Every now and then you read something and realize it is one of those rare, once-every-decade creations of lingual brilliance. A rare gem. Something that you will recall for years; reading again and again just for the joy of it.
As a writer I read such things and my insane jealousy for not having written it myself is but drowned in an ocean of reverence and awe in this accomplishment of beauty and experience. All that is left after such a thing as this is the joy of having read it, and love for the author who wrote it.
And you are grateful to these writers who have drowned you with their prose, who have filled you to your brim with the very essence of something you love, to give you a picture of this thing that you have always known, and shown it to you in a way that you have never before seen. And right then and there you know that this thing was all along theirs, too, also yours, a thing that you love together.
You float in this reverence and you can feel your jealousy sinking in the ocean beneath you. Every fathom fallen lifts you higher, freeing you from a prison you didn’t realize you occupied. And you are glad to be rid of something so petty, because your joy is just too full to be disturbed by baser things.
In response to my earlier post, Why I Oppose Antifa, an old friend of mine took issue and responded on Facebook. For now I will leave John’s (his name has been changed for obvious reasons) entire response redacted since my default on Facebook is to keep posts between my friends. I’m erring on the side of caution here since I haven’t decided whether or not I should publish his original post publicly. This may change, however, depending on how this unfolds. Below is my response to John’s questions and accusations, shown numbered and in bold.
1) Where are you getting this idea that “Antifa” is a monolith, with a common ideology?
You’re right, antifa isn’t a monolith. But there certainly is a common ideology and that is “antifa and nothing else” which is the problem that I talked about. And my biggest concern, if you may recall, is what comes after Antifa.
Also, isn’t it kind of ironic that you scream “non-monolithic” for Antifa in the same argument where you lump all capitalists together?
2) Are you seriously saying that Authoritarianism has 2 sides?
Yes. Authoritarianism has two sides. It is a spectrum with a far left side and a far right side. The two extremes have been represented, historically, as Communists and as Nazis. One is not “the opposite” of the other, and the entirety of the rest of the political spectrum is not contained between the two. Because they are on the same spectrum that makes them more alike than it makes them different. The opposite of authoritarianism is libertarianism.
3a) The idea of Anarco-communism goes back at least to the French Revolution
Communism/socialism goes back to Mesopotamia/Egypt (maybe before). Ideologically it begins with Plato’s Republic where it putrefied until the Heretics decided to run with it in the second century. Communism certainly had its stupid hands all over the French Revolution, and many things came out of Enlightenment (including capitalism). The fact that “anarcho communism” may be older than capitalism doesn’t make it more correct, however. That’s like saying “Spontaneous Generation” is correct because it is older than Pasteur. Something can be old, and still completely dumb and wrong. Are you saying that the system of government used by the ancient Egyptians is a better way than Capitalism? How many slaves lived and died in Egypt? In Mesopotamia? Historically, communism hasn’t been shy about the use of slavery, so… Again, I’m gonna call “Shitty Idea” on that.
3b) Wait, are you saying that because the anarchists got stabbed in the back after the Russian revolution, that they are implicated with those who stabbed them in the back?
The only way communism can “function” (I use the term with the liberalist possible definition) as a state is with authoritarianism. The fact that the “non authoritarian” bolsheviks were betrayed by the authoritarian “stalinists”, as I pointed out, was inevitable because they were trying to make State Communism. That the Bolsheviks didn’t see that coming is testament to their complete utopian delusion. Lenin forgot to include himself as a “Useful Idiot”, as useful idiots are wont to do. Luckily (thankfully) he died before he was murdered. Or did he? Hmm.
3b-also) Are you seriously just lumping [anarchists] all as “Authoritarians?,” [sic] and equating them with fascists?
I am also on the anarchistic side of the spectrum. Kind of hard to “lump all anarchists” in the same Antifa/Communist pot when I am on the anarchistic side of capitalism, and clearly I disdain Antifa, so…
Lets play a thought experiment here. On the “Authoritarian” side of the scale you have naziism in the top right, and state communism on the top left. Now on the “Left” side of the scale you have “Authoritarianism” occupying the “state communism” at the top left, and what—for the Love Of God—I’m about to call “communistic-libertarianism” on the bottom left. What would these “communistic libertarians” look like? Basically, we call these people Hippies. And as far as communism goes, the only stable form of it has ever been small bands of people, for the very reason that this is exactly how human beings evolved and survived in nature before the rise of the state. (It is also this reason that the first versions of statism were socialistic in nature, as in Mesopotamia and Egypt).
So hippy communes in central Oregon and on the Hawaiian islands, etc., I have no problem with. Why? Because it is completely voluntary and non-authroitarian. Very peaceful communists. How lovely. I think they’re great. And I’m glad they’re not trying to “fix the economy” by imposing it on the rest of society.
4) You keep referring to “Antifa” as a group, but it is not. If 2 antifascist want to go out and fight facsism [sic] however they want, that’s “Antifa.” That’s why your rediculous [sic] “George Soros” bullshit is so fucking funny….
By your definition then I am also antifa, because I too fight fascism with other people. But what is confusing to me is why Antifa are so intent on calling me a fascist then? I mean, if “Antifa is anyone fighting fascism” then why isn’t antifa supporting my cause? Why, for instance, is Antifa screaming at me “FUCK YOU FASCIST” at the bar, like they did Friday night? As I pointed out in my letter, if Antifa’s primary fucking goal really was to fight fascism then why don’t they accept every fucking alliance against fascism that they can? You know the word, “Allies”? That photo of US Marines storming the beaches of Normandy? A group of people comprised of liberals and conservatives united in defeating fascism? Where, exactly, is this magical coalition represented in Antifa?
Oh, right. It doesn’t exist, because fighting fascism is only the facade, the stated and “public purpose” of antifa, where their actions are completely counter to this stated goal. The fact that Anarchists, just like their idiot Bolshevik brethren, can’t see that they’re being completely used for ulterior motives is historically and eerily similar.
And until this very sentence, I have never uttered “George Soros” in defense or excuse of anything. And it seems to me I still haven’t. I am capable of forming my own opinions without the aid of social media.
5) That said, your fucking blaming of Jews, and American political volunteers (mostly jews and minorities,), for the win of the fascists (and/or the communists), is simply gut-turning and reprehensible
Excuse me? At what point, ever, did I blame the Jews or other minorities? I said that gays, Jews and political dissenters have just as much to fear from authoritarian communism as they do from naziism. Are you really trying to smear me as an anti semite? Do you know anything about my family, John? You know nothing, John Snow!
You are starting to sound exactly like that twat at the bar who screamed “FUCK YOU FASCIST” at me. I’ll defer back to #4 in this response. You brought up George Soros, not me. You accused me, falsely, of being an anti semite. At this point I’m wondering who should get fucked.
6) You consistently equate state violence with the resistance those under its thumb, as if all “violence” is the same. Please, if you’re against “violence,” then stop eating.
I’m sorry, is this some kind of advertisement for veganism? “After these messages….”
7) You’re basically saying that because they were killed by Stalin, that all of their ideas and plans were moot, and that they were collaborators.
I am saying they (the Bolsheviks) were idealistic, utopian delusional idiots and that their plan was a very, very bad idea that would have never worked. They also did not come to power peacefully, they were also very violent people. There was a revolutionary war that happened, if you recall. Hmm… They kind of sound like Antifa in a way, don’t they? I Wonder What Might Happen Next?™
8) Also, (and this is where I [sic] really give up and get lazy), for blaming anti-Nazis for the rise of Nazism in the US– FUCK YOU AUSTEN. I’m gladly done wth[sic] you..
Point #4 again. Peace and Love, Flower Brotha!
*I didn’t really thank him for giving up and getting lazy. That was nice of him. I hope he reads this so he knows how much I care!
9) Have fun shadowboxing against your nemesis “Antifa,” (a “terrorist organization” that doesn’t even exist).
Thank you for acknowledging Antifa as a terrorist organization. It helps to say it out loud.
Antifa is most definitely an organization, decentralized as it may be, it is still an organization. This is clearly demonstrated repeatedly over, and over, and over, and… Or are you really trying to make people believe that “Whenever Trouble Brews, Antifa Just Happen To Be There (with bats)?” Clearly there’s some organizing going on. Don’t be obtuse.
And decentralized terrorists are still terrorists, regardless of how you try and spin it. Whatever their ideology, someone acting “lone wolf” is still a terrorist when they terrorize people.
Imagine that you live in a repressive society, one that you suspect might falter at some point in your lifetime.
Now imagine that you find yourself amongst your contemporaries in the downfall of that society.
And now imagine that you have been selected to make something new to put in its place. You can do pretty much whatever you want, you even have friends there to help you. However there are also—not a lot, but a sufficient few—people who have very strong and different opinions of what a new government should look like. Thankfully, all of you have at least one thing in common: you supported the downfall of the last regime.
How would you go about forming a new government? Do you battle it out against the vocal minority for control of the pulpit? Do you honor their participation and sacrifice in helping you to win the war against your former tyrants? Or do you concede space for their ideas in this burgeoning era?
Few people have found themselves in a position to think about these questions, regardless of any political downfall. What it must have been like when John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson first considered this possibility, and then found themselves doing it?
You wonder. At first these thoughts begin small, forming needles in your mind from the many swords that you know. A cognitive itch prompts you to seek out what others have done before, then to compare the outcome. You debate with your confidants about what worked, what didn’t, what could have been better, and most importantly what was truly necessary.
It is hard not to imagine all those people, kings and conquerors, tyrants and nobles, peasants, farmers, smithies, and warriors who made up these nations. Most of these people are now dead and buried. They are the rocks that hold up their mighty temples; still others, the fissures that swallow them.
Then you realize you are one of the liberating conquerors. You see that the nation you create will have its own kings and farmers. You hope that the future will spare her of tyrants and enemies, but you know the inevitability of corruption and cancer that can transform your future into the very monster so many died to defeat. All of these people, starting with you and your compatriots, will live and die under this new nation. And God willing, so will generation upon generation to come.
So go on! Tell us. What, then, do you propose?
Murray Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State is such an exploration into the structure and purpose of government. It parallels the very questions that our American Forefathers must have asked when forming a government the likes of which had never been seen before. The Libertarian roots of our nation are exposed to us in this magnificent, yet succinct pocket pamphlet, both as a warning and as a calling.
That bloody mutiny that ended so many a tyrannical regime is not necessary to fix ours, because the might over tyranny wasn’t left to the government envisioned by Adams, Franklin and Jefferson. It was left to its people, knowing they might need to use it. If we are but true to the tenets of this nation we can stop the cancer of corruption, free her Libertarian soul, and ensure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Just as our forefathers had hoped that we would.