The Time is Now: A Case for Immediate Anarchism

"…The [Nazi] dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway… Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might…”

— Excerpt from They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, pp. 166-73, by Milton Meyer

Many people often seem to think that the ideologies of genetic elitism, selective-breeding, hereditary inheritance of power (monarchies as one example), eugenics toward the promotion of a super-race — all of these things that strike us as an Hitlerian anathema — have somehow faded into the fog of history with the fall of the Third Reich; and before that, with the rise of Western Democracy.

Hitler did not operate in some philosophical vacuum, he was not some fluke of nature who came out of nowhere — he studied the writings of widely-accepted scientists and academicians; both contemporary and historical. Hitler simply took that agenda and ran with it — and how far and fast he ran. His philosophical mentors were more inclined toward multi-generational incrementalism, as it was less likely to cause popular uproar; as witnessed in the world’s reaction to Hitler’s actions.

In fact, just at a surface level, American and European monied interests (including, though possibly indirectly, Prescott Bush — George W. Bush’s grandfather) funded Hitler’s war machine.

And it was not just a desire to make a fast buck; many of the people in these companies — along with the foundations they started or sponsored — were intellectually in line with Hitler’s agenda, and actively supported it. A great work on the subject is Edwin Black’s book, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race

“How American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele — and then created the modern movement of ‘human genetics.’”

“…The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island…”

The same established industrialists, who were historically the cause of so much pain and suffering both in the US and abroad, have not truly gone anywhere. Instead, they have merely metastasized; and in so doing have couched their agendas in different, more “socially acceptable” terms.

The idea of a Divine Right of Kings has never faded, only the terminology — it is now the Genetic (or technological, meritocratic, democratic) Right of Governors. I would posit that this ideology (divine right) has always been the true ideology and raison d’être for those seeking to rule — and not simply pablum for the masses. This ideology has simply been renamed to fit the thinking of the times. It is survival of the fittest writ large, and incorporates all manner of criteria for “fitness,” conveniently defined by those already in a position to meet that definition.

Those who follow such thinking — or at least those will the ability to implement it — already portend to know who the Kings/Rulers/Owners/Governors are and should be; and base their decisions regarding the rest of us, upon their ideal that their position of multi-generational power and influence is proof-positive of their evolutionary (and/or gubernatorial, intellectual) superiority — that they have already made an evolutionary leap; and that the rest of us are the unfit remainder.

At best, we are seen as pitifully ignorant lemmings, in need of a guide and shepherd; and, at worst, we are seen as defective specimens, in need of extermination.

It is not my aim to point to the continuation of elitist eugenics and supremacist thinking as the sole motive (though an important one) for pursuing immediate and effective anarchistic action against it; but to point out that insidious elitism was — and continues to be — the driving force behind a vast percentage of global policy. It is this ideal that upholds the vision of “inevitable” and “necessary” global governance; a concept often swathed in platitudes about benevolence, equality, and plenty; all the while masking the true aims of any state: the enrichment of an elite at the cost of humanity at large.

I cannot support the concept that global governance is either inevitable or desirable. I believe we could have a condition of general global cooperation (that is, between stateless human beings around the planet), without a state of global rule. Radical decentralization is the only sure way to preserve freedom for any sizable number of individuals; as it allows those individuals to move and work within, and toward, a variety of potential societies — while somewhat insulating the remaining societies from the damage created should one of those societies collapse.

A truly global state — however “benevolent” — will retain, by virtue of its effective existence, the machinery necessary to completely enslave or destroy the unified world. Whereas now, even with the many extant, somewhat unified, de facto global rulers; there remain pockets of resistance — both active and incidental; e.g., national law, patriotism/nationalism/jingoism, “uncooperative” nations like those in the “Axis of Evil” — all of which at least present a speed-bump to global directives, even while being highly problematic to true freedom in their own right.

Beyond these truly negative, “enemy of my enemy” entities, there is also a growing individual and community resistance to corporate global domination. This is attested to by the perpetual protest against the WTO, IMF, G8/G20, Bilderberg, etc., as well as the mainstreaming of the Fair Trade movement and its analogs. Right, wrong, on-target, or misguided; there is clear indication that “ordinary” people around the world smell something rotten in Denmark.

There is no doubt in my mind that the global power-holders are headed in the direction of open (and total) global governance; and that they have been headed there for a long time. Indeed, calls for it by people of influence have already been going out with ever greater frequency. There is also no doubt that the actors in pursuit of that goal have absolutely no empathy nor experience in the world of the average human being. At best, we are seen as pitifully ignorant lemmings, in need of a guide and shepherd; and, at worst, we are seen as defective specimens, in need of extermination.

…there would never be a truly definitive “line in the sand;” and, even if there was, it would probably be too late by then to do anything about it.

It is safe to say that the globalist agenda is not swayed by appeals to natural law, morality, the good of humankind, nor by any such arguments. While certainly its apologists will readily and publicly appeal to those very concepts, it should be abundantly clear that such appeals are nothing but pablum — as is always the case when elitists desire to convince a population to march toward the slaughterhouse without resistance.

This brings the subject of gradualism and incrementalism back into sharp focus. If indeed the goal is dictatorial corporate rule over the globe, it should be the case that the would-be dictators would seek to achieve this goal as quickly and fully as possible. They realize, of course, that such speedy action is not tenable. Much like herding cattle, there is a balance that needs to be struck between speed and control. Pushing the cattle too rapidly may cause them to stampede; quite possibly injuring or killing the cattle-herder, and certainly making the cattle more difficult to control, and thus more difficult to make use of.

Whether this analogy is accurate in reality doesn’t matter; as it is the analogy that elitists use to describe the relationship between themselves and the population they wish to control. Very rarely does this gradualist technique break down; and when it does, the reaction to it is handled by further “Problem/Reaction/Solution” methods.

What does this mean for anarchism?

Mike Gogulski of NoState wrote about this incrementalism, regarding his decision to leave the United States and renounce his citizenship:

…I had told myself as early as 2006 that I would renounce when the US attacked Iran, detonated a nuclear weapon, deployed a bio-weapon, declared martial law, annexed another territory or canceled an election. I became very involved for that reason in watching the news closely for signs that any of those eventualities might be approaching. In doing so, however, I came to the realization that I needed no further justification. America’s record as a domestic and international governmental entity is beyond appalling, and no further reason to denounce it and renounce my association with it was needed…

Mike was not alone in his “just one more atrocity” line of thought. As illustrated by the opening quotation, the process of modern fascism and totalitarianism is almost never heralded by overt and evil-sounding proclamations. It is most often, as Sinclair Lewis put it, “wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

Fortunately for Mike, he was able to realize that there would never be a truly definitive “line in the sand;” and, even if there was, it would probably be too late by then to do anything about it (by the way, the quotation at the start of this article is from a chapter entitled, “But Then It Was Too Late”).

Many others throughout history have realized the insidiousness of elitist gradualism, and have begun to take steps as they see fit to combat it. Often, these steps have taken the form of “reverse gradualism” — that is, moving to slow the progress of the globalist machine by taking part in the system, and working toward the reversal of harmful policies as they appear. As is the case with incrementalism in either direction, compromise is an integral part of the equation. The globalists will readily take an inch, working their way to a mile; likewise, the anti-globalists will take an inch in the other direction, hoping to buy more time.

This system of compromise clearly advantages those people with the most flexible morals — the most willingness to let the ends justify the means. For a movement that purports to be based upon principles of human freedom and non-aggression, compromise of this nature quickly erodes and corrupts its very foundation, thus allowing for more statist inroads; as the statists are more than willing to throw bones to freedom in order to further their own agendas.

Further, this concept of battling the enemy on their own turf is a time and resource sink; as illustrated by the fact that the world is in the position it is today, despite decades — or even centuries — of effort to combat global corporate and mercantilist power. Whether this methodology has indeed slowed the globalist machine is impossible to tell; but that it has many unseen opportunity costs is abundantly clear.

…these movements are [not] meaningless; rather they are symptoms of unrest and dissatisfaction that has not yet found a beneficial outlet.

To reuse the cattle-to-the-slaughter analogy, it is my view that working within the system serves only to provide a more comfortable path to eventual butchery — acting as a Temple Grandin to the globalist human-ranchers. This analogy applies to both the political “right” and the political “left.”

On the right, you have support for big business by removing regulation, while at the same time reducing or eliminating welfare. On the left, you have support for regulation while increasing welfare. In both cases, the workers — the “average person” — are supposed to benefit; either by “trickle down” economics or by direct support. In both cases, the corporatist elites get to continue their exploitation of the workers; the former by retaining their positions of financial influence and generally increasing pay (though in the grand scheme, not enough to challenge their own influence), and the latter by sating the needs of the workers just enough to keep them calm (without shouldering much of the costs themselves).

In the event of US collapse (or any national major collapse) the global financial powers that be are prepared to ride in on a white horse to save the day — perhaps by offering to back regional currencies with a global standard. Many might go so far as to say that such collapses are engineered for that very purpose.

Collapse can be beneficial to multiple parties. While the globalists at some point may wish to de-nationalize the US to a large degree, the effects of that transition do not have to be entirely bad. This is where agorism and direct-action anarchism come most into play.

It is quite clear from events and polling around the globe, that people are generally dissatisfied with their governments. This dissatisfaction often turns to anger and violence, as witnessed recently in Greece; or to political agitation, as witnessed by the Tea Party, et al. Both methods are insufficient to truly address the issue at hand. In violence, a new power-structure quickly forms to combat or co-opt it; as Mikhail Bakunin warned: “If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.”

In political action, compromise sets in, as outlined above; and the very nature of such actions lead to support for the very system it seeks to oppose. But, that does not mean that these movements are meaningless; rather they are symptoms of unrest and dissatisfaction that has not yet found a beneficial outlet.

When states become overwhelmed — by their own internal boondoggles, by popular pressure, or both — the power-vacuum becomes the womb of change, either positive or negative. Typically and historically; this power-vacuum has been filled by the most violent internal faction, leader, or external conqueror. As anarchists, I believe it to be our duty to begin to fill it right now; not by asserting some grand, monolithic “Anarchist Party,” but by working toward the necessary prerequisites for allowing individuals and communities to be their own power-centers. Means and methods for doing this are the main focus of JustLive, and many others as well; but the movement needs to understand the dual nature of such actions:

1. Withdrawing support from the state/corporate structure in order to foment its collapse.
2. Being ready at all times to survive and thrive without that structure, in order to prevent or inhibit the filling of the resultant power-vacuum with yet another centralized power.

Clearly, these goals constitute essentially the same set of actions, but I do believe they need to be kept in mind as defined goals. Yes, collapsing the state is worthwhile, in a Rothbard’s Button sense; but having resources in place to fill that void is an equally important and pragmatic goal.

Coming back to popular political movements, it is essential — I believe — to create alternatives to state reliance both now and in the future. When members of these various political movements begin to witness the ultimate futility of their actions, their choices will be despair and submission; or wonton, misdirected violence — neither of which will prove beneficial to anyone but the statist elite.

Education is essential, of course, but even more importantly perhaps is the existence of working alternatives that will be ready to supplant the failing state with decentralized, individual, and community-based support systems.

Waiting for the next shoe to drop is not a viable option, because it’s not going to drop. It’s going to slide down a ramp, slowly at times, more rapidly at others, but when it gets to the bottom it will be too late. The time to act is now.

—————–

(main post image modified from source at Stan.at. Oligarch playing chess image from plamuek76 on Photobucket. Direct action image by Eric Drooker from DFCKR. Agorism image from thorsmitersaw at DeviantArt)