28] humor and “anarcho-absurdism,” from which the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” motif comes, a mockery of traditional religion. But their jokes are also serious. They provide the grounds for plausible deniability, which is important in the courtroom. Discordianism, says Athena from Vanished in the Valley podcast episode “Vanished Memory of a Discordian Conspiracy,” was established at the same time that the CIA was trying to hide the narrative about JFK and popularized the term conspiracy theorist in a dismissive manner,[29] and Discordians were among the first to popularize the Illuminati conspiracy theory in the Illuminatus! trilogy, doing so as if humorous, establishing anyone who takes it “too seriously” as lacking in good fun. As Chord says, “Labadie’s theories haven’t been entirely forgotten […] The Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson makes repeated references to Labadie’s economics.”[30] This was a way to destroy, once and for all, mutualism, and to replace it with a fatalistic, defeatist mind virus, neo-anarchism.
The Immediatists, followers of Hakim Bey, were Sufi-inspired materialists within neo-anarchism who stressed “the Power of Now,” similar to their spiritual counterparts of the same name, including people such as Eckhart Tolle, of the New Age milieu, who promote the worldview of extreme presentism. Hakim Bey says, to begin the movement, that he does
declare without hesitation (without too much thought) the founding of a “movement,” Immediatism. We feel free to do so because we intend to practice Immediatism in secret, in order to avoid any contamination of mediation. Publicly we’ll continue our work in publishing, radio, printing, music, etc., but privately we will create something else, something to be shared freely but never consumed passively, something which can be discussed openly but never understood by the agents of alienation, something with no commercial potential yet valuable beyond price, something occult yet woven completely into the fabric of our everyday lives. [31]
It’s disturbing to transmit that Bey, as Robert P. Helms relays to us, “is a public pedophile intellectual of international reputation, and one who mixes anarchist ideology into his pedophile discourse.”[32] This discourse included the idea that people could live on a “gift economy,” not entirely unlike that found in Papua New Guinea which produces Big Men as leaders. Bey offers a sketch of his gift economy, saying that participants can give gifts of any kind, but that “it should be recalled that in the Amerindian potlatches the gifts were supposed to be superb and even ruinous for the givers,” and that gifts should be “really impressive,” because “potlatches involved prestige-winning.” He says that “[p]layers should feel a competitive spirit of giving, a determination to make gifts of real splendor or value,” but that the “uncertainty of outcome adds a zest of randomness to the event,” and that “a dull or stingy player will lose prestige, while an imaginative and/or generous player will gain ‘face.’” He says that the “best games will make little or no use of obvious forms of mediation such as photography, recording, printing, etc., but will tend toward immediate techniques involving physical presence, direct communication, and the senses,” and that gifts “should not be ‘useful’,” but instead “appeal to the senses,” and may include “sexual acts.” He stresses again that “[n]o mediation should be involved in the gift—no videotapes, tape recordings, printed material, etc.,” but that “the purpose of the game, as well as its basic rule, is to avoid all mediation and even representation—to be ‘present,’ to give ‘presents.’” From all of this, they “expect that the practice of Immediatism will permeate the other art we create, the more public and mediated art,” they “hope that the two,” including “the secret realization of unmediated play,” “will grow closer and closer, and eventually perhaps become one.”[33] It’s quite disturbing to consider what sort of gifts someone like Bey may have in mind, why there is such a concern about documentation, and whether or not it has any connection with the uptick in human trafficking that we have seen, such as had surfaced with PizzaGate, an urban and online legend that a pizza establishment was hosting politicians for “pedovore” events in which children would be cannibalized. What kind of strange secrets did Bey want to mix with his outward work as Peter Lamborn Wilson, including the promotion of anarchism? Was “anarchism” and secret gift-giving understood to be a means of enabling his pedophilia? But that is not all. Bey also wants to establish Big Men according to their ability to provide goods from outside of the economy.
The host, who supplies the place, will of course be put to extra trouble and expense, so that an ideal potlatch would be part of a series in which each player takes a turn as host. In this case another competition for prestige would transpire in the course of the series:—who will provide the most memorable hospitality? Some groups may want to set rules limiting the host’s duties, while others may wish to leave hosts free to knock themselves out; however, in the latter case, there should really be a complete series of events, so that no one need feel cheated, or superior, in relation to the other players. But in some areas and for some groups the entire series may simply not be feasible. In New York for example not everyone has enough room to host even a small party. In this case the hosts will inevitably win some extra prestige. And why not? [34]
Perfect. Now the synarchists can get to leading things from behind the scenes, using their connections to Asia, as avid Orientalists, to establish bonds of fealty, allowing Asian-style feudalism, such as the Mandala system, to encroach into the West. Wonderful idea! It must be remembered that Marcel Mauss’s The Gift taught the world that gift-giving was a means of generating a hierarchy. Despite this, neo-anarchists like David Graeber would promote gift-giving as a means of viable anarchist economy. While the Far Right is deeply concerned about human sex trafficking and cannibalism, the neo-anarchists of the Far Left are in fact talking about just the kind of infrastructure and outlooks on life that would enable such things. This is a terrible state of affairs.
Whereas the classical anarchists acknowledged organization as being essential to challenge the power of the state, the neo-anarchists were instead champions of chaos and hierarchy. The Discordians even spoke in this language. “We wish to replace democratic epistemology with ‘dada epistemology’ (Feyerabend). Either you’re on the bus or you’re not on the bus,”[35] says Bey. And with chaos must come new manners of organization, or the lack thereof, as Discordian Immediatism seems to have amoralist affinities with the post-Left. Sophie Scott-Brown, for instance, and acknowledging Alex Comfort’s role, holds that anarchy “means arguing, essentially, but arguing in such a way where the results are not catastrophic.”[36] She paints a picture of anarchism as being the same as adhocratic agonism, where temporary leadership springs up in dissensus alongside ochlocracy, no doubt to the benefit and under the control of the kakistocratic synarchy. But let’s break this jargon down some. Adhocracy refers to “spontaneous” leadership, agonism refers to tensiousness, dissensus is a lack of coherence, and ochlocracy is a democracy of vicious souls, while kakistocracy is “government of the worst.” Perhaps this is why William Harper said,
[a]narchy is not so much the absence of government as the government of the worst—not aristocracy but kakistocracy—a state of things, which to the honor of our nature, has seldom obtained amongst men, and which perhaps was only fully exemplified during the worst times of the French Revolution, when that horrid hell burnt with its most horrid flame. In such a state of things, to be accused is to be condemned—to protect the innocent is to be guilty; and what perhaps is the worst effect, even men of better nature, to whom their own deeds are abhorrent, are goaded by terror to be forward and emulous in deeds of guilt and violence.
It seems pretty clear that neo-anarchists, such as “the Invisible Committee,” that have threatened mass insurrection, and who publish under Semiotext(E)— related in name to the work by Robert Anton Wilson and Hakim Bey—, for instance, are a prime example of such hellishness. Hakim Bey’s strategy of the “Temporary Autonomous Zone” has been used by anarchists associated with Antifa, or “Anti-”Fascist Action (because they are actually crypto-fascists or dupes thereof), recently in their takeovers of urban areas, where their principles can be seen to function under the secret authority of their financiers, the synarchy.
As it turns out, neo-anarchism is just one of many of synarchism’s Tengrist[37] tentacles, perhaps assimilated and built on top of the prior Illuminati project of communism, as was made popular among the proto-neo-anarchists. While the lines of division were not so clear at the onset, due to the fact that communes and a preference for communalism are not necessarily at odds with a voluntary society, we’ve come to a point that we can compare and contrast classical mutualism and neo-anarchism to derive a sense of what we are dealing with here. In particular, I will be drawing out orienting generalizations, which are taken from the most essential or defining differences, but which may not always be universal within the category. But these orienting generalizations will help us get, well, oriented.
|
Classical Anarchism
|
Neo-Anarchism
|
|
Anarchy
|
Synarchy
|
|
Mutualism
|
Agonism
|
|
Reciprocity
|
Charity
|
|
Cooperation
|
Co-option
|
|
Free Speech
|
Censorship
|
|
Democracy
|
Ochlocracy
|
|
Consensus
|
Dissensus
|
|
Radical Enlightenment
|
Radical Counter-Enlightenment
|
|
Organicism
|
Mechanism
|
|
Conscience
|
Sensibility
|
|
Against Hierarchy
|
Hierarchy by Piety or Confusion
|
|
Anglo-Saxon
|
Jewish, Orientalist
|
|
Modernism
|
Postmodernism
|
|
Self-Management
|
Adhocracy
|
|
Real Anarchists
|
Virtual Anarchists
|
The classical anarchists were actual and real anarchists, at least in their intentions, and they tried to ground their actions in mutuality, reciprocity, and cooperation of some sort of another. They were driven by conscience, and had an organic outlook that prioritized the human will over simple mechanism, giving motivation for freedom of speech, which was honored, but while also acknowledging the limits imposed by necessity. They opposed hierarchy, the ordering of people into those who will be heard and those who will not, and supported in its place democratic arrangements in their associations with an emphasis on consensus, or mutual understanding and agreement, and they were champions of self-management, the self-governance of working people. They were modernists coming from out of the Radical Enlightenment, and ultimately took their worldview from the Saxons.
In contrast, neo-anarchists are virtual anarchists, who are anarchist only in name. They are led by the synarchy through agonistic, ochlocratic, and adhocratic means that reflect the loose social structure of pirate society, as was promoted by Hakim Bey, rather than of self-government, as the anarchists had inherited from the classical republicans. Rather than reciprocity, mutual aid, and cooperation, though they are happy to call their preferences these, their preferences are actually toward charity, agonism, and co-option, as they generally eschew order, organization, and structure in favor of concepts such as stygmergy and spontaneity. Rather than being driven by conscience, a common sense of right and wrong and good and evil also considerable through contemplation, they are moved externally by a passionate sensibilism, such as popularized social conventions based in appeals to sentiment and subjectivity, or else by pure hedonism. They maintain that they reject hierarchy while their informal leaders exercise an authority of piety and Big Manship that functions according to the same popular sensibilities. For instance, anything considered to harm the feelings or be a threat to the self-worth of racial minorities, such as Jews and blacks especially, women, or various flavors of sexual pervert, is met with vengeance by the standard neo-anarchist (though egotism allows for some seemingly edgy variants that ultimately share the same sentiments), who will be quick to aggress, such as by banning one from online or real-life locations or events for having expressed something unpious, such as a real or perceived racist, sexist, heterosexist, anti-Semitic, or “trans”phobic comment, or at the very least censoring one from being heard. Alternately, they order themselves, like the Discordians, according to the least moral. This is, of course, the true practice of hierarchy, the arranging of people into classes of who shall be heard and who shall not be, though they maintain that it is in the name of rejecting hierarchy. After all, these are largely Jews, Judaophiles, and Orientalists of the Counter-Enlightenment, who support the mechanical philosophy and, by extension, a forceful approach to human arrangements. To them, anarchy means “libertinism,” whereas to the original anarchists it was associated with higher degrees of order, built from the bottom on upward, from out of democratic associations seeking higher levels of order in agreement. But this was a modernist project, and neo-anarchists are postmodernists or, at the very least, postmoderns who accept various arguments popular in postmodernity, most especially that the Jews were mistreated and deserve particularistic special treatment to the negation of the universalistic values of Anglo-Saxon and the larger Western society.
Whereas the classical anarchists were true anarchists, concerned with what the objective matters of anarchy were, the neo-anarchists are fake anarchists who abhor conversation surrounding objective definitions of anarchism, particularly when they may exclude others who self-identify with the ideology of anarchism for subjective reasons. As such, the claim that mutualism is the only true variety of anarchism ruffles their feathers, and they are more inclined to take toward an “anarchism without adjectives” or “hyphens,” “pan-anarchist,” or panarchist approach that compromises on the definition of anarchy as it was classically understood and basically agreed upon as being. While true anarchism is just mutualism, and though classical anarchism was already starting to cause fractures, neo-anarchism is characterized by a plethora of different expressions, centered on identification with various perversions and vices or else just particularities that are preferred, and typically setting aside anarchy itself so long as those things can be achieved. For instance, gay and “trans” “anarchists,” Jewish “anarchists,” black “anarchists,” capitalist “anarchists,” and others who do not adhere to classical anarchism, especially mutualism, are willing to participate in politics and even elections, each justifying their behavior on the grounds that if the other side wins they are oppressed.
Neo-anarchists are agreed: Mutualists are bad people, largely because they were racists, or else because they were not egotistical enough and had “grand narratives” to which they were mentally enslaved. No one is hated more by the neo-anarchists, perhaps, than the mutualist Herbert Spencer, and Proudhon is only begrudgingly accepted, if at all (!), as a contributor to anarchism, due to his distaste for the oh-so-sacred Jews and apparently authoritarian attitude toward family life. Spencer, of course, was the social Darwinist, the man who coined “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinism was, at least in Spencer’s case, an explanation for the sociality of human beings, and was centered on the betterment of humanity through social evolution. As such, it sought to explain the existence of sensibilities and, above all, conscience, as a factor of human success. Those without a conscience, as Spencer saw things, would lose out in evolution, while those who evolved in their own lives and through the lives of their families and races would win out. These ideas were not only popular with Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Americans, but were also popular in the rest of the Europeanized world, and had a great influence also on people of color and even Jews, particularly in America, where the working class fraternal organizations all tended to see Herbert Spencer in a high regard. Blacks and Jews with a modernist mindset, like their Anglo-Saxon counterparts, saw Spencer’s work as an impetus to place more focus on the development of their character.
Today, in place of classical mutualism, the Illuminati are offering a Trojan Horse in the form of neo-mutualism, the neo-anarchist expression of mutualism-proper, typically styled neo-Proudhonian mutualism after Shawn Wilbur, a postmodernist or poststructuralist literary academic and enthusiast of Paul Feyerabend who, in gatekeeping anarchist communities online, has gone by the screenname humanispherian, suggesting he is a proponent of Dejacque’s “humanisphere” idea. Shawn focuses his efforts on disrupting the basic understanding of mutualism through having a monopolistic academic role of archiving and translating select, often idiosyncratic, expressions of mutualism. Like Derrida, whose project was to focus on making language confusing, Shawn, following in his tradition, likes to obfuscate mutualism. Wilbur has been associated with the Immediatists.
Someone has been incorporating NAMBLA (a pederast magazine) material into the Labadie Collection, and it doesn’t seem to be ancaps, though commies are certainly into such perversions at times. We know that Shawn Wilbur, at least, has not only has been affiliated with the Immediatism of Hakim Bey, but is apparently a drinking buddy of Wolfi Landstreicher, also known author of pedophilic writings, with whom he also contributed to Disruptive Elements, a book about French extremism. Shawn is the foremost academic neo-mutualist and poseur extraordinaire, and has almost certainly visited the collection of this mutualist to engage in his obfuscations of mutualism-proper. Perhaps he has an idea about the culprit.
Neo-mutualism has previously gone by New Mutualism, however, which basically refers to the Big Society project bringing together paternalistic conservatism and social democracy, but with a focus on corporate mutual finance and corporate cooperation under the guise of mutualism. These sorts of ideas were supported by seemingly well-intentioned Anglo-Saxons such as Race Mathews as well as obviously questionable Jewish and black or Latino folks, connected to the Directorship of the Federal Bank, reformism, and to the Democratic Party, such as Sara Horowitz, Esteban Kelly, and Rafael Espinal. If those connections don’t make you puke, there is something wrong with you.
A more palatable co-option of mutualism has been undertaken by the “anarcho”-capitalists, such as those at the Center for a Stateless Society, co-founded and originally directed by incestuous pedophile Brad Spangler. Appealing to Libertarians, especially mutualists, they have maintained a generally modernistic flavor and have some rigorous logic at times that really is worth something. However, their Trojan Horse is not about obfuscating anarchist economics, which they are instead using for the material of the Horse itself. Instead, it is about tangling anarchist economics with degenerate sexuality and adhocracy, making it ripe for “revolution from above.” Unfortunately, this crowd is full of quintessential cultural Marxists—err—cultural “anarchists,” despite their offerings.
It seems that, in order for classical mutualism to be revived, there has to be a return to a cultural preference for modernity, perhaps propped up by a revived pantheism. In other words, paleo-mutualists would do best to take a retroprogressive stance of remodernism. The alternative would be the increasingly popular “dark mutualism” concept, which is just Traditionalism sneaking its nasty synarchist tentacles into mutualism from another angle, since Traditionalism is the stuff of the fin de siècle. And that is no good, either.
You must remember, the synarchy does not require a person to be a knave to do its bidding. Dupes are quite enough. The synarchy functions on establishing true believers in its mind viruses, and relies on these true believers to spread their infection to others. And, quite often, that is exactly what they do. Don’t fall victim to the trap, rid yourself of the mind virus that is neo-anarchism.
[1] Walter
[2] McKay, 21
[3] Malatesta1
[4] Maltesta1
[5] Lagalisse, 55
[6] Lagalisse, 56
[7] Walter
[8] Walter
[9] Lagalisse, 51
[10] Lagalisse, 114
[11] Walter
[12] Webster, 64
[13] McElroy
[14] Tindal
[15] Chord
[16] Gambone
[17] Loomis and Sullivan
[18] Gambone
[19] Gambone
[20] Bookchin
[21] Chord
[22] Chord
[23] Chord
[24] Malatesta2
[25] Malatesta2
[26] Bey1
[27] Bey1
[28] These were elements of proto-post-modernism, or Modernism, which had taken the spotlight from the modernism (with a small m) of the mutualist Gustave Courbet, a Realist painter
[29] Athena
[30] Chord
[31] Bey2
[32] Helms
[33] Bey2
[34] Bey2
[35] Bey2
[36] Scott-Brown
[37] The synarchists are Orientalists centered on France, where it is known that the Huns, who were Tengrists. had made excursions, and whose Frankish chieftains had bargained with them as well as other Turkic forces. Tengrism would become popular to learn about among the ruling class elites, for its political capacities.
References
Athena, “Vanished Memory of a Discordian Conspiracy” (N/A: 2021) Accessed 2024: https://music.amazon.com/es-ar/podcasts/19aeb9e6-30df-457c-b627-17b8a3b96268/episodes/5ab6bbca-7b69-4728-8266-1c76ad418275/vanished-in-the-valley-vanished-memory-of-a-discordian-conspiracy
Bey, Hakim, “Robert Anton Wilson,” Fifth Estate (Ferndale: Fifth Estate, 2007) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-lamborn-wilson-robert-anton-wilson
Bey2, Hakim, Immediatism (California: AK Press, 1994) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-immediatism
Bookchin, Murray, “The Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism”(N/A: 1992) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ghost-of-anarcho-syndicalism
Chord, Anarcho-Pessimism (Berkeley: Little Black Cart, 2014) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/laurence-labadie-anarcho-pessimism#toc34
Dejacque, “The Humanisphere” (France: 1858) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-the-humanisphere (*Note that the translator is none other than Shawn Wilbur)
Gambone, Larry, “Sane Anarchy” (Canade: Red Lion Press, 1995) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-gambone-sane-anarchy#toc2
Helms, Robert P., “Leaving Out the Ugly Part— On Hakim Bey” (N/A: 2004) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-p-helms-leaving-out-the-ugly-part-on-hakim-bey
Lagalisse, Erica, Occult Features of Anarchism (Oakland: PM Press, 2019)
Loomis, Mildred and Sullivan, Mark A., “Laurance Labadie: Keeper Of The Flame” (N/A: 1975) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mildred-j-loomis-mark-a-sullivan-laurance-labadie-keeper-of-the-flame
Malatesta1, Errico, “Individualism and Communism in Anarchism” (1924) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-individualism-and-communism-in-anarchism
Malatesta2, Errico, “Anarchism and Organization” (1897) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchism-and-organization
McElroy, Wendy, “The Schism Between Individualist and Communist Anarchism,” Journal of Libertarian Studies (N/A: 2000) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wendy-mcelroy-the-schism-between-individualist-and-communist-anarchism
McKay, Iain, An Anarchist FAQ volume 1 (Oakland: AK Press, 2008)
Nicholas Walter, “About Anarchism,” Anarchy (N/A: 1969) Accessed 2024: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nicolas-walter-about-anarchism
Scott-Brown, Sophie, “Why I’m an Anarchist” (N/A: Institute of Art and Ideas, 2023) Accessed 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6X_uSFAD_A
Tindal, Matthew, Christianity as Old as Creation
Webster, Nesta H., World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization (Boston: Small, Maynard, & Co., 1921) Accessed 2024: https://ia800605.us.archive.org/21/items/worldrevolutionp00webs/worldrevolutionp00webs.pdf
Back to Article Index