Dear ANTIFA: This is not an alt-right flag. This is an An-Cap/Voluntaryist flag. This flag is not an "alt-right-lite" flag, either.
The "Alt-Right," or "Alt-Reich," as it is often referred to these days, is an emerging movement of--speaking in general terms--"conservative," "white" nationalists fighting a self-described "culture war" against the left.
I put conservative in quotations above because the movement, accurately examined, is not really conservative at all. Many individuals in the alt-right wish to increase government spending via taxation, in order to pay for things such as extensive military defense and multi-billion-dollar border walls. Indeed, many individuals identifying as "alt-right" are also completely pro-police and pro-Drug War, two of the biggest WELFARE programs the state has to offer. For some reason, the irony here seems to be lost on most of these individuals.
Socially speaking, the movement could, by mental gymnastics, be argued to be conservative, but this would also be a misnomer, and incorrect in almost every sense of the word.
Though the alt-right tends to be pro-border security, anti-immigration, pro-family, and pro-monagamous pair-bonded relationships, they are also PRO-SOCIALIST (with state borders, not private property lines, defining legitimate property in "alt-right" think), ANTI-FAMILY (breaking up monogamous, pair-bonded relationships and loving families is perfectly okay if done by "the police" over illegal plants, for example, or by acts of war such as drone-bombing little kids in the Middle East), and finally, PRO-STATE (the majority of alt-right individuals, in my experience, believe in the necessity of a state to protect "Western Culture").
Sad I need to say this, but...NOT ANCAP FLAGS! source.
Just for clarity's sake, let's look over that list again:
- PRO-SOCIALIST
- ANTI-FAMILY
- PRO-STATE
Hardly a movement reconcilable with Anarchy-Capitalism, which is:
- ANTI-SOCIALISM
- PRO-INDIVIDUALLY CHOSEN VOLUNTARY RELATIONSHIPS
- ANTI-STATE
So why does "ANTIFA" get it wrong about AnCaps?
Recently, some many members of the ANTIFA ("Anti-Fascist") movement have been equating anyone who identifies as an "Anarcho-Capitalist" with being a part of the Alt-Right movement. As demonstrated above, this is by definition, incorrect. The two movements remain necessarily, and by definition, diametrically opposed on major political and social issues. So why does ANTIFA conflate the two?
Just two total losers being "pragmatic." source.
Well, enter the "PRAGMATISTS."
There is a new breed of "Alt-Right-Lite" trolling around in both the meat and cyberspaces of our world, essentially claiming--absurd as it may sound--that one can indeed both be Alt-Right and AnCap at the same time.
Thanks to the likes of these unsavory characters, the internet is now chock-full of profile pictures with the traditional AnCap black and yellow, juxtaposed with bright red MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hats. While these new "alt-right-lite" call for the "police to be unleashed" and for Jews to be "physically removed," the rest of us AnCaps stand by and scratch our heads, still too baffled by the absurdity of it all to be too angry about it. A philosophically-cluster-fucked clown show of this magnitude only comes around once so every often, and when it does, it always means something big is about to happen.
Like the Alt-right, this new, "AnCap-Alt-Right-Lite" movement is not something to be brushed aside without a second thought. Forget the fact that many of these individuals advocate blanket violence and blanket state force against ANYONE they deem to be "the left," regardless of infractions against private property or lack thereof, the new "AnCap-Alt-Right-Lite" team also enjoys talking about "racial biodiversity," and essential genetic differences between races which render some "superior" to others.
Dafuq is this retardation? God help us all.
This is nothing more than a bastardized version of epigentics, misconstrued so as to appear to support the legtimacy of a eugenics-based application of blanket state force/violence. To put it in simpler terms: state-legitimized racism. Now, I loathe ANTIFA as much as the next guy. I have no respect for the movement or its philosophy. It is a laughable, puerile, dangerous, violent, and completely irrational approach to the achievement of peace and liberty. That said, these folks over at ANTIFA are not that far off when characterizing some of these aforementioned "Alt-Right-Lite" types as "Nazis."
Two sides of the same, shitty, ANTI-LIBERTY coin.
My hope in writing this article is to set things straight: "AnCap" does not equal "Alt-Right." It never has, and it never will. No matter how many KEK-frog-donning profile pictures emerge sporting the black and yellow, resting above content declaring the perceived inferiority of "Jews," the necessity of border security (even for land not homesteaded or legitimately owned) [TO CLARIFY, I DO NOT SUPPORT OPEN OR CLOSED STATE BORDERS], or the virtues of gassing entire groups of millions and millions of individuals (No, I am not joking, message me and I will try to dig up the quote for you, spoken by a leader of the "Alt-Right-Light"), this stuff remains irreconcilable with AnCap principle. Namely, the axiomatic, immutable and objective reality of individual self-ownership. The individual self-ownership axiom dictates that it is always OBJECTIVELY unnatural and illegitimate (if the value/goal is minimal violent conflict) to initiate force against another individual. Screaming that "all Democrats should be gassed!" is a violation of this principle, clearly.
So, there you have it, ANTIFA. Please attack the real enemy, and not a group of people (Voluntaryists/AnCaps) who really just want to leave you alone, and, more importantly, to be be left alone by you. (If you think I should be killed for wanting to leave you alone, then you are an idiot).
Still the same OG. source.
Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin. As an Anarcho-Capitalist, I recognize the philosophical and objective illegitimacy of the fiat coin and toss it in the trash.
As usual, the Voluntaryists/An-Caps remain individualist aliens amongst their robotic bandwagon-bastardized "counterparts," who seem to be ever-frothing at the mouth to be part of this or that "movement," and ever-terrified to be an independent, self-responsible, self-thinking, individual.
To both the ANTIFA "left" and the "Alternative right," I say, "No thanks."
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Nice read. These movements are lead by people who know exactly what the differences are. The antifa group is being given "anti-fascist" identity, while being virtually fascist. The loud groups of "protestors" are lead by paid agitators, who are basically spreading divisive hatred. The real goal is to stop the pro liberty movement that is bubbling up. The alt-right crap was used to label the opposition for antifa. Spectrums of "conservative" leaning groups have been lumped together as "alt-right". It was Hillary Clinton in her campaign who, as far as i know, was the first to use this term. Her opposition is liberty, small government, low taxation...etc. Which is the opposition of progressives, aka fascists, who seek to capitalize off our productivity. In a nut shell most members of these movements have zero clue what they are really supporting, and only through the proliferation of knowledge can we open pandora's box, releasing the masses from their own intellectual dismay, ala a red pill.
The term predates that. I recall seeing an interview of self-described alt-rightists on YouTube well before either party had selected their candidate; I had heard the term bouncing around before that, and watched the video to try to understand what it was about.
But, yes, once it became clear that the alt-right definitely had some unpleasant traits, the Clinton campaign was glad to use it as a smear.
It's a popular way to delegitimize a movement--lump it together with various unsavory groups so that no one wants to be associated with it.
Exactly.
never thought about them being anti-family in THAT way, good read
Haha good one!
meep
Pragmatists... Pragmatists EVERYWHERE.
You can stay that again. SHEESH.
A lot of people I've spoken to are not really alt-rights or fascists. Most of them are libertarians and ancaps at HEART. But the problem they see, and which I can agree with to a certain degree, is the choosing of two evils.
If you cannot see that there is NO WAY we will get a libertarian/ancapistanish free society, and therefore you have to chose between leftisism and alt-right, well, then the answer is pretty easy. If your choice is between preserving your race, culture and identity as a white european, or commit cultural and racial suicide, it makes sense to be alt right, right? I mean, all this insane stuff is going down RIGHT NOW. The liberterian utopia of John Galt's secret land is just so far off in time. Let's say Europe imports 200 million third worlders, we're going to be wiped out for eternity. And unless you're one of those who think that's just going to be great and we're all going to be brown(ish) and hold hands and make a new culture, well..kiss your libertarian dream good night FOR EVER. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I definitely see their point.
I hear what you are saying, but none of that matters where right and wrong are concerned. It is always wrong to advocate for policies that must by default harm an individual. Even if it is only one innocent individual harmed, and thousands saved, in theory. Being "pragmatic" carries a hefty cost. If ends indeed justify the means, then one must be prepared to become "the means," as well. If one accepts "collateral damage" (the loss of innocent life) in war to combat terrorism, then one must--if one is consistent--accept that he also may be "collateral damage" someday (or his children) if he is to remain morally consistent.
So if you consider my example then..Let's say that's what happens. Europe accepts millions upon millions of third worlders under leftist rule and destroys our culture. I'm not saying that WILL happen, but let's say that for arguments sake. Let's also say that the people that now are the majority(third worlders) have way less propability of being capable of thinking in libertarian ways (they are more prone to accept totalitarianism and government and rulers) Now we will never have freedom. Or we might, but the odds have decreased drastically. OR..we could protect ourselves from this mass invasion by implementation of non-libertarian values like closed boarders etc. Then with time work to eliminate the government (or a minarchy) and then the whole issue would be non existing. Remember TIME is a factor also.
It is always wrong to apply force to even one non-violent individual. Always. ion one compromises on this, one has no ethical or moral foundation, regardless of the hypothetical "what ifs."
So the peoples of the north in game of thrones have no right trying to keep the whitewlkers and co out? Because one of them might be a nice guy? They should just sit wait and see what happens?
Glad someone is talking about this.. The conflation of groups is just like lumping everyone you don't like as "basically Hitler", and the conflation of AnCap is "basically Alt-Right" is an even longer reach..
Upvoted, and thank you for this content. Followed as well.
Cheers, Odin. Followed back.
Essentially, whatever label is applied, the extremes of all political wings are identical. Anti-statism leads directly to the kind of anarchy that results in killings such as that of the MP Jo Cox, or of african americans for the crime of being black, or of Jews for being in Europe when Hitler didn't want them to be... There is a trend to refer to such things as "popularism" at present, which I find deeply worrying as it implies one can only be popular by being extreme. The label is irrelevant, and focusing so much on accurate branding obfuscates the underlying nihilism of obscure brands of politics without really feeding into a constructive debate. AntiFa are just as guilty of all of these failings as anything in the anarchy or alt-right basket.
Extreme adherence to the axiomatic and immutable, objective reality of nature-conferred individual self-ownership cannot, by very definition, produce those unsavory results you've listed.
Not according to how you interpret those words, maybe, but at what point does your self-ownership interfere with mine? And at that point, whose self-ownership is more important? The murderer of Jo Cox clearly felt that his right to self-ownership was sufficient to justify murder...
Great read brother.
I guess Antifa's reasoning in this case is still of the category "everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi". But I also agree with @americana-reboot that the leaders of the group very well know what ancapism is and what it's not. It's a shame that a movement that promotes peace and prosperity for all is portrayed as fascism. If only people would look a little further...
Nice read. Definitely put a lot of effort into a message that won't be received by a group like Antifa. Open minds are required for critical thinking.
This whole idea of Anrcho-capitalism is really new to me. I could definitely see it becoming the way people operate in time, but it's so foreign to the way most think it could take a long time.
According to Antifa, anything to the right of Stalin equals 'literally Hitler' RRRRREEEEEEEE
Nice post. Very informative and useful for the readers. Good clarification for Alt Right supporters, Good work and content.
Will continue to follow your post. Good job.
Obviously that's Jeffrey Tucker on the left... that bow tie.
Or Rothbard, or all the tons of other AnCaps who wear them ;)
I dare someone to call me alt-right to my face! I just might have to violate the NAP!