I have been accused of national anarchism on a number of occasions. The Center for a Stateless Society, for instance, originally claimed that I was a national anarchist, for instance (though has since removed it), as have countless pawns on Reddit, Facebook, and elsewhere.
Just the other day I was attacked by Antifa for posting a link to my works on Reddit. Soon after doing so, and after having my post removed by numerous groups, including the anarchist groups, I went to The Anarchist Library to find a document and was hit by an overbearing full-screen popup with loud sirens. I clicked on the wrong exit button and thereby recieved a Trojan Horse virus. Luckily, it was on a burner laptop, which I use to surf the web, and not something serious.
Fascism and national anarchism are false accusations, smear strategies, and acts of defamation to detriment me and limit my flourishing. Depending on your interpretation, you may find me to be worse than a national anarchist, though almost certainly more benevolent. But I assure you that I am not one, and that my philosophy is at odds with nationalism from the perspective of class consciousness.
I am a proud class reductionist and opponent of any enemy to the working class, no matter how pitied or celebrated. I am a free thinker and truth seeker, and some may say a repressed polymath. My project here is based on pursuing voluntary, consensual, and reciprocal social interactions, and in this I address a wide range of topics in the sciences, religion, history, philosophy, and the humanities more widely. I also want peace and justice between people, and to this end I am sympathetic to all of their pursuits, to the extent that they are not violently aggressive.
My openness to others, which comes from my spiritual background, has led me to be hated. Indeed, Aristotle described a magnanimous individual as being at the mean between deficiency and excess, and wrongly judged by each to be the other. Such an individual, hated by others, must be carried by their own pride. In the field of psychology, too, it is known that an easy way to be hated by someone is to show sympathy toward another whom they hate. My moderate positions, which recognize the humanity in each person and the merits of their perspective, leave me to be hated. Capitalists see me as a socialist, while socialists see me as a capitalist. Communists see me as a fascist while fascists believe me to be a communist. Christians believe me to be a Satanist, and Satanists say I am Christian. It comes as no surprise to me that I am derided and disparaged as a national anarchist, and frequently but falsely so. Was not Prometheus also denigrated? Socrates? Jesus? Wycliffe? Hus? Galileo? Vanini? Bruno? Spinoza? It appears the mark of great men to be disparaged and denigrated.
Recently, I was characterized as a legitimizer of national anarchism[1] in an otherwise seemingly earnest work (at first), a PhD dissertation by Martin Jacobson, called Land & Liberty: On the Natural Monopoly of Violence. In it, he builds upon many ideas such as I have written in the works he cites, in which I have argued for the compatibility of anarchism and Georgism on the basis of the state/property relationship, anticipating his thesis that Georgist administration of land is compatible with anarchism. He clearly did not understand the meaning behind the essays in the same works he cites, however– such as in the essays entitled “Complete Anarchy” or “Henocentrism and the Grayscale of Anarchism” (in the section “Anarchist Philosophies in the Grades of Being”), which clearly establishes every non-mutualist anarchism (which includes nationalist anarchism, as I have made clear elsewhere) as a faux variety of anarchism–, when suggesting that I am legitimizing national anarchism. Or else he is acting in bad faith. I only accept mutualism (paleomutualism, geo-mutualism) as genuine, objective anarchism, and this has long been the case, even while taking influence from across the board of anarchism and quasi-anarchisms.
I view Jacobson’s statement as a desperate and pussilanimous attempt to distance himself from someone who has been pariahed for speaking genuine truths, while piggybacking on the same individual’s efforts (from since 2014, ten years prior) in civil society to earn his degree (which is, ironically and curiously, consistent with an attempt to acquire a title of nobility and secure state privilege, a form of wage-rent-, spurious wage-, or profit-seeking, and a forfeiture of class agency that reduces his anarchism to pure theory and renders his capacity for meaningful change impotent, since the locus of change is the working class and not the professional class). True anarchists serve people in civil society, from within civil society, their means matching the ends of anarchy, a classless society. Everyone else are posers, histrionic rhetoricians, name-stealers, and sophists, actors upon a shaky stage.
Of course, there is always the possibility that this author will have the conagnition to admit this and to change direction, though this would require the fortitude not to strawman people in order to set himself apart by way of his noblesse oblige in his joining the ranks of the Illuminati.[2]
While making a statement that could easily have had been derived from my works, the author further suggests that the distribution of property, in order to satisfy the Law of Equal Liberty, should be treated as if it were an equal vote belonging to political equals (as it is in my vision of henocentric law in geo-mutualist panarchism), and that this should be so independent of the values held by the participating parties.[3] However, this is apparently a sophistry, because he denigrates the values of national anarchists as an exception to this rule, whereas I do not. This is an example of Orientalist legal particularism entering into the West by way of cultural Marxist/Maoist propaganda.
My views are neither or both Left- or/and Right-wing, myself generally preferring to style them as Far Center, or transcendent. On a personal level, I am a paleomutualist anarchist, and describe this in terms of retroprogressivism and remodernism, because I associate mutualism with early modernism (or small-m modernism) and Victorian modes of thinking and living. On a social level, I am a geo-mutualist and panarchist with influences from across the spectrum, but especially including libertarian socialism, idealism, classical republicanism, Georgism, distributism, market socialism, voluntaryism, ordoliberalism, welfare economics, and agonism. I do think some nationalist ideas are correct or workable, and should be co-opted by my ideal society, such as elements of the customs union and autarky. But I am not a nationalist, only a free thinker. My views are closest to classical mutualism, including some of its more reactionary elements and its synthetic nature. I reject all non-mutual attempts at anarchy and oppose all forms of neo-anarchism, Left and Right.
National anarchism is Traditionalist. This makes it a vice answering to the corresponding vice of cultural Marxism. In this way, national anarchism may be considered to be the Right-wing of neo-anarchism, a cultural fascist answer to cultural Marxism, pressing white instead of rainbow identity politics. I am opposed to both of these on the personal level. Further, national anarchists oppose modernism, while I have already shared my remodernist stance. This is a very important and telling difference, as it is the difference between Radical Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment. These two are at a Manichean sort of odds, since Radical Enlightenment is good and Counter-Enlightenment, evil.
National anarchism is a Right-wing ideology that supports the concept of a monogenic nation. In agreement with Rudolf Rocker, the anarcho-syndicalist, at least linguistically, I do not. I agree with Rocker’s position in Nationalism and Culture. In it, Rocker denies that nationalities are organic forms, understanding ethnicities to be compositions from many inputs. This linguistic stance is consistent with the polygenic, multiregional, hybrid-driven, and miscegenistic outlook on biological and sociological evolution that I support. However, my geo-mutualist panarchism, or ambiarchy, is designed to co-opt by means of the passions all anarchists as well as statists, and to this extent all political ideologies are admissible according to the social dimension of my views. I’m tolerant of communism, communitarianism, capitalism, and nationalism in a panarchic sense for agonistic purposes, those of establishing an acceptable agon, or competition, in which I expect mutualism will flourish and overcome, and for purposes of grandfathering to conquer gracefully. This has never been a secret.
It is generally not appropriate to consider me a conservative, either, whether in the Burkean or the postmodern American sense. I’m a religious heretic with proclivities to pantheism, agnosticism, and Christian Luciferianism, and am an anti-political radical and revolutionary. For my cultural views, however, you might best imagine what those of a paleoconservative religious heretic with miscegenistic polygenic views on evolution might be. I favor moral and intellectual virtues, vanilla sex (including oral, anal, group, and miscegeny, however) between straight people, freedom of racial composition (voluntary separatism) and equality of treatment, and the things already mentioned. I do share some stances on a personal and cultural level with what has become the cultural conservatism of post-WWII or postmodern America, including a continuation of an absolutist support for freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on, all products of the Radical Enlightenment, as well as an acknowledgement of racial and sexual realties, and an opposition to LGBTQABDSM. Even while I would not tolerate certain things in my own composite relationships, on a personal level, however, I tolerate all views, Left or Right, within my larger social vision. The “public” in my society would be ever as much diverse as it is today, probably more so. Really, I am a cultural moderate.
Unfortunately, and again speaking personally, you may find some views in some of my works that are outdated for me. For instance, I know of at least one instance—*cringe*— where I suggested that “trans” individuals should be called what they want to. This wasn’t something I supported as law, of course, but supporting lies, for any reason, is culturally toxic, so it is something I am ashamed for having ever agreed with. I was being moved externally by sensibilities at the time—“anarchists” were almost unanimous about it—, and my conscience has since corrected it. You may also find general support of postmodernism, mainstream “science,” and other garbage that I no longer support. Further, you might find some positive remarks of certain dark figures or affirmation of their being mutualists, most particularly Shawn Wilbur and the Center for a Stateless Society. As with transgenderism, I was under the influence of postmodern sensibilities and was not being critical enough in my examination when this was expressed. I have since learned that certain individuals tend to express sentiments that do not match their actual beliefs, with various wicked motives for doing so. I believe strongly that Shawn Wilbur is one of these individuals and that there are leading elements within the Center for a Stateless society that are similarly vile. This is not necessarily to detract from the merits of the legitimate work on mutualism and market anarchism of particular authors affiliated with Center for a Stateless Society, but it does call into question their allegiances to egalitarian identarianism and forced cominations, and whether their legitimate writings are the stuff of a Trojan Horse. I hereby rebuke Shawn Wilbur and the Center for a Stateless Society, and of all neo-mutualists of any type, and affirm that there are only two sexes, the biological male and female, that transgenderism is a vile and absurd sophistry, that scientists are the new priesthood, and also that all forced combinations, whatever their justification, are vaccuous and bitter enemies of freedom.
I was originally very sensitive to the race, ethnicity, sex, and even gender and sexuality issues, but I have since come to agree– after facing repression from cultural Marxists– with paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians (and to some extent nationalists) that these identity concerns are moral and intellectual vices as well as politicized issues and efforts of cultural warfare and degeneration. Further, I am a moralist, and by extension oppose sanctioning lies such as those put forward by the gender confused and their supporters (meanwhile national anarchists have trannies like Niki Reid in their ranks). Having myself been a victim of misdirected fash-bashing for years now, I have lost all political sympathy for identarianism of any sort, Left or Right, as well as post- and anti-modern philosophy writ large. While tolerant early on, I always have seen it as scrambling to justify privileges for select groups, like women, racial minorities, homosexuals, and the gender dysphoric, and always at the expense of class consciousness. But having since come to see the light, start noticing such as by reading the “Early Life” sections, and to develop greater fortitude, I have endeavored to discover for myself my own opinion, which is not in favor of offsetting detriments and shortcomings with privileges and robberies, but applying a level hand.
I oppose claims to privilege from LGBTQABDSM, vulgar feminism, Semitism, white supremacy, and black victim mentality, but support the self-determination of women, Jews, Aryans, and people of all colors. While I support their having equal liberty, however, equal liberty demands that they have and use their faculties equally if they are to have equal outcomes. Changing things to favor the vapid, weak, and vicious causes a detriment to the pertinent, the strong, and the virtuous. This is a privilege system that establishes a kakistocracy, “government by the worst.” I may expect that certain demographics may outcompete others, but I only find this acceptable on an objectively fair and impartial playing field, unobscured by favoritism or prejudice. Unlike identity politicians, I do not support greater division, but coming together. I believe fraternal competition between races to be a major, mutually-beneficial driver of human parallel evolution, a component of our multiregional development and convergent and hybridizing chronospecies. I further believe that the foundation of mutualism is the magnetism between the sexes.
If you don’t believe in freedom, you don’t believe the good or true wins naturally and teleologically, but that it requires rigging, and you will find or accept that this rigging requires moral ambiguities, and is an absurdity. Thus, you will naturally reject the agon, a game of fair competition, as you are not interested in the true merits of your vision, but whether or not you can pervert things in a way that suits you. I believe in the merits of mutualism, and so am willing to escape absurdity in order to foster the agon in which it can flourish, allowing social Darwinism to select the fittest from out of what is known as a good game, one undergone with good sportsmanship.
References
Jacobson, Martin, Land & Liberty: On the Natural Monopoly of Violence (Sweden: Uppsala University, 2024) Accessed 2024: https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1852324/FULLTEXT01.pdf
[1] See Jacobson, 26
[2] Alumni, as with the Alumbrados of Spain, means “illuminated” or “illuminati”
[3] See Jacobson, 65
Back to Article Index