Christian National Anarcho-Capitalists

by Keith Preston 

I recently came across a group calling itself Christian National Anarcho-Capitalists. While this group doesn’t reflect my personal views or preferences, as a pan-anarchist I am for the proliferation of many anarchist societies based on the principle of free association, thereby enhancing genuine diversity, and “Christian National Anarcho-Capitalism” may well be one of these.

Christian National Ancaps was founded on these principles:

1. Christianity and anarcho-capitalism are compatible with one another.

2. Nationalism, which is different from nation-statism, is perfectly compatible with Christian anarcho-capitalism. It is not incompatible with the philosophy of freedom; in fact, a libertarian nationalism will be rich and varied, and it will be superior to the nation-statism that has plagued civilization for so many years.

3. All cultures are unique and diverse, and while many cultures are not “Christian” or “libertarian,” they do share aspects of God and the philosophy of liberty in their edifice. Therefore, we seek to promote the best and brightest of every culture, including the cultures of Western and Eastern civilization. Our advice is for each person to respect and intermarry within his “nationality,” as that is the recommended course and the best.

4. “Racial realism,” anti-feminism, and libertarian “patriarchalism” will be a big part of this group, and while these views are politically incorrect and not approved by the Establishment and the political elite, these views are compatible with libertarianism and, as a nationalist group, will be part of the whole

5. Nation-statism, the ideology that mixes nationalism with statism, originated not in true nationalism but in conquest and aggression. As the earlier liberal tradition recognized, and as modern libertarians do, the nation does not equal the state. True nationalism, however, is based from civilization rather than the state, from culture rather than coercion and from community rather than collectivization, from the people rather than the rulers.

6. Secession, the right to break away and become independent (or self-determination) is a central tenet of libertarian nationalism, and in many ways it is an essential tenet of libertarianism, period. Thus, the right of some persons to secede and form their own nation is respected and promoted; it not only is in line with libertarian principles, but it allows for each “nation” and “culture” to preserve their heritage without outside interference. Not only that, but individual self-determination is respected, and one can become a “nation” unto himself.

7. Nationalism is not social egalitarianism. In fact, one of its main opponents is cultural Marxism, which stresses opposition to the family, to capitalism, to traditional values and most importantly to the Bible and the Christian faith.

8. Most importantly, the purpose of Christian Ancap Nationalists is not to promote hatred or division among peoples but rather to foster the great values of faith in God, liberty, cultural conservatism, freedom of association, secession, anarcho-patriarchalism, peace, prosperity, cooperation, love, national pride and the multi-cultural association of different cultures.

The new name is: Christian National Ancaps. “Nationalism” often refers to collectivist statism, and it can get in the way of what we are trying to promote. So I believe the new title gets to the crux of what we want to promote.

[A]. note that we are not (or no longer) condemning the idea of intermarriage between people of two different races. We are not opposed to, say, a white man marrying a black woman or a black man marrying a white woman, if he so desires.

Is “Conspiracy Populism” the Way Beyond Left and Right?

 

Some reflection is needed on what the proper relationship should be between the pan-anarchist movement and the movement(s) commonly labeled as “conspiracy theorists,” “truthers,” and the like. Technically, the “anti-conspiracy” milieu is not a movement as much as it is a collection of ideas pertaining to a wide variety of themes regarding alleged nefarious plots by shadowy, secretive elites. These theories are highly varied and diverse in nature and include concerns related to such topics as the assassination of John F. Kennedy, UFO sightings, the alleged influence of Satanic cults in elite circles, alternative medicine, fluoride, the alleged death of Paul McCartney, Elvis sightings, the alleged murder of Princess Diana, FDR’s alleged foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, chemtrails, an endless array of supposed “false flags,” AIDS, climate change, peak oil, Zionist bankers, subliminal advertising, the alleged moon landing hoax, Area 51, and, of course, the alleged 9-11 cover up. There are many, many other such theories.

However, by far the most important and relevant “conspiracy theory” involves alleged efforts by global elites to create a one-world oligarchical dictatorship under the guise of a “New World Order.” The resemblance of this theory to the claims of the left-wing anti-globalization movement are striking. The principle difference is that adherents of the New World Order theory insist that secret societies and shadowy cabals are the primary players among the global power elite, while leftists tend to hold to a more Marxist-like analysis involving multinational corporations, international trade organizations, and the world banking system. However, on the ground level these would seem to be purely abstract, theoretical differences. It is clear enough that both sets of analysis are virulently opposed to the global super class of plutocratic elites whose existence is beyond dispute. Among the ideological factions, leftists prefer to criticize transnational capitalism, libertarians and conservative populists express concern about one-world government, and “conspiracists” are more concerned about secret societies. However, these various interests converge on many issues of practical concern, i.e. the ongoing concentration of power on an international level.

It also undoubtedly true that adherents of various “conspiracy theories” transcend a good many conventional boundaries, including “normal” political ideologies, the boundaries of left and right, ordinary economic philosophies, race, religion, nationality, and positions on controversial issues such as abortion or gay rights. Adherents of conspiracy analysis also demonstrate a much greater sense of urgency and a greater radical zeal than many ordinary rightists and leftists alike, and tend to be disproportionately concentrated among the poor and working class as opposed to the affluent and wealthy. Additionally, the establishment seems to genuinely fear conspiracy theorists in a way they do not when it comes to ordinary leftists and rightists.
The pan-anarchist movement is about uniting anarchists, libertarians, decentralists, anti-authoritarians, anti-statists, oppositional subcultures, adherents of alternative economics, and anti-imperialists against the global power elite in favor of a general paradigm of self-determination for all. To be sure, there are important cultural obstacles to the creation of a such an alliance, which is why I have endeavored to introduce anarchists to the thought of intellectuals such as Alain De Benoist and Alexander Dugin, and their advocacy of a genuine cultural pluralism that accepts the legitimacy of a multiplicity of cultures with a wide divergence concerning their core values.
This is a perspective that seems highly relevant and complementary to the principles of anarchist decentralism even if one rejects some of the other ideas of these thinkers. At present, much of the anarchist milieu holds to a standard brand therapeutic leftism with regards to cultural questions, and those who don’t often fall back on a conventional rightist perspective. The incorporation of ideas similar to those of Dugin or Benoist would clearly be an advancement in anarchist theory and thought.

However, the question also remains of how to go about generating propaganda, recruiting, and organizing on the ground level. At present, substantial sectors of the anarchist milieu continue to focus principally on various youth cultures, the far Left, and the sexual minority subcultures. Yet an embrace of the conspiracy milieu would seem to be a way to dramatically increase not only the numbers but the diversity of the anarchist camp. Certain stands within anarchism have already begun such an effort.
On an organizational level, it would appear that the best route for anarchists would be to strive for the creation of international federations similar to the old Anarchist and Communist internationals that existed in the early twentieth century and which are inclusive of the many different kinds of anarchism and overlapping ideologies. The different kinds of anarchists would continue organizing and recruiting among their respective cultural milieus, but towards the wider aim of building populist movements on a nation-by-nation, region-by-region, community-by-community basis for the purpose of attacking the global power elite, and decentralizing political and economic power to the level of the natural community. The incorporation of conspiracy analysis into the anarchist strategic paradigm would seem to be a powerful weapon for the cultivation of “grass roots” populist movements that would in turn be among the most significant constituencies for anarchist-led popular organizations, economic enterprises, front-parties, and civic militias.

The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down!