Why I Choose to Collaborate with Racialists and Theocrats

by Keith Preston

…(A)s a kind of Nietzschean libertarian…Mencken loved German culture, hated U.S. intervention in foreign wars, held most of mankind in sterling contempt, and thought of government as a conspiracy against the superior man.

-Daniel McCarthy, describing the political outlook of H.L. Mencken

He saw himself as an…exponent of…’the dissenters, the rebels and nonconformists, whose main motivations were not profit or money-making but either religious or intellectual self-expression, freedom and independence’.

-Ronald Radosh, describing the political outlook of Lawrence Dennis

I have had a number of brickbats tossed my way from the anarcho-leftoid milieu over the years, but the one thing that seems to provoke the most controversy is my insistence that some elements of the “Far Right” may, at times, be valuable and important allies of anarchists (in the authentic, dictionary sense!). I am particularly amused when those who spent their early political years as fervent Trotskyists or Stalinists, or who were still in elementary school (or not even born yet) when I was fighting with the cops in the streets of San Francisco and Toronto, getting tear gassed at the Pentagon, camping out in the Kentucky mountains with striking coal miners, or hiding a Salvadoran refugee in my apartment while the FBI and INS combed the city looking for him, pathetically attempt to label me as a “fascist” for refusing to bow down to the altar of political correctness. Joining the anti-imperialist struggle at age nineteen, becoming an anarchist soon afterward, I have spent all of my adult life working to bring down the US regime. I regard the struggle against the US Empire to be a matter of critical urgency, not just a hobby project to be indulged in when it is convenient. Some years ago, I had to make the choice of whether or not to continue as an activist or whether to become a researcher, analyst and commentator. I decided for the latter approach for two reasons. First, my personal skills and temperament were better suited for it. Second, the activist milieu was, and still is, in horrific condition and in dire need of a much more solid intellectual foundation and strategic outlook. Forgive my presumptuousness, but I take the traditional anarchist critique of the state as a criminal gang writ large as a given. I do not have, and have never had, any sympathy for statist forms of radicalism, such as Marxism or Nazism. The great lesson for mankind provided by the experience of the twentieth century is that the state is the enemy of all mankind. Joseph Sobran has remarked that if human beings were rational creatures, they would speak of the great killer, robber and enslaver that constitutes the institution of the state in the same way that Jews talk about Nazis. I concur.

The historic struggle against the state has been in many ways quite successful. Indeed, virtually all manifestations of the state save one are now firmly discredited in the minds of most modern intellectuals. Apologists for fascism, communism, monarchy, theocracy, aristocracy and military government are very few and far between. Only democratism retains the allegiance of modern thinkers. The zeal for revolutionary democratism that has characterized Western intellectuals since the time of the French Revolution is now the official doctrine of the most powerful state in history. The time is steadily approaching when William Graham Sumner’s prediction of an ultimate day when men are divided into only two political camps, Anarchists (defenders of the individual) and Socialists (defenders of the state), will be realized. It is highly appropriate that out of modern democratist ideology there is presently emerging an entirely new system of totalitarianism, indeed a type of totalitarianism more perfect than those previously ordered on the pseudo-sciences of Nazi racial theory or Marxist dialectical materialism. Totalitarian Humanism of the type warned against by Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, C. S. Lewis and others is now becoming a real-world political reality rather than the subject of fantastic science fiction novels. This new totalitarianism is of a more perfect variation than its predecessors because of its greater subtlety and benign appearance. The old adage about remaining beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing is more applicable than ever. Modern liberal-humanist-democratists are totalitarians in every way comparable to the Communists and Nazis who made the Earth such an unpleasant place during the last century.

The state is currently in the process of evolving from the national to the international level. Coupled with Totalitarian Humanist ideology, the end result of this process can only be the most complete and expansive tyranny in history, particularly when modern surveillance technology, destructive weaponry and sophisticated mass-media propaganda techniques are figured into the equation. This new totalitarianism has as its ideological foundation a peculiar trinity of shibboleths, those of Equality, Consumerism and Health. It is for this reason that Totalitarian Humanism is more insidious than the previous totalitarianisms. Who could be against “equality” and the liberation of oppressed minorities? Who could be against economic prosperity and a high standard of living? Who could be opposed to “good health”? This new tyranny lacks the crude economic or racial determinism of Marxism or Nazism and is therefore harder to expose for the fraud that it is. But it must be exposed nevertheless. Nothing less than the survival of liberty, culture and civilization is at stake. If the emerging Brave New World Order is in reality a global corporate plutocracy to be managed on a international scale by the sinister totalitarian “new class” warned against by Lawrence Dennis, Max Nomad, Milovan Diljas, James Burham, George Orwell and others, then the question for radicals becomes the matter of from where resistance to this tyranny will come.

The conservative military historian William Lind predicts that the primary political battle of the future will be between the overlords of the New World Order and so-called “fourth generation” forces, loosely defined as non-state entities (militias, gangs, religions, ideologies, etc.) competing with the state for popular loyalty. The forces of the Fourth Generation will be drawn from the ranks of all of those who oppose the New World Order, and span the entire spectrum of ethnic groups, religions, cultures, territorial entities, ideologies, economic groupings and so-forth. It is obvious enough that racialists and religious fundamentalists or traditionalists will be among the stronger elements of the Fourth Generation forces, thereby serving as a principal bulwark against NWO tyranny. The anarchist theoretician Giovanni Baldelli once observed that traditional religions have often been among the most fervent resistance forces to totalitarianism. One need only think of Islamic resistance to Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan or Buddhist resistance to American imperialism in Vietnam, the Christian underground that developed under the Stalinist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe, the role of the Catholic Church in the overthrow of Stalinism in Poland, the role of evangelical and Catholic churches in the resistance to US agression and genocide in Central America, the leadership role played by Protestant leaders like Dietrich Bonhoffer or Martin Niemoller in resistance to the Nazi regime, the leadership of the Catholic Church in the Swiss success at avoiding Nazi occupation, the leadership of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan resistance to the Chinese Communists and, of course, the current Islamic resistance to American and Zionist imperialism in the Middle East.

The same could be said of traditional ethnic, racial or national groupings. Much of the opposition to the creeping tyranny of the European Union has come from traditional ethnic or cultural nationalists in the respective European countries. Russian nationalists have been outspoken opponents of Atlanticist globalism. Latin American nationalist leaders like Hugo Chavez have moved center stage in defiance of traditional “Yankee imperialism” in the Western hemisphere. It was fervent Vietnamese ethnic nationalism, and not Communist ideology, that inspired the heroic efforts of the Vietcong during the struggle for Vietnamese independence. Indigenous peoples of Central and South America have been at the forefront of resistance to US puppet regimes in those regions. It is an unfortunate tendency of modern leftist and libertarian intellectuals to view any and all forms of nationalism as synonymous with crude bigotry, xenophobia, supremacism, ethnic cleansing, fascism, etc. This perspective makes no more sense than the efforts of some on the reactionary Right to portray all opposition to state-capitalism as the equivalent of Stalinism or Pol Potism.

To the modern liberal or leftist, anything that could even remotely be characterized as “racism” is the ultimate sin, akin to witchcraft for medieval Christians, masturbation for nineteenth century Victorians or drug use for modern proponents and proprieters of the police state. Actually, the Left employs a monumental double standard on these matters, favoring identitarianism or racial nationalism for non-whites, feminists, homosexuals and other favored groupings, but deploring similar tendencies among whites, Westerners, Christians or other out-groups. The Left is a bit divided on Islam, with some leftoids regarding Islam as a “backward” force for theocracy, patriarchy, homophobia, etc. and others regarding criticism of Islam as white, Christian, Western chauvinism. Despite the reactionary Left’s hysterical insistence upon “anti-racism”, much of the Left desires not so much a colorblind society as a new caste system with “people of color”, women and gays taking the position of the new Brahmins. Of course, the existence of considerable numbers of non-racialist minorities, non-feminist women or non-leftist gays (over the years, I have encountered gay pro-lifers, gay Republicans, gay born-again Christians and even gay neo-nazis!) does confuse and complicate matters a bit.

With regards to white nationalism, I have never encountered any half-way serious person in that milieu who believed that the old American segregation system would be restored or that there would ever be a neo-nazi regime in power in the United States, even if they thought that would be desirable (which many of them do not). If anything, the opposite is true. Most white nationalists regard themselves as being part of an increasingly dispossessed and attacked out-group. They believe (correctly, I think) that whites will eventually be a minority in the United States, and subsequently find themselves under attack by vengeful (former) minorities seeking retribution for past injustices, whether real or imaginary. Indeed, the stated political aim of most white nationalists is the creation of a sovereign homeland for themselves for the sake of self-preservation and self-defense in the face of an increasingly integrated society and hostile government. For example, the “Northwest Imperative”. Even so strident a white separatist as Tom Metzger regards the northwest imperative idea to be unrealistic, favoring the creation of white separatist city-states instead.

It is true that groups like the Ku Klux Klan have a lengthy history of terrorism and violence against minorities. It is also true that skinhead gangs have perpetrated much violent street crime in the name of racism (though still less than black and Latino crime gangs). However, white nationalism has evolved considerably in the past ten or fifteen years, often appearing in the much more reasoned, nuanced approach of thinkers like Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, Jeff Anderson of Americans for Self-Determination, the late Sam Francis, national-anarchist leader Troy Southgate, Michael Levin and others. I disagree with some of the views of thinkers such as these, but I still respect them, just as I respect Louis Farrakhan or the late Malcolm X. Even when I read the commentary of ex-Nazis like Don Black or David Duke, I find that I frequently disagree, but I don’t find their views inherently scandalous, just overblown. Either way, the idea that the relatively peaceful, relatively voluntary, decentralized separatism favored by Troy Southgate or Michael Hart is totalitarian or fascistic while the present system of authoritarian multiculturalism, coercive integrationism and state-managed “equality”, with the state peering into every corner of society to make that no one is ever discriminated against, is somehow libertarian or democratic is absurd.

With regards to theocratic Christians, most Christian fundamentalists likewise view themselves as a minority group under attack by the liberal statist elite. Some of them may defensively adopt the hyper-theocratic outlook of the late Rousas John Rushdooney, but very few conservative Christians think they will ever achieve a Saudi-like theocracy for themselves in the United States. Indeed, most of them believe they will someday be subject to persecution by a Soviet-like state under the control of militantly secular totalitarian humanists (a fear that cannot be lightly discarded). When ethnic preservationists and religious traditionalists are demonized so vociferously by the intellectual proponents of the New World Order, we should be clued in that maybe something is up. Perhaps the New Class understands that historically the most fervent resistance to an over-arching totalitarian state has come from traditional religious and ethnic groups. Perhaps the new mandarins attack these populations for the same reason that Stalin attacked the Ukrainians or that Hitler attacked the Jews (i.e., their unassimilability into the “new order” envisioned by these tyrants). Whatever the case may be, the notion that Jerry Falwell is some kind of Nazi for opposing legal abortion or gay marriage while liberals who support gun confiscation, prohibitive restrictions on tobacco smoking and the mass imprisonment of drug users (with all of three of these policies modeled perfectly on those of the Third Reich) are enlightened humanitarians is laughable.

With regards to anti-immigrationists, the position of these factions is that large-scale immigration unwanted by the native population is akin to a foreign invasion and that immigration control is no more a form of ethnic discrimination than is border defense against invading armies. Some leftists, environmentalists and pro-union elements, like Ralph Nader, also share some of the concerns of “right-wing” anti-immigration organizations. Incidentally, I don’t share the anti-immigration fervor of some dissidents, both Left and Right. Massive population transfers from the Third World to the First World may be problematic in many, many ways, but such transfers are but a symptom of the broader cancer of imperialism and neo-mercantilism. Many if not most Third World immigrants are economic or political refugees from conditions caused by the overlords of traditional imperialism in the first place. Like it or not, immigrants are here to stay and the reality of immigration needs to be accepted. The “send ’em home/seal the borders” approach is on the level of Czech students who threw rocks at approaching Soviet tanks during the invasion of 1968. The real invaders are not impoverished peasant immigrants but the imperial overlords who have created chaos in so many parts of the world. The approach suggested by Alain de Benoist of solidarity with the Third World against the imperial order would seem to be the most constructive one. The downfall of the empire and the subsequent stabilization of the southern hemisphere should do much to curb much of the current population transfer opposed by nationalists.

In many ways, I regard the views of racialists, religious traditionalists, cultural conservatives or “xenophobes” as similar to those of the radical ecology movement or “technophobes”. The desire to preserve a traditional way of life or belief, or a traditional ethnic or national group, may be understandable, even laudable, just as the desire to preserve natural ecosystems, environmental aesthetic values or endangered species may be equally laudable. However, the problem that I see with all of these perspectives is that they ignore the fact that change and evolution are inevitable. Naturally, old beliefs and value systems are going to often be discredited by new knowledge and therefore discarded. Naturally, population groups are going to blend, assimilate and alter themselves in various ways. Naturally, trees are going to be cut down in order to make way for human settlements and species are going to go extinct. Consider the fate of the late, great dinosaur population, for example. Indeed, the entire human species may eventually go in similar direction. The earth was here a long time before us and will probably survive a long time after we are gone. As George Carlin once noted, the environmentalists have it backwards. The planet will finish us off before we finish it off.

Neither racialism or religionism are perspectives that I can personally abide. I am an individualist in the tradition of Nietzsche and Stirner rather than any sort of tribalist or collectivist. The main problem I see with white nationalism, for example, is that expressed by Marilyn Manson: “Accept all white people? Hardly!” If a white guy is bothering me when I don’t want to be bothered I’m not going to say: “Well, you’re my racial brother, so I forgive you.” If a black guy is hassling me when I don’t want to be hassled I’m not going to say: “Well, your people were oppressed for 400 years, so I understand.” No, in either case, I’m going to say: “Get out of my face, motherfucker, or prepare to make your next of kin rich with life insurance pay-outs!!”. On religious matters, I regard religions as sets of myths, superstitions, rituals and taboos that collectively constitute a form of cultural expression. Though I am an unbeliever, I concur with Hobbes who, emulating Plato, noted that philosophers and skeptics will always have to make certain concessions and accommodations to religion for the sake of social peace. On ecology, I regard the claims of many eco-doomsday types to be overblown at best and often hysterical. However, the fact remains that racial nationalists, religious traditionalists and radical environmentalists are at the top of the list of those who militantly reject the encroaching totalitarianism of the New World Order.

As an anarchist in the tradition of Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Nock and Rothbard, I am often embarrassed and ashamed of what I see in the contemporary “anarchist” and “libertarian” milieus. Bob Black’s stereotype of libertarians as “Republicans who take drugs” is often quite true. Even the more radical libertarians are often middle-class people obsessed with economics and a decidedly pacifistic approach to political struggle. Many so-called “anarchists” are a parody of sixities radicalism, the Jerry Springer wing of reactionary liberalism. Obviously, a “revolutionary” movement composed of 90-yr-old syndicalists, 60-yr-old hippies and 20-yr-old punk rockers is a farce. Fortunately, serious efforts have begun over the last decade to overcome these obstacles. One of these has been the militia movement. Many people erroneously believe that the militia movement has disappeared. Actually, the movement has grown to a more sophisticated level in recent years. One of the best things that happened to the militia movement was the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, which scared away most of the fence-straddler, do-gooder and weak-kneed elements of the movement. The subsequent wave of repression against the militia movement likewise eliminated the poseurs, losers and fuck-ups within the militia ranks as many of these found themselves in federal prison on illegal weapons charges. What has remained are the competent, committed, authentically revolutionary forces of the movement who have since gone much further underground, kept a much lower profile, put together a much more solid organizational infrastructure and are currently “laying in wait” for the right time to strike.

An even more impressive phenomenon has been the growth in various European countries of an authentically “beyond left and right” movement comprised of numerous distinctive but overlapping tendencies using the monikers third position, national-anarchism, national-Bolshevism, populist-nationalism and national-democracy. Indeed, the “beyond left and right” movement won its first major victory recently through the defeat of the EU Constitution, a defeat engineered by a coalition of ultranationalists, regionalists, anti-immigrationists, old guard communists, anti-globalization radicals and environmentalists (i.e., the kind of coalition of dissidents we need to be building in every country). Given that America is the “mother country” of the NWO empire, revolutionary struggle within the domestic USA is of the utmost importance. The remaining question is the matter of how this is to come about. Given that the primary loyalty of most people is to their reference or peer groups, as opposed to ideological abstractions or arcane economic principles, the best bet would be to forge tactical alliances between those who are motivated to take up revolutionary struggle in the name of their race, religion, culture or homeland. This is why the “unity of separatists” approach favored by the national-anarchist/third-positionist crowd is so vital. Theirs is likely to be the most viable strategic approach to the battle against the NWO. Within the domestic US, the ranks of separatists include Christian Identity, Nation of Islam, Aztlan Nation, Christian Exodus, Free State Project, Neteuri Karta, American Indian Movement, Republic of Texas, Confederate State Project, Black Panthers, Green Panthers, Earth Liberation Front and many others. Furthermore, some of these tendencies command the respect of various lumpenproletarian elements: Christian Identity for the skinheads, Nation of Islam for the black street gangs, Aztlan Nation for the Latino gangs and so on. A military/political/economic confederation of these various resistance forces would prove quite formidable, particularly when the struggle is taken internationally to include the EZLN in Chiapas, FARC in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru, Peoples’ War Group in Nepal, Baathists in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, etc. Indeed, a military alliance of all forces such as these organized on an international level would mark the beginnings of a full-blown global insurgency against the New World Order.

Ideally, a block of nations would emerge, comprised primarily of “rogue states”, that would serve as sponsors of the international insurgent forces. Preferably, a future revolutionary Russia, perhaps led by the National-Bolshevik Party, leading a confederation of anti-NWO regimes from North Korea to Venezuela, would to some degree play the same role as the old Soviet-sponsored Warsaw Pact as a bulwark against Western imperialism and military, financial and diplomatic backer of local and regional anti-imperialist struggles. However, these anti-imperialist struggles would not necessarily invoke the cause of “national liberation” in the same way as twentieth century Third World nationalism. Instead, the vanguard of the anti-imperialist resistance would be the “fourth generation” forces, with an orientation towards non-state entities rather than traditional nation-states. Traditional nations are in the process of being absorbed by the New World Order, and what is left of these will likely be eliminated by various forms of conflict within their own borders. Witness the fate of Yugoslavia following the collapse of the Communist central government. It is interesting to speculate about what sort of political arrangements will likely follow the overthrow of the NWO. The most relevant historical reference point would be the European order that remained in place for an amazingly long time from the collapse of Rome (the most relevant historical parallel to the NWO) to the rise of the modern nation-state system as documented by Peter Kropotkin, Max Weber and modern scholars like Martin Van Crevald. Territorial boundaries will likely be much more loosely defined, save for those organized as armed citadels. Polities will likely be much smaller in size with jurisdictional authority being much more overlapping among competing entities. For anarchists, this collapse and disappearance of over-arching state institutions and territorially expansive regimes should be a welcome event.

It can be predicted with relative safety that the principal ramifications of the removal of the nation-state from human social life will involve the emergence of smaller enclaves of cultural and ideological groupings of an immensely diverse nature. An unfortunate tendency of most modern anarchists and libertarians is the failure of these to think “outside the box” on social and cultural matters and to simply parrot the perspective of the liberal bourgeiose intellectual elite instead. The human species seems to be composed of an enormous array of dichotomies. Between “anarchy” and authority. Assimilationism and preservationism. Faith and skepticism. Progress and reaction. Conservatism and revolutionism. All of these inevitably find their expression in civilizations and cultures that are permitted to evolve in their own organic manner, minus the parasitical apparatus of imperialism and statism. Aristotle recognized at least 158 different constitutions among the Greek cities. The Middle Ages were marked by the blossoming of Europe’s collage of ethnic and linguistic groups. The indigenous tribes of North America were reknowned for their variation, both subtle and overwhelming. A post-revolutionary America would in many ways be a return to the nation’s colonial traditions. Puritans settled New England. Quakers settled Pennsylvania. Baptists settled Rhode Island. Anglicans settled Virginia. Mormons settled Utah. Georgia began as a penal colony. San Francisco began as a prospector settlement.

Jeff Anderson of Americans For Self-Determination has worked out a complicated and well-reasoned plan for decentralizing the USA into enclaves of sovereign ethnic, religious and cultural groups. Under Anderson’s plan, blacks would receive reparations for past wrongs, but the reparations monies would go into a fund managed by black elected officials for the creation of black separatist states of the type favored by black nationalist tendencies like the Nation of Islam, New Black Panther Party and Pan-African International Movement. The funds would be used to provide grants and low-interest loans to individual blacks for the purpose of purchasing homes, businesses, real estate and education in the black separatist states, thereby creating economic incentives for black migration to the black separatist regions. In return, blacks would renounce preferences in other regions set aside as white separatist states. Under such arrangements, blacks would achieve the means of genuine political independence rather than retaining their current status as an appendage to white society. Blacks would also achieve the means to economic independence rather than simply retaining their present position as wards of a welfare state operated by patronizing white social service bureaucrats. Meanwhile, white hostility to black would likely diminish as whites who feel victimized by compensatory preferences given to blacks could simply migrate to the white separatist states. Whites who feel culturally threatened by coercive integrationism, economically threatened by preferences and affirmative action and physically threatened by black crime could also achieve independence and self-determination for themselves. Also, Anderson’s plan calls for the maintenance of “rainbow states” for those who prefer the present multicultural system. The plan developed by Anderson goes even further, allowing for the possibility of sovereign enclaves for other ethnic groups who desire separation: Hawaiians, Alaskans, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics and even non-ethnic separatists such as Muslims, homosexuals, the Amish or radical feminists.

Currently, divisiveness in the US of a cultural nature is even more prevalent that racial or ethnic divisiveness. Witness the growing hostitlies between the “red” and “blue” zones that appear during every presidential election. If all of these people cannot get along, why not simply separate? There can be regions for “blues” complete with gay marriage, socialized medicine, strict gun control, completely secularized education and unlimited abortion and regions for “reds” with unlimited gun rights, a ban on abortions, prayers in schools, little or no taxation and “straights only” marriage laws. Additionally, there can be enclaves carved out for those groups that no one likes. Both mainstream liberals and mainstream conservatives generally support the “war on drugs”, for example. Why not simply create “drug user homelands” such as the Republic of Ganjastan favored by the Green Panther militia in northern California or the libertarian oasis favored by the Free State Project in New Hampshire? Liberals who go hysterical at the slightest criticism of gays seem to think nothing of state repression of other perceived sexual deviates like prostitutes. Why not separatist “hooker homelands” modeled after the red light districts of Europe? There are over two million Americans currently in prison at an annual cost of thirty thousand dollars per prisoner. Why not save money by exiling all of these folks to “penal homelands” modeled after the former East Germany complete with a surrounding New Berlin Wall or Korean-like DMZ separating them from “straight” society? Some of these could become thriving independent cities engaged in trade and commerce with persons “on the outside”. Pedophiles are for obvious reasons unwanted by conventional society and severely attacked by others inside the prison system as well. Why not a separatist enclave run by NAMBLA? Parents could be warned never to let their kids get within a hundred miles of such a place. The late High Priest of the Church of Satan Anton Lavey once envisioned the creation of Satanic theocracies where businesses and schools would only operate at night “under the cover of darkness” and people would sleep during the daytime. Why not let them have it?

Obviously, the establishment of all of these separatist enclaves would require full decentralization of government of the type favored by traditional anarchists (as opposed to totalitarian humanist/cultural Marxist modern so-called “anarchists”). The result would be the resurrection of the kind of family and kin, village and tribe, city and territory based political systems of the pre-modern era. Leftists whose main issues are “racism, sexism and homophobia” could create their own homelands complete with a constitution that required that a majority of the seats in the highest body of government be given to people of color, feminists and homosexuals. There could be “anarchist” city-states organized on the basis of “consensus-based direct democracy” complete with marathon debates over “process” along with “communist” city-state ruled hierarchically by the “vanguard party”. Recall the dichotomy between demo/hedo/homo/art-fag Athens and commie/fascist Sparta. In the white separatist states, there could be sub-communities established for “Aryan” white nationalists and Jewish white nationalists (yes, there is such a thing). Their could be collections of towns and villages for the followers of “moderates” like Jared Taylor and Michael Levin on one hand and “extremists” like the Aryan Nations or the World Church of the Creator on the other. In the black separatist states, there could be sub-communities for Garveyites, adherents of Black Israel, Black Muslims, black separatist Christians and Marxists like the Republic of New Afrika. Given the high rates of absentee fatherhood in many urban black communities, perhaps a new matriarchal culture could develop there upon the removal of the welfare state, with the former giving great pleasure to feminists and the latter to conservatives. For those who prefer the present system, plenty of territory would remain for Democrats and Republicans. If the first American Revolution was predicated on the Enlightenment myths of a common humanity with “all men created equal” and “endowed with inalienable rights”, then perhaps the second American Revolution will have as its intellectual foundation the more practical view that “all men (and women) should go their own way and mind their own business”!


  1. There must be political splits on literally ever issue Let’s cooperate when we agree and try not to row.

  2. This meta-utopian concept was discussed on here in debates between myself and Neil Lock, back in the ‘old days’.

    A couple of (random) questions:

    (i). Are blacks capable of sustaining their own societies above a primitive level?

    (ii). Are ‘states’ an outgrowth of human nature?

    Nobody can ever answer (i) for me. Why do blacks en masse need aid at all, in effect a transnational welfare state at the expense of whites? Why is it that blacks in particular succumbed to Southern agricultural chattel slavery (another welfare institution)? (I accept that whites have been enslaved as well in different ways). You blame it on colonialism and imperialism, which seems like a handy dustbin term. “Blame it on [insert word for unpopular thing]”. But what if such things as colonialism and imperialism are inevitable where a race of intelligent people arise? Is war and conflict not an inevitability? The world you envisage is self-ordered and harmonious, but won’t some groups seek to dominate and conquer others? I must admit that, in a sense, the imperialist theory is correct: without the white European imperative to explore, settle and conquer, perhaps these questions would not arise for us, but that raises a further hypothetical question that has practical implications. Are the political-economic problems of black-majority societies due to the historical superiority of whites, which has suffocated and retarded black development, or is it that blacks are more fundamentally different and supposed to follow an entirely other evolutionary trajectory which could be non-technological or defer technological progress?

    In regard to (ii), my argument is that the state is ontologically fundamental and this impacts anthropological agency. The issue I raised with Neil in the past is the possibility that even in an anarchic society, at the very least a ‘soft’ state would develop.

    For instance, in a pure socialist system there would be no state (and no money or property, etc.) and a lot of what in capitalism is economic activity would be self-directed under such a socialist system in a way analogous to the arrangements theorised in anarcho-capitalism. Yet it seems obvious that most large-scale activity that requires marshalling of resources will involve collective decision-making, which immediately raises the sceptre of the political state, albeit in tacit or invisible form and under democratic formalities. I have raised this problem with socialists but the discussion didn’t progress anywhere because they seemed not to understand what I was getting at. They seem to think – or rather, believe or assume – that if something is decided democratically, that means it’s OK and it’s not coercion. But isn’t a committee of elected or nominated individuals potentially a ‘state’ in a sense, and ultimately an instrument of coercion? Isn’t a man who is head of a household in a way a ‘right’ unto himself (per Chesterton)? It seems that the sceptre haunting us is the state.

Leave a Reply