Tag Archives: Greg Johnson

Meet the Exterminationist Wing of the Alt Right Who is Open About Wanting to Kill Jews and Non-Whites

In a recent episode of The Daily Shoah, the most popular Alt Right podcast today, after ranting about the various problems of the day they followed through on their previous show’s promise to discuss the “white genocide” happening in South Africa. They brought on blogger and Alt Right “shitlord” Jayoh, who has also appeared on Neoreaction podcasts like Ascending the Tower. After ranting about how “n***ers ruin everything” for fifteen minutes, he finally leveled his real belief to the “problem of South Africa” and integration.

There is no version of segregation that will ever work because somebody will always use it as a cudgel against you…You can’t live around these people, you can’t have them in the next town over. Someone will always leverage them, or they will leverage you, or some way this shit will always fall apart. That’s why I get ragged on for being an unironic exterminationist, but until someone comes up with another solution that hasn’t historically failed, that’s where it stands.

The hosts then justify this discussion by saying that there is an ongoing race war, with the “blacks in South Africa” winning that war. Whites then need to step up and fight, competing with the opposing races for survival, wiping them out in the process.

“That’s how the conflict goes, one wins and one loses,” says co-host Seventh Son, also known as Sven.

The whole of colonialism and settlement and the whole of cultures colliding throughout history has been the history of everyone trying to wipe each other out. If it was two black tribes, if it was two Indian tribes, whoever it was. It was just that our people were better at it than everyone else. Well right now we’re losing, so its time to get back on the horse. The microcosm you can look at is Zimbabwe and South Africa.

“These people are animals. What do we have, 70 IQ for these people?” said Seventh Son, trying to keep up.  Jayoh goes on, upping the ante on his insults.

From tribe to tribe you can even see the marginal level of being extra retorted. They live like animals. Like, I use this term “jungle people” and that’s what I mean because they are basically fucking monkeys. They are speaking languages that only have 3-400 words… So the next question people ask is what do we do in the meantime, what do we do right now. So RaHoWa is not going to kick off tomorrow, it’s a bummer but it happens to be the case.

He goes on tangential rants about how Zulus have “muck muck” languages and that they destroy all functions of “civilization.”

The Right Stuff, the vulgar core of the aggressive white supremacy of the internet Alt Right, recently put out an infographic that essentially said that the Alt Right means white people just reclaiming their identity, the right to be around their own people, and to advocate for their own interests. This has always been coded language used by white nationalists to allow their real motivating factors, guttural rage towards Jews and non-whites, to become more palatable. The voice of Jayoh, though acknowledged by Mike Enoch as a more radical side in their movement, is not out of the mainstream for the Alt Right and they are considered a legitimate intellectual strain within their milieu.

In an article by “Prez Jeff Davis” published at The Right Stuff in December of 2016 called “Genocide: The Inescapable Conclusion,” the idea that genocide is inevitable between ethnic groups is presented. “Genocide is just a word invented by a Jew to demonize the Nazis.”

Genocide is just a word invented by a Jew to demonize the Nazis. As a Dixian-American, I feel no particular link to the Nazis, swastikas, Roman salutes, etc. I’m really pretty ambivalent on those things. Whatever. Jean-Marie Le Pen hit the nail on the head when he called the Jew/Gypsy genocide a detail of history. Ethnic cleansing is a universal part of world history. Nations have always had intermittent wars, wherein they killed their enemies. So what? The common pejorative use of the word genocide as something unthinkable is ignorance gone to seed as it elevates losing for your people as somehow morally superior to winning for your people. Meanwhile Jews don’t seem to show any remorse for genociding the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, or the Amalekites.

It is to our peril that we say “I respect nationalism for all peoples.” While we may sometimes be able to strike up treaties and mutually beneficial trade agreements, or the exchange of scholarly research, or a mutualistic white supremacy such as slavery, we must realize that in the big picture human races are indeed biological competitors, that human evolution is a giant tournament with immutable rules that we cannot cancel and in which elimination means racial extinction rather than just failure to win a trophy. There have always been and always will be eliminations. The only thing we have to decide is whether we want our race to continue to the next round at the expense of others or for other races to continue to the next round at the expense of our own. While it is possible some remnant populations may be retained for cheap labor or medical research, the pro-genocide stance is an inescapable conclusion on at least three different grounds.

This presents a break with the language of “Ethnopluralism” or “Ethnodifferentialism,” a conceptual rebranding of white nationalism that came by way of the French New Right and thinkers like Alain de Benoist. Conventionally, white nationalist and Alt Right language tries to argue for “nationalism for all people,” an idea that appropriates the arguments of post-colonialism to try and have their racism seem more palatable. This has always been coded language that does not change their underlying racial hatred, and as the Alt Right becomes more public, many segments of that movement are moving towards this openly genocidal argumentation.

Although deportations and international treaties may mitigate some of the issues listed above, none of them will be fully resolved without implementing the largest genocide the world has seen up to this point. It is my personal opinion that the biggest threat dindu nations pose to whites is through diseases and that peaceful deportations would do little to diminish that threat. I also think that with present trends, it is more likely that the next deadly pandemic will arise naturally from the 3rd world rather than engineered by the Islamic world, however the West’s penchant for affirmative action in education may just educate the right Muslim scientists for the job.

Genocide necessarily involves either suppression of fertility or active or passive killing, or some combination of methods. Passive killing might include the refusal to supply aid such as food or medical care, preferring to just let Nature run her course, or refusal to come to the rescue when brown tribes genocide each other. The passive method would cause greater suffering and would not finish the job, as there will always be a remnant population to rebound in time. Clearly, an active genocide using white man methods would be more humane than passively letting Nature or savage tribes to do a much sloppier and less complete job. In the same way that animal lovers cannot adopt and care for every stray, but must accept that many be euthanized or sterilized, so it must be with the lower races of humanity.

Extermination of the brown hordes in their homelands could give vast new territories to us. They are ours for the taking. Perhaps some readers wish they could have taken part in the US Homestead acts. Those days do not have to be gone forever. We could gain vast territories and give them away to settlers much like in the old days. We could even form new white countries, and settle much more territory than the entire continental US put together. In Africa, India,  and Latin America 100 or even 1,000 acre tracts could be given away to young homesteaders. Or perhaps our governments could just auction parcels of land or mineral rights instead of collecting taxes. It is up to us white men to agree on the justness of our cause, how the spoils will be divided among us, and to go out and conquer and settle like only white men can.

The entire website discusses ethnic cleansing in various capacities, with the bare minimum being the clearing out of all non-whites and Jews to make it safe for white people. This includes, on the more conservative side, the active removal of non-whites in a global “trail of tears,” shipping black people to Africa, and forcing First Nations people into borderland reservations. On the most radical wing it means industrial scale extermination that would make the Nazi Holocaust appear as the primitive wars of historical states.

Part of this reframing is to discuss all of history as a form of “Ethnic Struggle,” where the extermination of one group by another is just a standard part of biological evolution. Manifest Destiny is then celebrated as the result of the “brilliance of whites,” and the reason that they created global white supremacy is because of their supreme abilities.

In a March 2017 article at The Right Stuff, Padishah Emperor Julius Ebola wrote about the reclaiming of the historical right of global genocide.

The simple reality is that North America was settled as a vast lebensraum for the Aryan race. From the first adventurers and conquistadors who came to seek fortune to the second generation of settlers who pushed the frontier past the 50 mile coastal limit to the hordes of European immigrants who filled the clearings, it was a true folkwandering in the classical sense, but backed by distinctly modern military might.

Yet taught to denounce our own foundations as a people in denial of our Manifest Destiny, we too denounce that healthy expression of the race in other peoples. The harvest of virtue signaling is autogenocide, death by our own hand at the behest of our enemies. We are taught that organic expansion is always wrong. We are taught to die. How barbarous it is to live a society where having descendants is viewed as economic harm and as cruelty to “nature.”

The dual pressures of the frontier, that of expansion and of robust defense of new settlements, keeps a people healthy and oriented properly towards the future. Without the imposition of these pressures a race will become increasingly complacent and inert. Without contested space to expand over, having growth while hemmed into settled pseudo-utopian conditions leads to scale problems and a racial behavioral sink. Today this is literally shown by rising obesity and declining fertility, among other ailments. The only great struggle fought by today’s Aryan man which he knows not that he will live to see the end result of is paying his bills.

The rhetoric of the “Ethnostate” is that it will essentially be isolationist, not involving itself in world affairs and trying to keep to itself in racial harmony. In a march article also by the aforementioned Ebola, he outlines a look at what Ethnostate foreign policy would be, which is in direct opposition to the rhetoric of people like Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer.

Establishing a “White country” requires an international system to support it, or else it will be destroyed. That system is the Golden Axis. You may cry that this is “larping” and therefore implausible, pointless even, but at the very least this theory promotes a much more tenable and sustainable endgame than the hermit mindset of the altright’s so-called “ethnostate,” which is to build a gated community where one may die in peace. Aryan Revolution in one country can never succeed because revolution against the entire global System requires an expansive foreign policy, and that foreign policy must be supremacy in our hemisphere. Such ambitions ought thus to be our minimum agenda. From Alaska to Argentina our banner must fly, or it flies nowhere.

This again requires a genocidal procession through the Global South, in direct contradiction to the primary talking points that the Alt Right has used to gain even the modicum of legitimacy it has.

To justify this genocidal attitude they draw on racialist psychology, primarily the ideas presented by people like Kevin MacDonald and Arthur Jensen that people primarily have empathy for their own ethnic group.   Right Stuff commentator Adam Selene echoes this in his article “The Lie of Human Empathy,” where he mixes quotes from “Beyond Good and Evil” with justifications for rejecting connections with the suffering of non-whites.

The Daily Stormer has become one of the most popular Alt Right websites because it mixes neo-Nazi ideas with the snarky memedom of #AltRight. Its profanity-laden prose is known for open hatred of Jews and non-whites, openly advocating for their eventual extermination. Until recently, it was listed as the “#1 Pro-Genocide” website. Andrew Auernheimer, otherwise known as the hacker-troll Weev, also contributes to the Daily Stormer, and is blatant with his “old school” white supremacist language.

Weev has written a well-known article for My Posting Career called “I sing a song of race war” where he advocates a strategy for convincing whites of hardline white supremacist ideas. In the second “stage” of this strategy, which he calls Antagonize, he mentions how he outlines his real goal: the mass murder of non-whites.

Antagonize! Make flagrant references to a Day of the Rope, lynchings, mass murder. Push against any sense of propriety they have. Notice in the above conversation I am asked if I would hang Obama, and my answer is unequivocally yes. The speaker is looking a way to have their old worldview reconciled with the truth they are being confronted with. Don’t give them any room to cuck themselves. When asked questions like this, assert extremely strongly that yes, all nignogs and mongrels must be purged without exception.

He reaffirms this in a 2016 podcast episode of Counter Currents Radio, where he discusses it jovially with Greg Johnson. This is not that surprising given Weev’s other behavior, such as hacking college printers to print out flyers that are supportive of Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Brevik and another that shows a person shooting up a Jewish synagogue.

It might seem as though this is a new trend in the Alt Right, or one of a few renegade wings, but it goes back to their earliest days and intellectual core. Colin Liddell, who was a prime blogger for AlternativeRight.com that was created by Richard Spencer, was known for his controversial articles.  This included ones that questioned the history of the Holocaust, as well as bluntly put his belief that black people were barely better than animals. While Spencer was still the editor of the website, he published an article by Liddell called “Is Black Genocide Right?”

Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, “Does human civilization actually need the Black race?” “Is Black genocide right?” and, if it is, “What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?” With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn.

As we know, the world is becoming increasingly over-populated, while at the same time vital resources are being rapidly depleted. The world will be unable to support much of its future projected population growth. In fact we are probably heading for a great ‘die off’ in which hundreds of millions of our kind will cease to be.

With Europeans and some Asians having much less children, most of the population growth leading to this future crisis is projected to come from Africans. This is the race that history and the present example of South Africa proves is least able to take care of itself; a race that has contributed almost nothing to the pool of civilization and which even shows little inclination to stay within the bounds of that civilization; a race that also seems to harbor a potent inferiority complex and savage hatred towards the creators of that civilization.

This was not out of the norm for Liddell, who continued these racist tracts once he created the tandem New Alternative Right after Spencer pulled the original website away from him and shut it down entirely in favor of his newer Radix Journal.

Even when they do not advocate open extermination, they have worked to undermine the importance of genocide in the Western collective consciousness. Instead of seeing these crimes with the horror they deserve, they want to normalize them as a part of the human experience. This is where the real threat lies, as they will continue to downplay non-white suffering so as to slow down the erasure of white supremacy, a tool that will also lend them a leg up if they ever have the opportunity to play out their murderous fantasies. This is partially why the increase in Alt Right killings is happening, and what they have in store for the world if they ever were to be given power.

Never let their rhetoric go unchallenged, because it is founded on extreme violence. While these advocates are still a minority in the Alt Right, they are accepted and welcomed, a part of the “big tent” of racialism they advocate. Let’s remind people who the Alt Right really is, angry fascists bent on destruction of “the other.”

Advertisements

Alt Right Conference in Holland Wants to “Make Netherlands Great Again”

The Alt Right has come out as the newest branding attempt in a long history of neo-fascist movements grasping at respectability. Though it has a populist element to it, there is an intellectual elitism at its core that draws from its New Right political inspiration, Human Biological Diversity pseudo-science, and its attempts to appear as a right-wing philosophical movement just as legitimate as Frankfurt School Marxism in the discourse of Continental Philosophy. Over the last year the “big tent” of the Alt Right has concentrated into a general spectrum of ideas with a common culture: scientific racism, populist talking points, deep anti-Semitism, esoteric Aryan ideas, and various other distinct tidbits that fascists have been working on since World War II.

While the Alt Right has been a distinctly American invention, its popularity as a branding tool and way of dividing up the movement into common cultures has been influential back in Europe as well. This “success” is exactly what led to the formation of the Make The Netherlands Great Again conference, a grouping that really tries to take its queue from the boon that the Donald Trump campaign in the U.S. has given to the Alt Right movement.

Organized, in part, by French nationalist Guillaume Durocher, the conference was essentially a nationalist group funded through “foreign money.” Durocher has been making the rounds in American Alt Right circles, joining Richard Spencer at the Radix Journal podcast to discuss far-right organizing and ideas, and going on Counter-Currents radio to do the same thing. Their organization is called Erkenbrand and was started as a study group where they read books like “SJWs Always Lie,” an “Alt Lite” science fiction author who is known for supporting Alt Right fascist publications even though he is of multi-racial ethnicity.

Their conference hosted different Alt Right speakers, including Greg Johnson of the white nationalist publishing house Counter Currents and F. Roger Devlin, who writes about “race realism” and co-authored the Radix Journal guide to racial thinking that they use in their intro section. They have had limited coverage in American circles, mainly the Occidental Observer and Red Ice Radio, so the conference was on the small side.

Happened on September 27th, the conference was not well attended and was hard to get into. What this shows, however, is that the Alt Right branding is going to be critical for the far right, both in America and Europe, and so the counter-organizing can have a broad effect when it is focused on the Alt Right. So much of the Alt Right’s success hinges on the Alt Lite’s ability to mainstream it, meaning how well people like Milo and places like Breitbart repackage their message, and how they can leverage the Donald Trump campaign. Once both of these support vessels go away, the vast number of white nationalist organizations and publications that have hinged their success on the Alt Right branding will take a massive hit. What is critical is to continue naming the Alt Right as a white nationalist, neo-fascist movement and to not let it obfuscate the discourse to minimize the baggage that their ideas are saddled with.

 

Queer Fascism: Why White Nationalists Are Trying to Drop Homophobia

The National Policy Institute’s conference for 2015 just wrapped up, one of the most popular intellectual events for the white nationalist movement in the United States.  NPI is run by youngish nationalist Richard Spencer, who encourages the movement to be hip and youthful.  Out of the almost 175 attendees, a huge portion of them were millennials as they were given significant discounts off of the expensive ticket price.  One person that was disinvited, according to associate Scott Terry and, later, from Richard Spencer himself, was the Traditionalist Youth Network’s Matthew Heimbach.  Matt, who helped to found the Townson University White Student Union before forming Trad Youth, has made statements publicly claiming queer people are purposefully infecting people with AIDs and that they need to be put in “re-education” camps to cure their “mental illness.”  Because of these statements, Spencer decided that he should be banned from the NPI conference.

Matthew Heimbach
Matthew Heimbach

In a statement on his website, Radix Journal, Spencer said about the SPLC outing of the banning of Matthew Heimbach:

Our conferences will include people who hold many different views on religious, social, sexual, historical, and political matters. We do not exclude anyone for, say, being a Buddhist, Pagan, Catholic, or atheist, or for being passionate about gay issues or thinking that they are not important. We hope that such questions can be discussed respectfully at our conferences.

NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who’ve made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform.  It’s as simple as that.

This position from Spencer, which sounds more like liberal apologetics than the defenses of someone on the radical right, may seem surprising.  It is less surprising when noticing that queer writer and advocate for “male tribalism,” Jack Donovan, is one of the NPI speakers.  Donovan is well-known for his book Androphilia, where he advocated that “homosexual men” drop the gay identity because it is associated with effeminacy, leftist politics, and feminism.  Today he is celebrated in Men’s Rights circles, talking about reclaiming masculinity and creating a tribalism “against capitalism and the state” and depending on the recreation of hierarchies.  Spencer himself has discussed queer issues with Donovan many times, where he thinks that gay marriage is a “non-issue” and that we should just move on about the conflict.

In a closely allied organization and publishing house, Counter-Currents publishing, they have also celebrated Donovan’s work, as well as publishing queer white nationalist James O’Meara.  His book, “The Homo and the Negro,” celebrates queer “Dandy” culture, and advocates that white nationalists return to supporting the gay male associated with the arts, reclaiming “homosexual warrior” culture, and start rejecting what he says is “Negro behavior.”  Greg Johnson, the editor of Counter-Currents, even writes a chapter about abandoning homophobia in his book “Confessions of a Reluctant Hater.”

This all may seem bizarre to those who understand white nationalism to just existing on the far right of a left-right spectrum, where homophobia seems like it would come before the open racialism.  Inside of the movement, however, this is not the case.  We see a mixing of queer identity with open fascism with bands like Death in June, and all through the “manosphere” there is a deep misogyny and white nationalism expressed by gay authors who have been invited into the fold.  Though the stereotyped “gay culture” is always derided by these groups, they play hard with the idea that queerness is biologically determined.  Spencer himself, in a conversation with the late British nationalist Jonathan Bowden, indulged in pseudo-science about how sexual orientation is chosen by hormonal baths prenatally.  He then notes that eugenics will likely cure this illness, but gay people should not be blamed for their attractions.

There really are a couple of angles here that they attempt to stand on that makes this perspective both growing and unique.  The first is, as Spencer often notes, the “war has been lost.”  A younger generation is completely unwilling to indulge in vigorous homophobia in the way that they will still adopt racial and gendered bigotry.  This may be true in a sense, as liberal queer progressivism has become a cultural shibboleth.  Even queer people on the anti-assimiliationist side of the left are not always allowed in, and people like Donovan often portrays queerness as anti-assimilationist at its core.  No matter who they are, they usually oppose gay marriage(Donovan included), as marriage is a cultural institution used to prop up Western Civiilization.

The second reason that queerness is being reappropriated, as is seen in both Donovan and O’Meara’s work, is that there is s certain “mars/mars” dynamic that they want to celebrate.  In essence this is a male warrior culture that is anti-bourgoeis in its rejection of the traditional family.  Though this is radically different than what many on the “Alt Right” think its socially productive, they do note that society may need these cultural elements and that they are rightist in that they celebrate in-group/out-group distinctions, tribalism, and hierarchy.

While queerness may be a deciding point in many of these circles, it is not uncontested.  Many in the more extreme sects of white nationalism, especially in circles more associated with the KKK or Nazi skinhead groups, Donovan has been a major detractor.  You can go through comments threads and see him demonized in ways similar to their discussion of Jews and people of color.  More often than not, however, there is tacit approval of his inclusion and even a sort of backhanded support.

In the article posted on Radix Journal about Heimbach’s removal, his associate from Trad Youth, Scott Terry, commented to mention that they need to still “work together.”

I’d like it known that, despite being dis-invited from NPI, Heimbach went to DC to hang out with the conference attendees. I tagged along because many of the gentlemen there are my friends. Not once during the entire weekend did Heimbach bad-mouth Spencer or try to foment some sort of rebellion; no “entryist” attempts were made.

While it’s unfortunate Spencer isn’t willing to see the best in Heimbach, there wasn’t any hard feelings (as far as I could tell) and I’m sure Trad Youth intends to continue supporting ethno-nationalist projects (from whatever quarter they arise).

There’s no point in exacerbating divisions, in my opinion. We all know the “big-tent” isn’t monolithic. Pagan, homosexual-supporting alternative rightists are stuck with theonomic Christian ethno-nationalists (like myself). We’re stuck together regardless.

Because of the disparate elements of a fringe movement like white nationalism, people like Terry and Heimbach often are looser with their Christian conservatism than you would find in more generic non-racial Christian churches.  Heimbach has gotten a lot of rejection inside of the movement for his effort to cover all bases and speak in public derision.  He was excommunicated from his Orthodox Christian church after a public fight where he hit an anti-racist with a large wooden cross.  He was kicked out of his much-loved League of the South after attending a National Socialist Movement event, though he was let back in later.

At NPI, Mike Enoch from The Daily Shoah spoke on their Becoming Who We Are podcast panel.  He often makes homophobic jokes, including insulting statements about Donovan, but he was still allowed to participate and celebrated throughout.  This is likely because of the importance that Enoch holds for the movement while Heimbach is more of a traditional reactionary who just happens to organize the youth.  This is a sort of “real politic” from Spencer, but this is the kind of opportunism you can always expect from white nationalists.

It is not that queer people are going to be invited en mass to the white nationalist movement, but there is certainly an effort to invite people in who would normally be left on the fringes.  The question is whether or not this will be a sizable number of people, or if their attempts to stoke racism inside of queer circles will have the disgusting effect they are hoping they will have.

Why We Fight II: Anarchism vs. Fascism

Though the V mask has been appropriated by a range of fringe movement, the original comic was about anarchism as a challenge to a fascist state.
Though the V mask has been appropriated by a range of fringe movement, the original comic was about anarchism as a challenge to a fascist state.

People associated with class struggle anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and the like, love to say that anarchism really is a specific iteration of worker and class politics with a libertarian, anti-oppression edge. They hate to answer with more poetic renditions of what anarchism is, if only to be dumped into the “lifestyle” camp with post-leftists and primitivists. The reality is that it is as much a mindset and set of values as it is a specific politic coming out of the split in the IWA between Marx and Bakunin. The anarchist idea is one that goes to the heart of authority, challenging its illegitimacy and all forms of social hierarchy and oppression. In this way anarchism is fundamentally opposed to all forms of social stratification and bigotry, looking not just at its independent and personal forms, but also the social systems that put prejudice into systemic practice. Not only are we against racism, but also against institutional white supremacy. Not just opposed to sexism, but looking to smash patriarchy. Abhorred by homophobia, but also looking to overthrow heterosexist hegemony. Anarchism is the core urge to throw off the shackles of control, to share resources and community in equality, and to get rid of our masters politically, spiritually, and socially. The key values then return us to the most direct, and unmediated forms of social organization based on direct democracy, direct action, mutual aid, and solidarity. These tools are today used as forms of resistance and perseverance, but only through struggle will we form the basic social structures of a post-revolutionary society.

It is in every feature we see anarchism as the mirror opposite of fascism, the direct negation of everything it stands for. In this way anarchism, in practice, is anti-fascism, hopefully to be realized in a post-revolutionary society as well as an improvement to our current world.

From Marx to Total Liberation

Traditionally, Marxism is usually associated as the primary force standing at odds with fascism. Both the far right and the conventional far left enjoy this narrative as it gives them both legitimacy. For Marxists, it helps them draw on their past to give ever greater meaning to their own political legacy. The same is true of fascists, who often use the spread of Bolshevism as a historical double back to justify the excesses of interwar European fascist states. Marxism existed, as a revolutionary force that took their assumed base, the working class, and subverted what the aristocracy and ruling class thought should be a perpetual underclass. One of fascism’s core ideals, as presented by Mussolini, is “class collaboration,” which essentially means that all current classes are necessary. For this to be the case then the working class must gladly serve their role, as must their overseers in the ruling class. Class warfare then pulls as the threads of the caste system, where by there is a clear social hierarchy and the peasants and workers are not seen as capable of ruling society. Communism was then a counter agent, often associated with Jews, and thought of as the metastasized cancer of Western Civilization. This worked really well with communism existing on the far left of the political spectrum and fascism on the far right to create antagonisms, but no political distinction is this simple.

The post-WWII fascist and leftist narratives both moved based orthodox Marxism in similar ways. Today, fascists vaguely blame what they call “cultural Marxism,” a term only they use to describe socially left aspects of culture. One of the core anti-Semitic myths is that the Frankfurt School, which produced culturally focused radicals like Theodore Adorno, was secretly both an organization for Jewish ethnic interests and were so successfully subversive that their ideas have now begun to dominate not just the left, but the subconscious of Western culture as a whole. The idea here is then that the ideas of the Frankfurt School were secretly cooked up by Jewish intellectuals to create decadence, perversion, and relativism in otherwise straight and upright white men, and they are doing this to protect Jews from anti-Semitism. If they can destroy the sovereignty of white civilization by undermining their conservative religious values and then debasing their racial hegemony with third-world immigration of people of color, they can then subvert the white population’s aversion to the Jews as a parasitic class. Neatly put: they create dangerous ideas to destroy white people so that they will be safe and on top. While this idea sounds so insane as to need little denouncement, its position as an Illuminati type conspiracy theory has given it repeated resurgence in the Internet message-board collective basement of the far right. Not only does it make outrageous claims that could never be proven and have no ability to be true, but it fundamentally misses any of the key concepts, historical trajectory, and antagonisms of the Frankfurt School. What is more important, it really has bypassed the key role that anarchism has made as both its adversary and its ideological polar opposite.

Over many of the historic, and more recent, clashes with fascism, anarchism has played an incredibly key role in its defeat. This comes in part because of the history of anarchist movements erupting during the same crisis that often breeds reactionary movements, but also because it has a unique interest in seeing fascism smashed.

Today many are pointing out that anarchism, though often vaguely practiced and understood in first-world countries, has become the leading form of left or post-left political ideology. As Andrej Grubacic and David Graeber so eloquently state in Anarchism, or the Revolutionary Movement of the Twenty-First Century:

“It is becoming increasingly clear that the age of revolutions is not over. It’s becoming equally clear that the global revolutionary movement in the twenty first century will be one that traces its origins less to the tradition of Marxism, or even of socialism narrowly defined, but of anarchism. Everywhere from Eastern Europe to Argentina, from Seattle to Bombay, anarchist ideas and principles are generating new radical dreams and visions. Often their exponents do not call themselves “anarchists”. There are a host of other names: autonomism, anti-authoritarianism, horizontality, Zapatismo, direct democracy… Still, everywhere one finds the same core principles: decentralization, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model, and above all, the rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one’s vision at the point of a gun.” (1)

There have been scores of volumes as to why anarchism has both diversified and been popularized from the 1980s onward, all of which we could never do justice here, but we have to see that this anarchist spirit is what is driving the movements of today. From the anti-globalization protests to mobilizations against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. From the massive Occupy movement to the uprisings of Black Lives Matter, the Marxist parties that once led America to the brink of revolution are almost completely irrelevant, and instead the anarchist spirit is spreading as the fundamental way that we can create a new world. The obvious reasons here is that the anarchist project is both always evolving and always headed to the root of the issue. It doesn’t just seek to just overthrow capitalism and the state, but all forms of hierarchy and oppression. This means that it is a constant ongoing process, and that it has the ability to evolve and change according to the personalities and cultures of those practicing. It is not steeped in rigidity like most determinism-infused Marxism, and its different strands, such as syndicalism, can act as complimentary strategic points rather than limiting ideological dogmas.

The other reality is that most people have already seen revolutionary Marxism, at least of the Leninist party variety, as an incredible failure. The most powerful “movement for liberation” became the most genocidal tyranny of the 20th century. It is this resulting beauracratic State Capitalist failure that almost destroyed the revolutionary left, and there are few who are willing to do Trotskyist backflips in logic to pretend that somehow it will be different next time. What we are left with is one revolutionary trajectory that is, though diversified, the only place we have to go to create a transformative alternative to the waves of reaction.

What Political Spectrum?

For any part of the anarchist vision to be made reality, from the local to the post-revolutionary, it requires a loss of fascism in equal measure. Every key element of anarchism sees fascism as its inverse, meaning that the goals can never exist simultaneously. While both the left-right paradigm and most criticisms of that paradigm are weak and not withstanding under scrutiny, one of the better of these would be the structure Nolan Chart, though we will need to redefine which corner each one has. We need to say upfront that this still does not accurately represent the role we see of anarchism in the political, but for discussion’s sake it helps to map out its relationship to other political tropes.

A more correct version of this chart might have Marxism and Liberalism in direct opposition while anarchism and fascism are in opposite corner as well. Anarchism is then seen as the mix of socialism and autonomy, which could also be interpreted purely as one of social freedom and social equality. By exact parallels, fascism is socially conservative and represents a strong state. The more apt description would be against equality and freedom or democracy. It would be more accurate to actually just put anarchism and fascisms at the very top and bottom corners, respectively, since they display the core extremes as represented here. The polarities would be extreme state communism on the far left, free-market minarchism on the far right, anarchism at the top and fascism at the bottom. This would then represent fascisms disavowal of free-market capitalism, but its respect for things like essential property rights and the right of private corporations over market sectors. From here you can go through and take specific ideological manifestations and place them accordingly, even though anarchism is ever changing and diverse enough to never fully be positioned on any political spectrum.

So, in this context, what is anarchism?

The simplest answer is a libertarian form of communism, but this really misses the core values at the center. Anarchism seeks to liberate us from oppressive systems of illegitimate authority and hierarchy, with the actors of this being the oppressed classes. In terms of economics, this means the working class taking the means of production in a form of stateless communism that is founded on the necessity of freedom and individual identity. It also means the confrontation of existing forms of social oppression, as well as the ongoing process of challenging new forms and subverting oppression whenever it comes up. The foundation then is that a free and healthy society is one that is fully socially and economically equal, where differences between people are no longer expressed through hierarchy, and an ongoing process of living lives with more direct control and less mediation is key. Anarchists believe that race, gender, and other identities as social constructs, as well as nation states that must be abolished in favor of internationalism.

In direct contrast, fascism and related ideologies is best expressed by the title of Tomislav Sunic’s book on the European New Right, ‘Against Democracy and Equality.’ They agree with radical traditionalist mystic Julius Evola when see stated that society is most healthy when stratified. They are against democracy, as they don’t see the masses as having the ability to rule. They are in favor of an upper controlling elite with aristocratic interests, as they believe that there is inherently a class best meant to rule. They believe in the pure rule of genetics over identity, where things like racial ethnicity as having a determining factor over internal qualities like temperament and intelligence. They believe in nationalism, where a set people have interests in each other rather than the rest of society. They are often also opposed to capitalism, but this is because they capitalism creates too much equality and takes the importance away from nation and race. They instead want to purposely re-enforce social stratification and separation instead of just allowing some measure of this to happen on its own, as is the neoliberal situation. They may or may not support totalitarian state measures, but they always support a form of social authoritarianism where a society has strict social mores set by elites whose interest is maintaining a social order.

The term fascism itself is rarely going to be used in these circles, as it has been permanently marred with its association with the Holocaust of the Third Reich. This new brand of the far right is also hardly historical re-enactors as they have modernized the ideas that birthed the interwar movements. The fascism of Italy, Germany, Romania, Austria, and Spain were all somewhat unique in structure, and there were hundreds of movements and ideologues that you never heard of because their version of these essential fascist ideas did not end up taking state power. Today the far right likes to separate itself from ‘fascism,’ which it sees as failed movements of the Second World War. Instead it has rebranded its ideas and modernized its goals and political programs, but the core ideas and values remain the same.

A great example of this rebranding has come from Counter Currents publisher Greg Johnson, who has fashioned himself a sort of “intellectual” of this far right brand. His publishing house, which is mainly made up of republishing tomes by people like Savetri Devie and Jonathan Bowden, has tried to establish a right-wing intellectual current similar to what they have in France. What he is calling the North American New Right, which is essentially just him publishing what he can after having to leave the Occidental Observer, is established on taking the core values of fascism away from its archaic political manifestations (2). As he laments in his key essay “New Right vs. Old Right,” he sees it as an important re-establishment of right-wing principles that only a fascist movement can.

“The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded on the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm. The true right embraces the idea that mankind is and ought to be unequal, i.e., differentiated. Men are different from women. Adults are different from children. The wise are different from the foolish, the smart from the stupid, the strong from the weak, the beautiful from the ugly. We are differentiated by race, history, language, religion, nation, tribe, and culture. These differences matter, and because they matter, all of life is governed by real hierarchies of fact and value, not by the chimera of equality. The true right rejects egalitarianism root and branch. The true right has three species: traditional society, the Old Right, and the New Right. Every traditional society known to man is inegalitarian. All forms of traditional society have been destroyed—or are in the process of being destroyed—by modern, egalitarian, mass society. For our purposes, the Old Right means Fascism, National Socialism, and other national-populist movements, which are the pre-eminent attempts to restore traditional hierarchical social forms within the context of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were not merely reactionary, rear-guard resistances to modern egalitarianism by partisans of corrupt hierarchies. They represented a genuinely revolutionary impetus to restore vital, archaic, hierarchical values within the context of modern science, technology, and mass society. Our ideal is a hierarchical society free of exploitation and injustice because the sole justification of political inequality is the common good of the body politic, not the factional good of the ruling stratum. So how does the New Right differ from Fascism and National Socialism? This is a vital question, because of the intense stigmas attached to these movements since the Second World War. The North American New Right, like the European New Right, is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.” (2)

This sums up the breadth of the movements in general. The coloring of each of these subsets tends to take on many of the aesthetics from which it is dissenting. The Traditionalist Youth Network, White Student Union, and Youth for Western Civilization use the grassroots student-organizing model, and often look more like more confrontational brown-shirts. The National Policy Institute, American Renaissance, Radix Journal, Occidental Quarterly, and VDare, when it applies, often looks and sounds more like the paleoconservative splits from the Republican Party. Institute for Historical Review, Mankind Quarterly, Counter Currents, and many others put on the vein of academic intellectualism. All of these share key ideas and social visions, while they rarely use the term “fascist” to describe themselves.

In many ways, these far-right movements are an effort to create a coherent right wing that is in opposition to the fractured ideologies of the mainstream right. They’re assessment of the lack of ideological consistency and true opposition to the left’s values is correct, and they instead want to develop something that has an “entirely different starting point,” as Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute and Radix Journal likes to say. What you will notice is that there is often a similar estimation of contemporary politics between anarchists and those on the far right in as much as the far right is completely willing to accept their own racism sexism, and homophobia, and is completely willing to estimate the issues with capitalism, globalism, and contemporary party politics in ways that are real and meaningful. The difference is where they fall on these things, not in the way that they interpret them. Many of the accusations that they throw at the far left, like the desire to destroy white hegemony and the nation state, are entirely valid and correct. The difference is that the left sees them as a positive while the right sees them as apocalyptic.

You can look at a number of social forms and goals and assign a sort of positive preference from anarchists and direct opposition from fascists. Equality, pervasive democracy, multiculturalism, a sexually liberated and diverse society, and the destruction of gender roles, are all core ideological principles of the anarchist project, as well as direct fighting points for fascists to target. Anarchism, as the furthest political point away from fascism, actually takes the elements that fascism abhors and finds its political footing on the most extreme version of that. So, fascism openly opposes democracy because it violates their self-avowed elitism. Anarchists, on the other hand, support direct democracy, which intends to hand the democratic process even more directly to the people. The far right strongly opposes equality seeing that people are not made that way. Anarchism goes one further and opposes every single form of hierarchy, from political structures to social relations.

It is in this direct contrast that we find the fundamental point about the battle between the two polar opposites: to fight for anarchism is to be implicitly anti-fascist. Success in the revolutionary anarchist sense would be the negation of every fascist goal so successfully that you create the purest form of their opposition. You cannot cohabitate with the far right since their ideological principles would mean to undermine every single element you look for, whether it is in projects for survival in the current world or projects that are for revolutionary implementation.

The only way that anarchists can win is if fascists lose in every conceivable way.

 Introduction to Civil War

The history of modern revolutions is often the history of ideological civil wars where different sides represent ideological oppositions. Competing political factions vie for control, and we see that this point of pressure can often force the more extreme polarities of the political spectrum to mark these different parties.   Though this doesn’t break down into the clean “anarchist vs. fascist” dichotomy, it does tend to take on a separation between the left and the right based on values, even if the political ideas are not always so well defined.

If we look to the 1917 Russian Revolution we see a history where the Menshevik majority, the direct-action focused Narodniks, and the anarchist populations heavily infiltrated the left insurrection. These factions headed even more to the left as the Soviets headed towards October, and the “white” forces doubled down on the traditional hierarchies of the Czar. While the more conservative Bolshevik’s ended up dominating the other factions and eventually purging them from the early days of Soviet Russia, there was a clear ideological split that affected the populations. Many people in the peasantry and working class shifted dramatically to a reactionary pro-Czarist position, often times defending what little privilege they still had.

The example of the Spanish Revolution of 1936 is possibly the most telling example of this ideological civil war in the 20th Century. The coup in 1936 from General Francisco Franco, with the support of the nationalist Fallange party and financial backing from Germany and Italy, overthrew the newly formed republic. Engaging in the civil war for the republic took as a coalition with the Abraham Lincoln brigade being the notable army of volunteers, many from the United States. The CNT, which had been directly clashing with Fallange forces for several years prior, began collectivizing land and industries into what many call the most comprehensive Anarchist social revolution in history. With the support of Stalin back communist forces they took on the fascist insurgency, only to have the Soviet armies turn on them to sell them out to state forces. This eventually weakened the revolution and allowed for Franco’s victory, but it saw as the countries political divides became a sharp line for how Spain was to end up. Catalonia ended up as the marker of Anarchist revolutionary forces against the fascist armies coming from the south, supported by a broad coalition of ideological forces that had some differences yet remained in unity on their fundamental values. (3) This period does not just mark anarchism’s position in challenge to European fascism, but really its most profound modern growth in theory and practice. The Spanish Revolution defined anarchism until the New Left, and still overshadows every current that has come later. It is through anti-fascist struggle it was able to realize the most key parts of a community transformation.

In the modern context, the street battles that have marked anti-fascism have been marked by movements such as Anti-Fascist Action and Anti-Racist Action, as well as hundreds of groups taking on similar positions and strategies. The primary component here is “physical resistance,” which has been an important point in shutting down the kind of resurgent nationalism. The conflicts have raged in European countries most apparently, which has a longer history of organized fascist currents, but in the U.S. this often has come into clashes with the KKK, skinhead gangs, and now many of the intellectual and culturally “alternative” fascist groups. The foundation of these movements has been on anarchist participation, often with ties to anarchist cultural and art subcultures, but always drawing from an anarchist tradition towards direct action problem solving. While non-violence remains a trend inside anarchist circles, it is the more nuanced “anti-violence” position that sees self-defense and removing racist elements as a primary vessel to actually rid a community of violence in the macro sense.

No Ideology Beyond Ideology

The modern conception of radical politics has seen a lot of issues in recent years as fragmented ideologies that lack full political analysis have dominated many conversations. Many have actually made calls for peace between the radical right and left based on the fact that they share mutual interest in the abolition of our current state and economic system, and that both are considered enemy terrorists of the state in the post-9/11 security infrastructure. The majority of these calls are coming directly from the right itself, which has a vested interested in blurring the lines between their ideological differences. There has even been a strong push on the right to absorb many of the radical ideas of anarchists, which often times appear outside the current left-right spectrum because anarchists hold such a fundamental critique of all elements of the current socio-political order.

The two forms this tends to take are with so called National Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalism is one that many have encountered for years, which was proposed by Murray Rothbard in the 1980s as a way of co-opting and subverting their enemies on the left. While they utilize much of the libertarian language we know from individualist anarchism, the New Left, and even some legitimate left sources, they instead focus on absolving any state protections against unfettered capitalism. This is essentially tyranny to the purest degree, maintaining the coercive elements of capitalism without any of the state concessions that organizers have fought for, such as labor and housing restrictions. Many on the American libertarian side have created narratives about how this deregulated capitalism would actually break up monopoly and create diversified wealth, but this is based on pseudoscientific understandings of free market capitalism. In general, they have close associations with paleoconservatives and others on the fringes of the right that consort with racialist factions.

The first of these two is one of the more bizarre cults of syncretic paleogenisis that has come in recent years. Essentially coined by former National Front organizer Troy Southgate, National Anarchism draws on many of the anti-capitalist notions of Third Positionism to essentially create a “tribalist” ideology. This calls for a form of “pan-Anarchism” where by small tribal communities based on affinity replace the current associated order. Instead of being federated in a standardized anarchist conception, these communities would have only minor interaction and trade and could provide their own criteria for membership. In the rhetoric of the National Anarchists you will find that race and ethnicity is the defining characteristic they work with, and there is a strong anti-Semitic and anti-Feminist strain running through all of it. Because of its strange use of left wing imagery and social structures, it has gone under the radar for many anti-fascists until recently. They also often times put themselves as being anti-fascist as well, but their ideological framework still holds the exact same values about hierarchy, tradition, race, gender, and authority that even the most state oriented fascists do. Concepts like “racial holy war” still permeate their literature, as does this notion about the purity of “natural divisions” between peoples. Just being anti-statist does not make you an anarchist or give enough to make them allies.

The anti-statism of anarchism comes in the fact that the state is coercive and institutionalized violence in support of the current classes, both economically and socially. It is designed as a method for stratifying society through the use of force and, as a social form, will always do this. Anarchists oppose the state because of their opposition to this illegitimate authority and hierarchy, but not just because it is a dominant institution. Anarchists do not seek to abolish the state because it penalizes white nationalists or because it regulates the banking industry. There is a fundamental value set that drives this anti-statism.

If there is to be a long-term vision of success for anarchism then it has to be implicitly anti-fascist because it represents the open advocacy of every single element of society that anarchists seek to abolish. As we fight for different intersecting elements in society we need to see where those threats are, both from the immediate system and from the organized forces of reaction that will be challenging these victories on some fundamental level. Every victory that that is struck directly against fascism is a victory for the anarchist project since it undermines the enemies of these goals since anarchist values cannot be fully successful with any organized fascist presence.

From the White Working Class

We also must understand that the same popular classes for revolution are recruited from in both the far right and left, and we need to understand the split in consciousness that takes place in the white working class. Noel Ignatiev, known for his seminal book How the Irish Became White, writes as a part of the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation that anarchist struggle will also be paired on the flip side by a more militant fascist movement as the two are birthed out of the same forms of crisis.

“Alongside class struggle, it is to be expected that militant white-supremacist movements with anti-capitalist slogans would grow among the poorest and most alienated sectors of white society. The fascists are the vanguard of the white race; however, the big problem right now is not the white vanguard, but the white mainstream. Any anti-fascist struggle that does not confront the state reinforces the institutions that provide the seedbed for fascism. Moreover, every time the fascists are able to depict their opponents as defenders of the existing system, or mere reformers, they gain support among those whites that believe that nothing less than a total change is worth fighting for. An anti-fascist counter-rally where people gather to hear speeches, chant slogans, and shake their fists in rage is a display of impotence, and the more people who attend, the more they reveal their futility. Fascism and white supremacy will only be defeated by a movement aimed at building a new world. It is not enough to declare this commitment abstractly, by waving the red or black flag; it must be expressed in the content and forms of the struggle itself. How to do that is no easy question. But it is the question of the hour.” (4)

What is implicit here is that the most successful anti-fascist movement is to have a successful anarchist movement that is based more in material goals and movements than ideological baggage. The best fighting is going to be done on the ground and by creating a real viable alternative to racialism.

For the Sake of the Radical

The implicit clash between fascism and anarchism is one of a myriad of reasons that organized anti-fascism is an important point of struggle. Fascists try to co-opt the idea of “radicalism” that the revolutionary left needs to develop a comprehensive revolutionary movement. Likewise, organized racists feed into violence against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender presentation, and other identities, all of which is an important intersection of confrontation for anti-fascists. In general, anti-fascists also have an impetus to fight because of the potential for organized reactionaries to literally push society backwards. All of these together gives a reason to challenge their presence that is tangible and meaningful.

Anarchists need to fight to empower revolutionary political ideas and to keep the process of working class organizing moving forward. Anything that undermines this process should be seen as a barrier to success, and fascist reactionaries will also try to take their ideas to the working class to undermine solidarity and class cohesion. Fascism is real and will crop up in times of crisis and turmoil, the same period that sees anarchism return to the mouths of people looking for a different way forward. Let’s remind them that fascism has no future.

Footnotes

  1. Graeber, David & Andrej Grubacic. “Anarchism, Or the Revolutionary Movement of the Twenty-first Century.” com, May 14th, 2009.
  2. Johnson, Greg. “New Right vs. Old Right.” New Right vs. Old Right. San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2013.
  3. M. Testa. “The Spanish Anarchist lives for liberty, virtue and dignity.” Militant Anti-Fascism. Oakland: AK Press 2015. Pg 85-98.
  4. Ignatiev, Noel. “To Advance the Class Struggle, Abolish the White Race.” A New World in Our Hearts: Eight Years of Writings from the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation. Oakland: AK Press 2003. Pg. 80.