Yo Hillary! Come And Take It!

New Book from Keith Preston

 Listen to Keith discuss this topic on Radio Wehrwolf 

Black House Publishing.

The Tyranny of the Politically Correct  – Totalitarianism in the Postmodern Age
It is rare for anybody on the political “Left” to be critical of Political Correctness – it is after all a doctrine of their making – but in this book the anarchist Keith Preston is not only highly critical of the “PC” mindset, but he equates political correctness with the totalitarian regimes of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. The banning of books, the intolerance of dissenters, and even show-trial by the media have all become part of the totalitarian regime that now dominates Western society.
Our Political representatives can sleep soundly for endorsing financially motivated wars, the creation of mass unemployment, the cutting of welfare payments, and even opposing tax increases on the rich – but they fear being attacked in the media for the “non-pc” aspects of their private lives. Publishing houses who established their reputation publishing the works of libertarians such as Thomas Paine, Murray Rothbard and Gustav Landauer, now warn their contemporary authors to omit all references in their work that can be seen to suggest any endorsement of cultural or social inequality for fear of offending the ever vigilant “pc” storm-troopers.
In “The Tyranny of the Politically Correct – Totalitarianism in the Postmodern Age” Keith Preston provides an analysis of how Political Correctness began, and how it has been embraced by not only the political left, but by global corporations in the furtherance of their mutual “One World – One People” agenda.

The Enduring Relevance of Georges Sorel

By a member of NATA

Georges Sorel is one of the founding fathers of revolutionary syndicalism. His seminal work “Reflections on Violence” is as relevant today as when it was published in 1908. It addresses the hijacking of the working class struggle by the parliamentary left, the failure of democracy to bring about better conditions for the working class, the insufficiency of economics, and the importance of myth to the revolutionary cause. Sorel was one of the first to redefine class struggle outside the confines of Marxist economism, paving the way for non-Marxist forms of socialism, from national-syndicalism to anarcho-syndicalism. The fight between Falangists and the CNT during the Spanish Civil War was a conflict between two interpretations of Sorel. Yet, his influence extends until the present day; the problems Sorel addressed are still very relevant. Where Sorel had his “parliamentary socialists,” we have our limousine liberals, those leftists who claim to represent the interests of the working man while openly colluding with the forces of high finance. Even the petty social concerns of the modern left were not entirely alien to Sorel’s time, as he notes the Parisian reformer Henri Turot was advocating not for the working class, but “the proletariat of love” referring to the lowest class of prostitutes. In the face of such inanity and avarice, the fate of the common man rests in his own hands. His liberation will only be achieved by violently breaking with the institutions of the upper classes, uncompromisingly, responding “by blows to the advances of the propagators of social peace” coming from the ruling elite to disingenuously extend an olive branch. This revolt will not be inspired by the cold calculations of the economists or the hazy utopias of social planners but a myth, as what lead the early Christians to martyrdom, or the ancient Greek to battlefield glory.

The radical conclusions of Sorel were drawn from a distinct pessimism, in direct contrast to the spirit of the age. The industrial revolution had created a bloom of optimism that technical progress would render everyone happy in the near future, quite similar to how the techno-utopians of our own day and age, promise us a grand singularity where artificial intelligence will take care of everything and humanity will lead lives of leisure. This optimism flowed into the reformist spirit of the parliamentary socialists who believed that progressive legislation would eventually cure the social ills of France. In the face of this overwhelming confidence, Sorel casts a cold eye, as these exuberant legislators never came from the working class. They were spoiled by their wealth, decadent and degenerate, prone to spouting humanitarian platitudes. These socialists were beholden to newspaper intellectuals and Dreyfusard financiers, referring to the Dreyfus Affair that rallied upper class liberals against anti-Semitism. These socialists no longer wished to overthrow capitalism but to temper it, correct its abuses, all the while keeping the power in their own hands. In contrast to the optimistic sterility of the upper classes, the working class was thrown by the industrial revolution into revolutionary circumstances, the increasing deprivation they suffer breeds fervor, they start to dream of violence and the soothing words of the politicians can no longer quell them. Indeed, those who claimed to speak for them deserved a good beating, as Sorel states:

“I believe also that it may be useful to thrash the orators of democracy and the representatives of the Government, for in this way you insure that none shall retain any illusions about the character of acts of violence. But these acts can have historical value only if they are the clear and brutal expression of the class war: the middle classes must not be allowed to imagine that, aided by cleverness, social science, or high-flown sentiments, they might find a better welcome at the hands of the proletariat.”

The political classes must learn to mind their own business, as they must be told, through violent action, that they do not represent the people. In Sorel’s time, this would have suppressed the “parliamentary socialists” and thus granting the working class self-ownership. In our own time those who seek economic autonomy are once again manipulated by the same political forces. One can look at how the Occupy Wall Street movement, originally an expression of popular outrage, was hijacked by the collegiate intellectuals, who injected their abstruse theories of privilege into the discourse, drowning the concerns of the 99% under the sexual and racial politics of the academic bourgeoisie, a class that lives on the debt slavery of thousands of students, who power is guaranteed and defended by the arms of the American government. These “orators of democracy” deserved quite the trashing for their pretenses of speaking for the working man, they should have been sent packing to their nearest faculty lounge to console themselves with six figured tenured positions. The fact that they were given such an allowance to speak for a class they had never shared the slightest affinity with, moreover on the dime of that infamous Dreyfusard financier of our own time, George Soros, is more than ample proof of the necessity of Sorel's thought today.

The form of this necessary thrashing of these “orators of democracy” is addressed by Sorel in “Reflections on Violence” in the form of the general strike. Sorel states, “The revolution appears as a revolt, pure and simple, and no place is reserved for sociologists, for fashionable people who are in favour of social reforms, and for the intellectuals who have embraced the profession of thinking for the proletariat.” This strike must not compromise or settle for reforms, it is to be taken as the dawning of a new era, “the general strike must be taken as a whole and undivided, and the passage from capitalism to Socialism conceived as a catastrophe, the development of which baffles description.” It cannot be rationalized or defined by science, it is pure faith and willpower. In the Syndicalist general strike, the people organize on a bellicose basis, “the proletariat organizes itself for battle, separating itself distinctly from the other parts of the nation, and regarding itself as the great motive power of history, all other social considerations being subordinated to that of combat ; it is very clearly conscious of the glory which will be attached to its historical role and of the heroism of its militant attitude; it longs for the final contest in which it will give proof of the whole measure of its valor. Pursuing no conquest, it has no need to make plans for utilizing its victories : it counts on expelling the capitalists from the productive domain, and on taking their place in the workshop created by capitalism.” The goal of the Syndicalist strike is to seize the means of production, and keep them in the hands of the workers. It is not to get better wages, more welfare, or shorter hours. It cannot be a tool of politicians who point to the strikers to justify the need for their pet programs, as if to say, “if only you had passed my bill, this could be avoided.” It is not an opportunity for young careerists to foist their vision of the future upon the people as Sorel warned, “There are plenty of young barristers, briefless and likely to remain so, who have filled enormous note-books with their detailed projects for the social organization of the future.” Let us beware what Sorel called the socialist financiers, who take the side of the worker on occasion to maintain their gains, who wish to use the workers' revolt to strengthen their own position and that of their political cronies. In our own day and age, we occasionally see men of very great wealth and power, like the aforementioned Soros, speak of the need for extended social safety nets and more equal distribution of wealth. They do not do this out of sympathy or any revolutionary instinct, they are doing it to prevent their utter and total destruction. Sorel remarks that this class will be swept away, “The general strike of the Syndicalists drives away from Socialism all financiers in quest of adventures.” The revolution has no need for such men, “the revolution will be absolute and irrevocable, because it will place the forces of production in the hands of free men, i.e. of men who will be capable of running the workshop created by capitalism without any need of masters. This conception would not at all suit the financiers and the politicians whom they support, for both are only fit to exercise the noble profession of masters.” Those who come offering to lead the working man to a utopia of their own creation should be met with fists.

The Syndicalist strike is not asking for new masters. It will not result in the formation of a new democracy, with new parliaments for the next generation of careerist politicians to grandstand in. The Syndicalist is not asking to “replace a malevolent hierarchy by a benevolent one.” It is not an attempt to hijack the government to bother the rich for the benefit of the poor. Throughout history we have seen seen states past harsh laws against the rich, only to benefit the state. The revolution will not be a cabal of mercenaries blackmailing the wealthy for their own enrichment. That has been the nature of demagogic politicians since time immemorial. The Syndicalist general strike “brings to the fore the pride of free men, and thus protects the worker from the quackery of ambitious leaders.” The resulting society from the Syndicalist is open ended, anarchic, mutable. Sorel states that instead of seeking to emulate the old middle class institutions embodied in parliamentary democracy, “it would be better for it to remain content for a time with weak and chaotic organizations rather than that it should fall beneath the sway of syndicates which would copy the political forms of the middle class.” In the wider social context, the organization can vary widely across regional, cultural, religious, and ethnic forms. To attempt to reconstitute the unitary state would be a betrayal. Instead the power should remain directly in the hands of the workers on the lowest levels, making their own decisions. Sorel states, “The free producer in a progressive and inventive workshop must never evaluate his own efforts by any external standing.” If by some grand strike, the power were to be seized across the United States by the people, there would be a multiplicity of visions. In the South the workers may raise the Rebel flag, while in Harlem, Pan-African colors will fly over the people's new conquests. Putting power in the hands of the people means that they will be free to pursue their own visions, not a singular one imposed by the will of the state.

The driving fire for this great uprising of the masses is a myth. It burns in the soul of all free men, it inspires him to risk sacrifice, even to the point of surrendering his own life, to attain the vision of glory he holds in his heart. The scientific prejudices that suggest it is unrealistic, it is not the right time, it is dangerous, hold no sway over the revolutionary. Revolution is not a creation of what Sorel derisively called the “little science.” Rationalism, of the Enlightenment era, is very much a part of the liberal capitalist worldview. For the Enlightenment liberal, scientific progress will solve all problems, the clockwork mechanism of the market will spur the growth of new tools to ameliorate the deficiencies of the current social system. Among the class of parliamentary socialists and their modern equivalents this so-called scientific thinking inevitably results in the construction of utopias, where by the implementation of their program, all the ills of the world will be cured. They think if only we tweaked some wages or interests rate that everything would just be perfect. The revolutionary does not think like that. His forebears are not economists but warriors and martyrs. The general strike must be taken as a myth for the proletarian warrior to march into battle with. He is like the early Christians who willingly accepted martyrdom. The revolutionary Syndicalist is more a Homeric figure living out a great drama, a quest for glory, rather than a mere automaton performing the calculated actions of some economist. He must not expect any material reward, no hero in war has ever expected such a recompense, only the glory of victory shall satisfy him. The general strike is a new moral paradigm that inspires the same ardor as the moralities that men in the past died for you. Revolution conceived as a salvation.

In this mythic conception of revolution Sorel did something very important. It represents a new turning point in the history of Western thought. It is a revolutionary form of the Counter-Enlightenment, it does not look to resurrect the moralities displaced by the Enlightenment, however it is in direct conflict with the prevailing scientific and rationalist viewpoint of the Enlightenment. Sorel overthrows the liberal worldview as the liberal worldview overthrew the Feudal world. In breaking from an economic view of revolution, he has superseded Marx, who subscribed to the clockwork universe offered by the capitalists of the Enlightenment. This makes Sorel the founding father of all modern non-Marxist forms of socialism.

For the American today, much has been made of socialism, generally in a negative sense. It is either the iron totalitarianism of the USSR or the tepid welfare state liberalism of Sweden. The idea of socialism as a means of people power is never heard in the United States. With Sorel we see a thoroughly anti-liberal, populist socialism. The socialism of worker's self-ownership. In the past, we saw some flares of this in American history. The IWW is the prime example of this current in the United States. The radical American labor activism of the early 20th century sought to seize mines and oil fields from the hold of their corporate masters. However, as the century progressed the labor movement fell into the hands of the American equivalents of Sorel's parliamentary socialists, the politicians and bankers, who sought to stave off the rage of the working man by throwing them crumbs from the Congressional table. Today we must recover that heritage. Sorel offers us a way to take control of our lives. Neither corporations nor states will free us, only the direct action of the people themselves will lead to the great American revolution that will liberate us from both.

Taking the ATS Philosophy and Strategy to the Next Level: Building the Pan-Secessionist Meta-Party

By Keith Preston

In the essay, “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America,” written in 2006, I made the following observation:

Ultimately, we may at some point be able to combine the Green, Libertarian, Populist, Constitution, Natural Law and other minor parties into a single party,… I would suggest calling such a party the “Federalist Party” for several reasons. First, there is precedent for this from American history. Second, it accurately describes what the internal structure of the party should be. Third, it provides a model for the general types of institutional arrangements we should seek to develop. Perhaps our party flag could be an anarchist black flag with the snake from the “don’t tread on me” Gadsen battle flag embroidered on it.

It is now time to begin the application of the core strategic ideas outlined in such ARV-ATS documents and “Liberty and Populism” and “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire.”

Since the above was written, at least two proposals have been put forward concerning how the type of meta-party described above might be organized and what it’s orientation might be. The most elaborate plan of this kind has been advanced by Ryan Faulk’s All Nations Party. The ANP is a proposed pan-secessionist party that would have ethnic separatism as its primary, though not necessarily exclusive, orientation. Another such proposal is Joe Kopsick’s Pananarchist Party USA, which seeks to advance the concept of non-territorial governments within a general individualist anarchist framework. While both proposals are a commendable efforts to open dialogue and engage in strategic formulation on this question, in both instances there might also be a bit of overreach.
Twenty-five percent of the US population currently expresses at least casual sympathy for the idea of a secessionist movement in their own region or locality. The principle objective for those of us who have embraced the pan-secessionist strategy should at this point be the awakening of this sleeping giant. The question is how to we turn this mass of 80 million passive sympathizers into a mass of active sympathizers? The first thing that should be recognized is that most of these 80 million potential constituents are not adherents of extremist or exotic ideologies. Instead, the bulk of the opinions held by these people are likely to be rather close to the mainstream on most issues.
There is no evidence that there is a sizable constituency for ethnic separatism within any ethnic group. To be sure, there is a tiny but outspoken minority of people within all ethnic groups who advocate for ethnic separatism, but the sum total of all ethnic separatists within all ethnic groups would still be a tiny fraction of the 320 million people who make up the US population. It is also true that there are many people who practice de facto ethnic separatism, but this largely reflects the economic and lifestyle choices of individuals, and is a far cry from advocating de jour ethnic separatism as a matter of ideology or moral conviction. While it is certainly true that ethnic separatists can also be pan-secessionists, it is unlikely that a pan-secessionist meta-party (PSMP) that advances ethnic separatism as a primary value will win a great deal of sympathy.
Likewise, it is unlikely that a PSMP that is primarily oriented towards the promotion of an esoteric or exotic ideology will gain much of an audience. While there are certainly plenty of historical precedents for such concepts as non-territorial governments, such ideas are also culturally alien to the overwhelming majority of persons in North America. Therefore, it would be unwise to adopt an ideological stance of this kind as principal strategic objective.

However, the concept of secession maintains very powerful roots within mainstream American history, culture, and politics for reasons that are too obvious to require discussion. Further, secession is a tactical concept that can be embraced by movements of any ideological, cultural, ethnic, religious, or economic orientation. How then should a PSMP organize itself?
The All Nations Party idea of a PSMP that functions as a umbrella for a set of constituent parties and regional or local secessionist movements that have their own interests is generally a solid one. However, I would suggest that at the meta-party level the PSMP should have only two stated objectives:

1. Promoting, advocating, legitimizing, and legalizing the right of secession by regions and localities from larger governmental units.
2. Promoting, advocating, legitimizing, and legalizing the right of minor parties to participate in public elections against the present two-party duopoly.

From this basic starting point, the constituent parties and secessionist movements associated with the PSMP would have every right to advocate for whatever philosophies or issues they wished. For example, the PSMP would have no position on foreign policy. If a collection of red state secessionists wished for the red states to go to war with ISIS, then so be it. The PSMP would have no position on economics. Presumably, for example, there would be both advocates of socialism and capitalism within the PSMP. The PSMP would exist only for the purpose of defending the rights of constituent groups to form their own parties or secessionist movements advocating for any ideas that they wished, and to strip away political and legal barriers to both competition in public elections by minor parties and secession by regionalist movements. This is does not in any way mean that any constituent party, organization, or movement of the PSMP would abandon or even downplay any of its other issues. It simply means that the PSMP would provide an organizational umbrella for the advancement of the interests of all minor parties and secessionist movements at the collective level. Within the framework of the PSMP, socialists would still advocate for single-payer healthcare, libertarians for tax cuts, social conservatives for the pro-life cause, and social leftists for LGBT issues. The PSMP would no doubt include many constituencies who were otherwise antithetical to each other, such as the Prohibition Party and the U.S. Marijuana Party.

In this sense, it must be understood that the PSMP would maintain both macro-level constituencies and micro-level constituencies. At the macro-level, the PSMP would have only two constituencies: the 25% and growing number of Americans who sympathize with the idea of secession, and those who prefer alternatives to the two-party duopoly. At the macro-level, the PSMP would exist only to promote the two issues of third party rights and secessionist rights, and these issues would be promoted in the same way that proponents of marijuana legalization, gay marriage, gun rights, gun control, the right-to-life or abortion rights have promoted their own issues. At the micro-level, the PSMP would have many constituencies, i.e. the constituencies of its component parties, organizations, movements, and the issues raised by each of these. Obviously, the opportunity would arise within such a scenario for a infinite variety of conflicts between the various constituents of the PSMP, and such conflicts are to be expected. Therefore, mutual agreements among the PSMP constituents would have to be formulated in order to maintain the common peace to the greatest degree reasonably possible. The most practical approach would be for the various constituent forces to simply agree to stay out of each other’s backyards. For example, the constituents forces that trended rightward would agree to focus their organizing and recruiting activities on the “red” demographic sectors of the US, and the forces that trended leftward would agree orient themselves towards organizing among the “blue” sectors.

At the national level, the presidential candidates of the PSMP would run solely on the two core principles of the PSMP: advocating for the rights of third parties, and the rights of secessionists. Preferably, the presidential ticket would be split between the Left and Right. For example, the presidential candidate might be from the Socialist Party or the Green Party, while the vice-presidential candidate would be from the Libertarian or Constitution Parties. Further, the Left/Right split ticket should be reversed every four years. For example, in the 2016 election the presidential candidate might be from the Left with the vice-presidential candidate might be from the Right. In 2020, the presidential candidate would then be from the Right while the vice-presidential candidate would be from the Left.

All other candidates of the PSMP would run on joint tickets of both the PSMP and their respective constituent parties. For example, the candidate for the governorship of Massachusetts might run on the tickets both the PSMP and the Socialist Action Party, and a comparable candidate in Texas might run on the tickets of both the PSMP and the Objectivist Party. Once again, in order to avoid overlap, rival constituent parties and organizations would mutually agree to stay out of each others backyards. Additionally, the candidates from minor parties and secessionist movements might also be combined at times. For example, a candidate in Georgia might stand simultaneously for the PSMP, Constitution Party and the League of the South, while a candidate in Oregon might stand for the PSMP, Green Party and Cascadia.

An approach of the kind that has been outlined above would serve multiple purposes. One would be to simply awaken the sleeping giant of potential secessionist sympathies among one-quarter of the U.S. population, and to challenge the Democratic-Republican two-party duopoly. Yet another would be to create a forum where many different kinds of people with otherwise opposed philosophies would be able to work with one another against the common enemy. A third would be to create a prototype for the kind of system that might exist following the inevitable demise of the present system, a decentralized system based on the principal of self-determination for all.
Of course, the emergence of a PSMP of the kind described above would also receive a great deal of criticism from a variety of sources. The critics would include ideologues and sectarians of both the left and right, the professional anti-rightist cottage industry, anti-leftists of a comparable nature, avowed statists and totalitarians, neoconservatives, jingoists, the party hacks of the system’s parties, their kept media, and, of course, the overlords of the system themselves. So be it. Revolutionaries without enemies are not revolutionaries at all.
Of course, some from the general anarchist milieus will object that party politics is antithetical to the wider anarchist values of rejection of the state. I previously address this question in “Liberty and Populism,”:

Some anarchists will no doubt object that my approach reeks far too much of a reformist/electoralist outlook. While I certainly respect this point of view, I believe it is unnecessarily sectarian and archaic. The classical anarchists often advocated boycotting elections and for good reason. In most of the countries where the classical anarchist movement existed on a scale of any significance, the “right to vote” was either non-existent or the franchise was very limited. Even in nominal democracies like Switzerland and America, women and other large population groups were denied the vote. Even at that, many Spanish villages elected anarchist mayors and village councils in the years leading up to the civil war. I believe modern anarchists need to develop an approach to this question that is relevant to the nature of modern states and modern societies. The approach I favor is one of cold realism and pragmatism. It is indeed possible for ordinary people with conventional levels of resources to be elected to local and state offices in many parts of the US. Persons who achieve some level of success in this area are then in a position to influence appointments to other positions of influence. This can be very important as a means of keeping the worst elements away from seats of power.

It should also be pointed out that the PSMP would be merely a means to an end, and not an end unto itself. It would merely be a vehicle for promoting and popularizing a wider subversive agenda. Further, it would create a framework that would allow anarchists to reach out to and connect with people from all over the cultural and political spectrum, and experience the opportunity to work with a vast array of dissidents as equal partners towards common goals. Anarchists would would have the opportunity to embed themselves in the PSMP for the purpose of pursuing a more radical line and the advancement of more extraneous issues that are among the unique concerns of anarchists. Just as the myriad of constituent parties and movements of the PSMP would maintain their own objectives, and pursue those objectives within other contexts, so would anarchists do the same. Specifically, anarchists might concentrate their own efforts on local politics, and strive for the achievement of political preeminence in an increasingly greater number of cities, towns, and counties. Two, three, many Christianias, Marinaledas, Mondragons, and Kobanis could begin to proliferate. Meanwhile, the prototypes of South Africa’s conservative Orania community and Liechtenstein’s libertarian monarchical micro-nation  provide models of how Anarchists and the Left might peacefully co-exist with the Right. Further, there might be a parallel pan-anarchist federation that co-exists with the PSMP, and functions as a base of activists and organizers for the PSMP. The relationship between the pan-anarchist federation and the PSMP would be comparable to the relationship between the FAI, the CNT, and the Anti-Fascist militias during the period of Revolutionary Spain.
The general demographic and electoral base of the PSMP would be that which has previously been outlined in “Liberty and Populism,” though periodically modified in order to adapt to changing trends. The PSMP would then emerge as a populist alternative political force perhaps comparable to Italy’s Five Star Movement, or the recently formed coalition in Greece between Syriza and the Independent Greeks. There is also the further possibility of the PSMP embedding itself in the major parties on the ground level. For example, Norman Mailer’s secessionist “left-conservative” Democratic candidacy for mayor of New York in 1969 is one example, and Larry Kilgore’s secessionist conservative Christian Republican candidacy for Senator from Texas in 2008 is another example.
The PSMP and the Pan-Anarchist Movement
Within the context of the PSMP, the pan-anarchist movement would then work to advance its wider body of strategic and political ideas such as core demographic theory, fourth generation warfare, libertarian populism, inside/outside strategy, left/right/center tripartite strategy, alternative infrastructure, cultural organizations that would replace the state’s social infrastructure, the 25 point platform, building coalitions of anti-state interest groups, a peoples’ economic front, legal defense organizations, civilian defense organizations,expanded cop watch and neighborhood watch programs, tax protests, civil disobedience campaigns, Kevin Carson’s “political program for anarchists,” Larry Gambone’s “populist groundswell” and decentralist economics, a coalition against consensual crimes, a prisoner amnesty movement, a libertarian common law system, a Norwegian approach to criminology, a Swedish or Swiss approach to foreign policy, the city-state system, and much else.

Once again, none of this meta-political or meta-strategic program implies that any of the myriad of anarchist, libertarian, anti-statist, anti-authoritarian, or decentralist factions would abandon their preferred issues. As I wrote in “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire” concerning the concept of “anarcho-populism”:

Hence, what I am proposing is a new strategic paradigm and, to a certain extent, a new school of anarchist thought that I call “anarcho-populism”. This new brand of anarchism would draw on the other schools in various ways. The classical anarchism originally developed by Proudhon would be its foundation. Like anarcho-socialism, anarcho-populism would be anti-capitalist and pro-class struggle. Like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-populism would endorse property, markets and the independent sector as an antidote to statism, corporatism and welfarism. Along with leftist-anarchists, this new anarchist tendency would support political freedom and cultural self-determination for racial minorities, women, gays and the like but would not seek to mindlessly glorify or privilege these groups or demonize white males. Along with primitivists and eco-anarchists, anarcho-populism would seek to preserve the natural environment, but without the misanthropy and anti-tech hysteria of much modern environmentalism. Like national-anarchists, anarcho-populism would endorse the right of traditional racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups to self-preservation and political sovereignty and cross-cultural, cross-ideological alliances against the NWO, but would seek to branch out into “mainstream” society rather than seek out reclusive isolation from the modern world.

Presumably, every libertarian faction would continue to focus on its primary areas of concern, from sovereign citizens to anarcha-feminists, and every faction could maintain its own sub-organizational identities within the context of the pan-anarchist federation as well. However, organizing and advancing the PSMP might serve as a common project and rallying point for all libertarian factions.

The main thing that is needed as this point is action. It is necessary for activists to step forward and being applying the ideas that have been outined above. How did other movements that have achieved a great deal of success, or at least size and recognition, begin? How did the marijuana legalization movement being? The gay marriage movement? The Tea Parties? The anti-Vietnam War movement? The civil rights movement? The religious right? The modern American conservative movement? Surely, there are things that can be learned from each of these.

The Republic is Dead:Long Live the Republic!

by Keith Preston 

This is a very interesting notification I recently received from a reader that illustrates something I have been noticing for a while. It appears there is a broad “axis of dissent” that is developing in the United States that transcends the normal political and cultural boundaries, and whose common thread is a kind of left/right hybrid libertarian-progressive-populism. This axis is represented in the mainstream or relatively mainstream by such individuals as Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader, Alex Jones, Cindy McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Abby Martin, and other comparable figures. It overlaps with the Democratic/Republican duopoly on a peripheral level but is clearly outside the two-party duopoly for the most part.

It also overlaps with particular movements like the 9-11 Truth movement, the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist liberty movement, newer tendencies like Zeitgeist and the Venus Project, strands within the Occupy movements, and the wider conspiracy milieu. It runs through the entire spectrum of dissident ideologies such as patriots, religious fundamentalists, and white nationalists on the far right through libertarians, radical centrists, ethnic minority dissidents, leftists, progressives, anarchists, various counter-cultural tendencies, and certain dissenting religious perspectives. However, this axis cannot be identified as representing any one ideological tendency. The axis is largely independent of the Democratic/Republican duopoly, but it is also independent of the “normal” far right (fascists, neo-Nazis, theocrats) and the “normal” far left (Communists, PC/SJW totalitarian humanists).

Such an axis is precisely what I have always envisioned the left/right libertarian/populist conservative/progressive black/white radical center/radical fringe demographic base of pan-anarchism and pan-secessionism as actually being. Cultivating the various components of this axis as allies and constituents should be one of our primary strategy objectives as this point.
———————————————————————————————
The Democratic Republic of the United States was overthrown on November 22, 1963; on that day our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, was murdered in Dallas, and nothing has been the same since.

Kennedy was the last Constitutional President of our last Constitutional Republic.
On that day in November, the Anglo/Zionist Military Financial Oligarchs occupied our country. On that day we ceased to be a free people and our nation lost its independence.
We need to regain our independence and our liberty. We must accomplish this through the political process of Restoring our Republic.

Begin to Restore the Republic by organizing Alternate Elections for 2016.
This free electoral process will elect Independent Representatives, who serve only the people.
We suggest a slate of Revolutionary leaders to head our New Republic. Feel free to nominate your own favorites. Edward Snowden, Joan Baez, Cindy McKinney, whomever.
President: Ron Paul
Vice President: Dennis Kucinich
Secretary of State: Ralph Nader
Coordinator of the Militia: Jesse Ventura
Our candidates will be faithful to the existing Constitution of the United States: until the Next Generation can set up Committees of Correspondence where they will decide to continue this one, or to write a new Constitution.


Rules of Political Conduct in a Democratic Republic

1. All candidates will have equal access to the media.
2. No money may be spent on election campaigns.
3. Candidates must be legal residents of ONLY this country.
4. They must register their candidacy, and present a small number of petitions.
5. All candidates may participate in public debates with the other aspirants.
6. The People’s elections will be held in locals controlled by We The People.
7. The voters will have to tell our election officials their name, which will be recorded.
8. Then they will cast a paper ballot.

The results will be announced, and the new people’s government will begin a political confrontation of Dual Power. At first, the people’s new Republican Government will be smaller and weaker than that of the Totalitarian Oligarchs. With time and struggle, the new government will increase in power. Our government will take increasing responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, until, it can replace the usurping government of the Oligarchs and completely restore our Republic and our Honor.

For the New Democratic Republic!

Sons and Daughters of Liberty

IMAGINE

Taking the ATS/NATA Philosophy and Strategy to the Next Level: Building the Pan-Secessionist Meta-Party

By Keith Preston

In the essay, “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America,” written in 2006, I made the following observation:

Ultimately, we may at some point be able to combine the Green, Libertarian, Populist, Constitution, Natural Law and other minor parties into a single party,… I would suggest calling such a party the “Federalist Party” for several reasons. First, there is precedent for this from American history. Second, it accurately describes what the internal structure of the party should be. Third, it provides a model for the general types of institutional arrangements we should seek to develop. Perhaps our party flag could be an anarchist black flag with the snake from the “don’t tread on me” Gadsen battle flag embroidered on it.

It is now time to begin the application of the core strategic ideas outlined in such ARV-ATS documents and “Liberty and Populism” and “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire.”

Since the above was written, at least two proposals have been put forward concerning how the type of meta-party described above might be organized and what it’s orientation might be. The most elaborate plan of this kind has been advanced by Ryan Faulk’s All Nations Party. The ANP is a proposed pan-secessionist party that would have ethnic separatism as its primary, though not necessarily exclusive, orientation. Another such proposal is Joe Kopsick’s Pananarchist Party USA, which seeks to advance the concept of non-territorial governments within a general individualist anarchist framework. While both proposals are a commendable efforts to open dialogue and engage in strategic formulation on this question, in both instances there might also be a bit of overreach.
Twenty-five percent of the US population currently expresses at least casual sympathy for the idea of a secessionist movement in their own region or locality. The principle objective for those of us who have embraced the pan-secessionist strategy should at this point be the awakening of this sleeping giant. The question is how to we turn this mass of 80 million passive sympathizers into a mass of active sympathizers? The first thing that should be recognized is that most of these 80 million potential constituents are not adherents of extremist or exotic ideologies. Instead, the bulk of the opinions held by these people are likely to be rather close to the mainstream on most issues.

There is no evidence that there is a sizable constituency for ethnic separatism within any ethnic group. To be sure, there is a tiny but outspoken minority of people within all ethnic groups who advocate for ethnic separatism, but the sum total of all ethnic separatists within all ethnic groups would still be a tiny fraction of the 320 million people who make up the US population. It is also true that there are many people who practice de facto ethnic separatism, but this largely reflects the economic and lifestyle choices of individuals, and is a far cry from advocating de jour ethnic separatism as a matter of ideology or moral conviction. While it is certainly true that ethnic separatists can also be pan-secessionists, it is unlikely that a pan-secessionist meta-party (PSMP) that advances ethnic separatism as a primary value will win a great deal of sympathy.
Likewise, it is unlikely that a PSMP that is primarily oriented towards the promotion of an esoteric or exotic ideology will gain much of an audience. While there are certainly plenty of historical precedents for such concepts as non-territorial governments, such ideas are also culturally alien to the overwhelming majority of persons in North America. Therefore, it would be unwise to adopt an ideological stance of this kind as principal strategic objective.

However, the concept of secession maintains very powerful roots within mainstream American history, culture, and politics for reasons that are too obvious to require discussion. Further, secession is a tactical concept that can be embraced by movements of any ideological, cultural, ethnic, religious, or economic orientation. How then should a PSMP organize itself?
The All Nations Party idea of a PSMP that functions as a umbrella for a set of constituent parties and regional or local secessionist movements that have their own interests is generally a solid one. However, I would suggest that at the meta-party level the PSMP should have only two stated objectives:

1. Promoting, advocating, legitimizing, and legalizing the right of secession by regions and localities from larger governmental units.

2. Promoting, advocating, legitimizing, and legalizing the right of minor parties to participate in public elections against the present two-party duopoly.
From this basic starting point, the constituent parties and secessionist movements associated with the PSMP would have every right to advocate for whatever philosophies or issues they wished. For example, the PSMP would have no position on foreign policy. If a collection of red state secessionists wished for the red states to go to war with ISIS, then so be it. The PSMP would have no position on economics. Presumably, for example, there would be both advocates of socialism and capitalism within the PSMP. The PSMP would exist only for the purpose of defending the rights of constituent groups to form their own parties or secessionist movements advocating for any ideas that they wished, and to strip away political and legal barriers to both competition in public elections by minor parties and secession by regionalist movements. This is does not in any way mean that any constituent party, organization, or movement of the PSMP would abandon or even downplay any of its other issues. It simply means that the PSMP would provide an organizational umbrella for the advancement of the interests of all minor parties and secessionist movements at the collective level. Within the framework of the PSMP, socialists would still advocate for single-payer healthcare, libertarians for tax cuts, social conservatives for the pro-life cause, and social leftists for LGBT issues. The PSMP would no doubt include many constituencies who were otherwise antithetical to each other, such as the Prohibition Party and the U.S. Marijuana Party.

In this sense, it must be understood that the PSMP would maintain both macro-level constituencies and micro-level constituencies. At the macro-level, the PSMP would have only two constituencies: the 25% and growing number of Americans who sympathize with the idea of secession, and those who prefer alternatives to the two-party duopoly. At the macro-level, the PSMP would exist only to promote the two issues of third party rights and secessionist rights, and these issues would be promoted in the same way that proponents of marijuana legalization, gay marriage, gun rights, gun control, the right-to-life or abortion rights have promoted their own issues. At the micro-level, the PSMP would have many constituencies, i.e. the constituencies of its component parties, organizations, movements, and the issues raised by each of these. Obviously, the opportunity would arise within such a scenario for a infinite variety of conflicts between the various constituents of the PSMP, and such conflicts are to be expected. Therefore, mutual agreements among the PSMP constituents would have to be formulated in order to maintain the common peace to the greatest degree reasonably possible. The most practical approach would be for the various constituent forces to simply agree to stay out of each other’s backyards. For example, the constituents forces that trended rightward would agree to focus their organizing and recruiting activities on the “red” demographic sectors of the US, and the forces that trended leftward would agree orient themselves towards organizing among the “blue” sectors.

At the national level, the presidential candidates of the PSMP would run solely on the two core principles of the PSMP: advocating for the rights of third parties, and the rights of secessionists. Preferably, the presidential ticket would be split between the Left and Right. For example, the presidential candidate might be from the Socialist Party or the Green Party, while the vice-presidential candidate would be from the Libertarian or Constitution Parties. Further, the Left/Right split ticket should be reversed every four years. For example, in the 2016 election the presidential candidate might be from the Left with the vice-presidential candidate might be from the Right. In 2020, the presidential candidate would then be from the Right while the vice-presidential candidate would be from the Left.

All other candidates of the PSMP would run on joint tickets of both the PSMP and their respective constituent parties. For example, the candidate for the governorship of Massachusetts might run on the tickets both the PSMP and the Socialist Action Party, and a comparable candidate in Texas might run on the tickets of both the PSMP and the Objectivist Party. Once again, in order to avoid overlap, rival constituent parties and organizations would mutually agree to stay out of each others backyards. Additionally, the candidates from minor parties and secessionist movements might also be combined at times. For example, a candidate in Georgia might stand simultaneously for the PSMP, Constitution Party and the League of the South, while a candidate in Oregon might stand for the PSMP, Green Party and Cascadia.

An approach of the kind that has been outlined above would serve multiple purposes. One would be to simply awaken the sleeping giant of potential secessionist sympathies among one-quarter of the U.S. population, and to challenge the Democratic-Republican two-party duopoly. Yet another would be to create a forum where many different kinds of people with otherwise opposed philosophies would be able to work with one another against the common enemy. A third would be to create a prototype for the kind of system that might exist following the inevitable demise of the present system, a decentralized system based on the principal of self-determination for all.

Of course, the emergence of a PSMP of the kind described above would also receive a great deal of criticism from a variety of sources. The critics would include ideologues and sectarians of both the left and right, the professional anti-rightist cottage industry, anti-leftists of a comparable nature, avowed statists and totalitarians, neoconservatives, jingoists, the party hacks of the system’s parties, their kept media, and, of course, the overlords of the system themselves. So be it. Revolutionaries without enemies are not revolutionaries at all.
Of course, some from the general anarchist milieus will object that party politics is antithetical to the wider anarchist values of rejection of the state. I previously address this question in “Liberty and Populism,”:

Some anarchists will no doubt object that my approach reeks far too much of a reformist/electoralist outlook. While I certainly respect this point of view, I believe it is unnecessarily sectarian and archaic. The classical anarchists often advocated boycotting elections and for good reason. In most of the countries where the classical anarchist movement existed on a scale of any significance, the “right to vote” was either non-existent or the franchise was very limited. Even in nominal democracies like Switzerland and America, women and other large population groups were denied the vote. Even at that, many Spanish villages elected anarchist mayors and village councils in the years leading up to the civil war. I believe modern anarchists need to develop an approach to this question that is relevant to the nature of modern states and modern societies. The approach I favor is one of cold realism and pragmatism. It is indeed possible for ordinary people with conventional levels of resources to be elected to local and state offices in many parts of the US. Persons who achieve some level of success in this area are then in a position to influence appointments to other positions of influence. This can be very important as a means of keeping the worst elements away from seats of power.

It should also be pointed out that the PSMP would be merely a means to an end, and not an end unto itself. It would merely be a vehicle for promoting and popularizing a wider subversive agenda. Further, it would create a framework that would allow anarchists to reach out to and connect with people from all over the cultural and political spectrum, and experience the opportunity to work with a vast array of dissidents as equal partners towards common goals. Anarchists would would have the opportunity to embed themselves in the PSMP for the purpose of pursuing a more radical line and the advancement of more extraneous issues that are among the unique concerns of anarchists. Just as the myriad of constituent parties and movements of the PSMP would maintain their own objectives, and pursue those objectives within other contexts, so would anarchists do the same. Specifically, anarchists might concentrate their own efforts on local politics, and strive for the achievement of political preeminence in an increasingly greater number of cities, towns, and counties. Two, three, many Christianias, Marinaledas, Mondragons, and Kobanis could begin to proliferate. Meanwhile, the prototypes of South Africa’s conservative Orania community and Liechtenstein’s libertarian monarchical micro-nation  provide models of how Anarchists and the Left might peacefully co-exist with the Right. Further, there might be a parallel pan-anarchist federation that co-exists with the PSMP, and functions as a base of activists and organizers for the PSMP. The relationship between the pan-anarchist federation and the PSMP would be comparable to the relationship between the FAI, the CNT, and the Anti-Fascist militias during the period of Revolutionary Spain.
The general demographic and electoral base of the PSMP would be that which has previously been outlined in “Liberty and Populism,” though periodically modified in order to adapt to changing trends. The PSMP would then emerge as a populist alternative political force perhaps comparable to Italy’s Five Star Movement, or the recently formed coalition in Greece between Syriza and the Independent Greeks. There is also the further possibility of the PSMP embedding itself in the major parties on the ground level. For example, Norman Mailer’s secessionist “left-conservative” Democratic candidacy for mayor of New York in 1969 is one example, and Larry Kilgore’s secessionist conservative Christian Republican candidacy for Senator from Texas in 2008 is another example.

The PSMP and the Pan-Anarchist Movement
Within the context of the PSMP, the pan-anarchist movement would then work to advance its wider body of strategic and political ideas such as core demographic theory, fourth generation warfare, libertarian populism, inside/outside strategy, left/right/center tripartite strategy, alternative infrastructure, cultural organizations that would replace the state’s social infrastructure, the 25 point platform, building coalitions of anti-state interest groups, a peoples’ economic front, legal defense organizations, civilian defense organizations,expanded cop watch and neighborhood watch programs, tax protests, civil disobedience campaigns, Kevin Carson’s “political program for anarchists,” Larry Gambone’s “populist groundswell” and decentralist economics, a coalition against consensual crimes, a prisoner amnesty movement, a libertarian common law system, a Norwegian approach to criminology, a Swedish or Swiss approach to foreign policy, the city-state system, and much else.

Once again, none of this meta-political or meta-strategic program implies that any of the myriad of anarchist, libertarian, anti-statist, anti-authoritarian, or decentralist factions would abandon their preferred issues. As I wrote in “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire” concerning the concept of “anarcho-populism”:

Hence, what I am proposing is a new strategic paradigm and, to a certain extent, a new school of anarchist thought that I call “anarcho-populism”. This new brand of anarchism would draw on the other schools in various ways. The classical anarchism originally developed by Proudhon would be its foundation. Like anarcho-socialism, anarcho-populism would be anti-capitalist and pro-class struggle. Like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-populism would endorse property, markets and the independent sector as an antidote to statism, corporatism and welfarism. Along with leftist-anarchists, this new anarchist tendency would support political freedom and cultural self-determination for racial minorities, women, gays and the like but would not seek to mindlessly glorify or privilege these groups or demonize white males. Along with primitivists and eco-anarchists, anarcho-populism would seek to preserve the natural environment, but without the misanthropy and anti-tech hysteria of much modern environmentalism. Like national-anarchists, anarcho-populism would endorse the right of traditional racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups to self-preservation and political sovereignty and cross-cultural, cross-ideological alliances against the NWO, but would seek to branch out into “mainstream” society rather than seek out reclusive isolation from the modern world.

Presumably, every libertarian faction would continue to focus on its primary areas of concern, from sovereign citizens to anarcha-feminists, and every faction could maintain its own sub-organizational identities within the context of the pan-anarchist federation as well. However, organizing and advancing the PSMP might serve as a common project and rallying point for all libertarian factions.

The main thing that is needed as this point is action. It is necessary for activists to step forward and being applying the ideas that have been outined above. How did other movements that have achieved a great deal of success, or at least size and recognition, begin? How did the marijuana legalization movement being? The gay marriage movement? The Tea Parties? The anti-Vietnam War movement? The civil rights movement? The religious right? The modern American conservative movement? Surely, there are things that can be learned from each of these.

Libertarian Welfare Queens

By MK Lords

Lately, I’ve been getting tired of the same old scams coming from the same old people in the libertarian “movement”. Many OG libertarians I’ve spoken with agree, so I thought I’d compile a list of popular but parasitic libertarians. It turns out libertarians and ancaps are some of the worst capitalists ever. Despite raging against tax payer supported “welfare queens” there seems to be quite a lot of libertarians fighting for the ever depleting capital flowing from the chapped teat that holds the earnings of fellow libertarians.
Libertarians employ a variety of tactics to spread their message, but a tactic I must disagree with is begging for money from people in your movement for stunts that are utopian at best and ineffective or dangerous at worst.


Libertarians also have an aversion to critiquing fellow libertarians because of the small scope and influence the philosophy currently has and because many of them feel it would harm the movement. Any movement worth its salt can stand criticism of its members, and if it can’t then it’s not worth being a part of to begin with.
I’ve been distancing myself from the label libertarian for some time now because I hate echo chambers and increasingly felt being pulled into one. My news feed has slowly but surely become filled with the same slogans, the same news stories, the same solutions, the same begging, even the same fake names! Criticism is shot down with paranoid accusations of concern trolling or even of being a Fed. Yawn. Dissidence is not allowed and any half-assed attempt at activism by a “celebritarian” is venerated as groundbreaking. Thousands of dollars get thrown at “activists” who have disappeared other thousands with little explanation. Critiques of thought leaders are brushed away with the weak argument, “But such and such did sooooo much for liberty in the past!!!” as if it matters.

Redirecting capital to effective, peaceful, free market solutions could do wonders for human progress and I support a diversity of tactics approach to solving social problems. That doesn’t mean I believe all tactics are equally effective. It’s important to ask hard questions of charismatic leaders and press even harder when they evade. Living off of the charity of people in your own movement while arguing for capitalism seems oxymoronic especially when you keep ignoring market responses to your work.

I am not a part of the “liberty movement” though people still try to get me to add it to my work description on the Facebook. Do I promote the ideas of liberty? Sure–I’ve done several podcasts and am even a co-host on a libertarian themed radio show. But it’s because I want liberty for myself; I have no illusions about achieving freedom for mankind and sacrificing myself for the greater cause of liberty to the point of financial hardship. News flash: you can be an activist and have a job. And you can even be an effective full time activist. I like the idea of free markets but ultimately I’m an individualist anarchist if you must label it. The religiosity of some libertarians is off-putting. They criticize nonbelievers for being “brainwashed sheep” as they parrot the words of their own deities who unfortunately range from the scholarly to the deranged. They also cry a lot about not having the capital of other movements as if it’s a mystery where it’s going.
Sorry, but you guys wasted it on libertarian welfare queens.

A libertarian welfare queen is a prominent libertarian who lives off the donations of other libertarians but produces content that is factually incorrect, manipulative, embarrassing, threatening, and oftentimes ineffective or counterproductive. They are the leeches who are somehow able to keep raising money despite questionable practices in their activism and whose serious ethical breaches are ignored or forgiven despite no attempt at restitution. The people named here are not the only ones in libertarianism I consider counterproductive, either.

But enough bitching, I’m gonna name a few libertarian welfare queens because I am so tired of this particular problem robbing well intentioned people who have jobs of their well-earned money. It’s also important to be able to laugh at the strange humans that try to lead you when you’re more than capable of leading yourself. I generally like libertarians, but there are a few bad apples, and I want to let others know so they don’t support jobless swindlers. Libertarian Welfare Queenism is a problem, but the solution is simple and voluntary.
(In no particular order)

First up is His Holiness Stefan Molyneux.

h/t Bitcoin Not Bombs comrade Davi Barker for this gem

Known as Holy Moly by his detractors, this guy makes his money off of repackaging old philosophy and bad touching donor brains. I tried to like him, I really did, but he reminded me of my mother. His audience is mostly young men and women who, if true believers, have separated from their families on his advice (that is not to make light of child abuse, I do believe separation is appropriate in certain circumstances). The same advice that got his actual therapist wife fined and threatened with suspension. He also creeps on her clients which I’m pretty sure by any standard is a violation of privacy. Molyneux bullies listeners in precarious financial situations to send him money. And when I say bully, I mean he berates broke college kids over $1 donations. Like all good authoritarian figures, he’s blatantly hypocritical in applying his own philosophy. He caused some ruckus lately when he filed a DMCA take down claim on a critic despite claiming to be virulently anti-IP for years. His older videos provide simple, easily accessible arguments for anarcho-capitalism but his recent ones are riddled with misogyny and cop apologia. And I’m not one to throw the term misogyny around irresponsibly, but he likes to call women “estrogen based parasites” which is ironic given that his wife is the one with a real job and his living is subsidized by young people in an unstable economy.
He also uses classic manipulation techniques to lure listeners in such as immediately asking about their childhoods. This approach builds a façade of false trust and closeness. It’s disturbing to say the least and I’m genuinely pissed he does it to people I care about. This is in between bizarre outbursts about black kids who dare to smoke blunts and other black kids that have miraculously figured out how to make “lean” from tea and skittles. Who knew Trayvon was an alchemist?! Even worse is his belief that he is singlehandedly saving the world (“I am the ring of fire protecting the fragile tree of virtue” is an exact quote). His followers appear to be much smarter than him and it’s unfortunate he’s such an arse because I can agree that peaceful parenting is a great thing.
Also, despite complaints of donation decreases and claims his website takes “tens of thousands of dollars” to operate, dude is sitting pretty on a stack of bitcoin. Weird that the documentary he was hyping a few years ago still hasn’t been made…and no doubt his Paypal donations greatly exceed his bitcoin ones. He’s gonna need them for the lawsuit filed by his critic for shutting down her Youtube channel, so if you feel moved please find it in your heart to send him a few bits. Or you’re a thief.
The second offender would probably be proud to be called that, say hello to Christopher Cantwell.

Cantwell showing that piece of fabric who’s boss.

Cantwell can’t do much well other than bloviate on his blog and beg for donations while doing everything in his power to offend people, which would be hilarious if he were funny but his career is a bad joke. (hyuckhyuckhyuck!) He calls himself a comedian but I’m pretty sure living in your mother’s basement well into your thirties is only funny as a libertarian stereotype not a reality. I wish I was lying about that last part, but it’s entirely true. Since he moved out of his mom’s, he likes long walks in downtown Keene harassing meter maids and bragging about how cool it is to kill cops. He’d be infinitely more interesting if he followed through but he never will because he is a huge coward. I’m usually the first one to say attack the argument not the man, but he’s called better people worse things and I assume (often to my surprise) if people can dish it they can take it.

He also likes to talk about how any publicity is good publicity as a coping mechanism to his humiliating appearance on The Colbert Report and generally pathetic existence. Finally, libertarians get that juicy mainstream coverage, but *spoiler alert* it’s an ogre with atrocious gun safety practices. Oh yeah, he wields guns like a giant retarded baby. Other sources say he knows his shit IRL but he somehow managed to appear in at least two videos violating basic gun safety rules so I remain skeptical. He’s one of those sacrificial full time activists which I assume means being an internet tough guy. You mean to tell me an able bodied middle aged man with what I assume is years of job experience can’t go get a job like the productive libertarians? Ok. This 3edgy5me welfare queen also helped Adam Kokesh organize a failed armed march on Washington, D.C. because getting a bunch of your supporters massacred sounded like a good idea at the time. Cantwell is that bully in school that talks a lot of shit but acts on none of it. Honestly, I don’t even think he’s siphoned that much money off of libertarians, but he’s embarrassing enough to make the list with his bitching about how he “desperately” needs donations. Get a job, Cantwell, the market has spoken.
Last on the list is everyone’s favorite freedom fighter, Adam Kokesh.

Nothing could possibly go wrong here.

If there’s one person libertarians should stop sending any money to immediately, it’s this guy. Please, I implore you; stop sending money to him. For your own sake, for the sake of future generations, please just STAHP. Sure, the butthurt among you will say, “look at all he has done!!!1!11!!!” but the butthurt among you don’t realize homeboy is a trust fund kid. Maybe back in 2010, Kokesh had some good ideas if you ignore that he stole them from other activists. I know some of them personally, but I won’t name names because I respect them and know they don’t wish to start any trouble within libertarianism. He also has a nasty habit of not paying people who work for him which is pretty messed up considering how good he is at raising money.
Kokesh is a man notorious for raising large sums of money that disappears without a trace if not squandered on useless activism. This guy riled up a bunch of mentally unstable people to march on Washington D.C. with weapons—quite possibly the dumbest stunt I’ve ever heard of—then cancelled it. He followed it up by an even more half-baked stunt: literally standing in front of the White House and Capitol racking a shotgun. Kokesh, with thousands of dollars in film and effects equipment, chose to do that instead of using a fucking green screen and then goaded libertarians into supporting his defense team after he was unsurprisingly raided. He then bailed on a legit mutual defense agency while his close team members slandered George Donnelly’s good name despite George’s meticulous records proving shenanigans. Then, and this is rich, he blamed his buddies for the missing funds! That’s 50 grand down the memory hole, mind you. Donors whined and he got his poor girlfriend to give some half-assed explanation. Everyone promptly forgot and no lawsuit was filed. Then, as if that wasn’t enough for libertarians to at least question his judgment, he goes on a book tour to spread the good word of liberty! I can understand needing to hustle when you get out of jail, but dude got another $30,000 from people for this tour. After he and/or his team disappeared over $50,000. Re-read that last sentence until it really sinks in.

So it seems libertarians and their money are easily departed, but what stings worse is that this asshole doesn’t need their money. His father is a venture capitalist who memholed $45 million and according to confidential sources his mother bankrolls his lifestyle. If you think he doesn’t have a trust fund, you are out of your goddamned mind. I give him props for being the best ancap on this list because that’s kind of impressive that he can squeeze so much money out of broke people over and over again.

**Dishonorable mention: Ron Paul. Paul was originally on the list and I removed him because he did make his money except when he was campaigning and being a congressman. All I will say is don’t be surprised when the millions people donate to a failed political campaign are wasted on bribes. Did you really think politics was fair? Bless your heart.
Libertarian welfare queens are a drain on libertarianism and I think libertarians can do better. How can libertarian welfare queens ever hope to change the world if they can’t get past their entitled mindsets? How can libertarians ever inspire others to lead themselves if they’re still following these vermin?

Now there are still some scammers about that don’t quite make the list and activist methods I find are a waste of money even with the best of intentions, so here’s a litmus test if that money is burning a hole in your pocket. If any of the people on this list ask for money, don’t give it to them; if someone tells you there’s a Randian utopia waiting for you in Chile, don’t give them money (even if they have a team of cryptoanarchists ready to pounce); if someone says they are going to tour America spreading the good word of liberty, don’t give them money; if someone threatens to quit the “movement” because they’re not able to pay their bills as an activist, don’t give them money; if someone says they’re running for office, you know better than to give them money; if someone asks you to fund their anarcho-hippie commune, don’t give them money; if you’re a broke college kid, don’t give your money to anybody. If it sounds too good to be true it is and if it’s coming from a libertarian welfare queen it will probably be ham-fistedly executed.

Good ideas spread organically and now virally thanks to the internet, and despite a rough economy you can make money if you produce something valuable to others. There is no need to resort to older, more time consuming and expensive methods. Put your money where it matters and lead yourself. Or at the very least, do your due diligence on activists asking for money—there are some excellent projects out there by trustworthy people, but there are a lot of scammers too.

Open Source Law

By: Pasquale Pulella 
NATA-NY

A peaceful society is free society, violence and governments go hand in hand. Violence or the threat of violence is used by government to keep and confine everyone in a certain standard that is deemed acceptable by the power structure. The law is the mechanism by which the state controls by violence. The law of the state is used to restrict, confine, control, demoralize, dehumanize, categorize, punish, and demonize anyone who does not confine to the semi-robotic industrialized humanity. As Mikhail Bakunin once said “The liberty of man Consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he himself has recognized them as such” The law of anarchy must do the opposite of what the law of the state does; however it is not always that simple. The reason that we have so many laws in a state controlled society is because people differ in what they see as a “just law”. In the suburbia community where I live in on long island it is illegal to build above a certain height, it’s illegal to build a fence above three feet or so in the front yard, why is this? This is because people think that that sort of construction is considered “poor taste” and it lowers the value of their “property”. This however restricts myfreedom to build my fence higher than they want.

So instead of using violent force to break the will of someone you want to control, we can have agreements based on voluntary associations of individuals or collectives. Violence is to be used only when necessary. This system of laws may be seen as a guideline for the autonomous order of a free society. The concept of open source law is not unique to post-Proudhon anarchists. Pirates of the 1600’s even had their own set of laws they called the pirate code, Early Ireland had Brehon law, 16^th century Italy had the code of Omerta` (I’ll write another article about this). Ethics can also be seen by some as open source law, applied correctly Ethics can mirror natural law exactly. Natural law demands that you do what you want so long as it does not directly harm your fellow man. The Non-Aggression principle is an example of natural law/ethics. People can regulate themselves in dangerous behavior biased on proper education. An example would be that a boy scout is taught to put out campfires when they leave, no law can actually stop anyone from doing otherwise.

                Anarchistic law would probably be applied in a similar manner to the following. This is not an anarchist constitution but rather a guideline for one. If anyone has revisions they wish to make I would highly recommend you formulate it in another article entitled “Open Source Law Redo by_____”

The initiation of violence is prohibited unless with the consent or agreement between the offender and victim.

a.       If two people get into a fight it does not matter who hit first it is a dispute witch both parties must resolve unless either side calls for a third party to keep the piece or resolve a dispute (lawyer/arbitrator/professional juror [like in Celtic Ireland]/peacekeeping militia, etc.)

b.      The use of defensive violence is not prohibited no matter what kind of violence is used. If someone uses excessive violence in defense it does not constitute a crime. (If someone tries to rob someone with a pocketknife then the person getting robed has the right to kill them with a bazooka.)

c.       No regulation may be implemented based on violence or the threat of violence unless it protects the free will of a group or individual or their possessions ownership/use. Also it may be used to maintain collective or individual separatism.

2.       When using possessions that do not belong to said user they must consent to certain criteria implemented by the possessor.

a.       If using an individual’s possession, the possessor may require that the user consent to certain criteria for the protection of or to obtain or restrain certain benefits of said possession.

b.      If an individual or collective uses the possession of a collective the possessors may require that the user(s) consent to certain criteria for the purpose of protection of the possession or for certain benefits it may or may not give.

3.       Possession may be obtained and/or lost.

a.       Possession may be obtained when an individual or collective apply their labor to a non-possessed object, land, or animal. (Does not apply when other peoples uses of said possession does not restrict that of the original possessor.

b.      Possession may be lost when said possession is neglected or when the possessor dies or permanently vacates to another location where the possession is not present.

4.       Law practice in a free society must abide by the Non-Aggression Principle.

a.       Both parties may agree on what law consultant to consult and act as a third party to a dispute

b.      If the two parties do not agree on what law arbitrator to consult each person(s) may consult their own and both acting lawyers must put together a jury of the defendant’s community (people who know him/her somewhat)

c.       All parties involved in a dispute can come to agreement on the defendant’s innocence or guilt based off of proof of crime and both parties may agree to reparations.

d.      If the guilty defendant cannot pay for reparations with his personal resources than the defendant may pay with his labor in a reasonable manor agreed upon by both parties.

e.      If a defendant does not agree to pay reparations or to show up for his dispute/trial he is a violator of the Non-Aggression Principle and the use of violence is neither necessary nor prohibited against the violator.

5.       The right to be governed. All people have a right to be free but alternatively they also have a right to be enslaved, Should they want.

a.       If a government is to be formed in a free society it must consist of a defined area where all the people consent to be governed by hierarchical violence

b.      If a government is formed and the people rebel the law of nature will not protect the government that is formed nor will it protect any beneficiary’s and should they use violence against the government and flee to free land no law system can condemn them

Definitions

Ø  Possession; objects, lands, animals that are used, maintained, operated, and/or acquired by a group or individual for their own use, and they maintain the rights to its usage.

Ø  Separatism; Independence or voluntary non-association with an individual or groups of individuals. Certain people may be restricted access to certain private lands or possessions

Ø  Non-Aggression Principle; the principle by witch no person may initiate violence, the threat of violence, physical force, or fraud against another person unless such a person has violated the principle on them.