No longer maintained

I would like to inform anyone that does not already know this blog will no longer be maintained.


I will keep it up until I am able to figure out what to do with some of the content on it, but for now I will be primarily posting at Polycentric Order until I can get my website, countereconomist.com up and running.


Thank you for your support.


Ciao!

The Radical-Reformist Spectrum: And the Grey In Between

[Cross Posted at Polycentric Order]

Anon: So, who do you like for the Presidency?
Me: What? Do you mean who is my favorite politician?
Anon: Yes, I suppose.
Me: Well, a better question would be, what makes the best kind of politician?
Anon: OK... Well, given the tone I imagine you have something to say, so shoot.
Me: The best kind of politician is the only good kind – a dead one.
Anon: Well, what about Ron Paul? I hear he’s pretty libertarian.
Me: Need I repeat what I said?

So goes the same sardonic conversation of a radical Anarchist explaining the virtues of Agorism to a minion of the apologists for the political class. Expected from the tiresome agony of conversations with the innocently ignorant or the fully indoctrinated, however, the saddest part of this conversation comes from the closeness to which Anonymous actually comes to calling herself an Anarchist and ditching the political scene in favor of pursuing her principles of anti-drug war, anti-US intervention, anti-government, anti-corporations, anti-public schools, anti-America, and anti-police creeds in the market place with likeminded comrades all itching to overthrow the state through a means that will finally allow individuals to be the kind of individuals with the respect and dignity that each man and woman deserves for him or herself. Yes, unfortunately Anonymous falls into the very same disease of reformism that so many comrades in the libertarian movement tend to linger clumsily towards like the mumbling drunk on the city hall steps. Supporting such parlor revolutionaries as Ron Paul, Murray Sabrin, Jim Forsythe, or whatever other conservative in drag the desperate and the weak wish to tromp out for their get-liberty-quick schemes, the reformists, though possibly well intentioned, tend to undermine the libertarian revolution – a revolution they even go so far as to usurp as the “Ron Paul revolution.” Circling around holding each other before the climax, the group of reformists serves only to confuse, contradict, and compromise any true libertarian progress – forgeable only through the one, right tool, market activism.

With an introduction then, as true radicals and revolutionaries it certainly is quite important that comrades of the Agorist movement understand that though the reformist may believe in a type of libertarianism, he is not yet a libertarian, at least not of the radical sorts that a libertarian army requires, and until he becomes one, until we can finally convert him, he must be regarded with suspicion at best and mannered hostility at worst. To truly advance the Agorist agenda, not only must every comrade join in saying the only good politician is a dead politician, but he must also understand that the only good parlor revolutionary is one that exists no longer; the only good parlor revolutionary is a freshly converted Agorist and a newly found anti-reformist.

Think of it in the terms provided by the first movie of the Matrix trilogy where Morpheus explains to Neo the parameters of their involvement with the unenlightened.

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Though seemingly more applicable to the general populous that still silently stalls sadly suspended until they can graduate to partial enlightenment towards the spectrum of a library libertarian – one that espouses libertarianism in theory and books only – the difference between a drone of the populous apathetically enamored by the smooth words and sleek style of a fast talking Richard Nixon, or his speech writer, Benjamin Stein, and the libertarian still enthusiastic about electing his guy to control the beast with the ring like a Frodo Baggins after a power trip exists only in degrees.

Still, however, it of course qualifies as a ludicrous position to turn away even the most radical aspects of the Ron Paul movement or any other members of a political affinity group working towards defeating the government in the final days like a prophesized third revelation. So what should an Agorist do? To illustrate, here the author admits that he occasionally, in fits of rage, goes off the reservation, so to speak, of the traditional stance supported by SEK3 – being one of tactical alliances.

Yes, in spite of the harshest of words slung at the reformists, something must be said for their most radical members. In the instance of Ron Paul, though not all seem to understand what his campaign proves in terms of the futile compromise of political pseudo-action, many of his past supporters can be seen defecting from the conservatives dressed in libertarian drag and siding with their newly wedded Agorist brethren. So says Thomas M. of Beloit, Wisconsin,

The lessons I have learned from my experiences as a Ron Paul supporter are many, but I must say the single most important is that compromise for political success is little more than a waste of precious time. Though I don’t regret all of my experiences with the Ron Paul movement, after all it at least turned me onto the ideas of libertarianism where I was once a typical, anti-war, limousine liberal, I do regret some of the unintended consequences that we unconsciously made in our efforts to support him. Where money and effort could have been substituted into better activities bringing about more solid results, it was wasted on trying to convince people that Ron Paul was a saving grace for a Republic that has no business being saved in the first place.

Absolutely, if nothing else Ron Paul does seem to have had an effect on many of the previously uninformed, coupling this with their natural polarization to radicalism, the Ron Paul movement cannot be said to be a total failure or waste of time. This being the case, however, with a bulk of previously compromised libertarians jumping ship to the cause of principle and direct action, what can be said for those still waning in the grey spots of the radical-reform spectrum – sans those still holding on to the hope of an old lion defeating a beating elephant?

For those Left-Libertarians and Radical Agorists looking for the answer to this confusing question of tactical approach, it seems best to remember this simple word, beware. Beware of your allies teetering between reform and revolution and always look for their strengths as well as their weaknesses. Remember and never forget, though he that waits in the grey may be useful, he does not wear the pure colours of Anarchist black for a reason – he, though on his way, is not an Agorist yet. As growing Agorists are vital to the movement, matured Agorists must be sure to nurture the Agorist tendencies of their immature comrades with care and encouragement while watching their reformist tendencies with the most careful of eyes so as to prepare to show strength in the interests of outcompeting the reformists and to discourage the fetal Agorists from ever returning to the land of lost hopes – the land of politic. The best way to describe this strategy for the conscious Agorists in relation to the wandering semi-radicals may then be summed up as an operation of supportive promotion and active discouragement – promotion reserved for the Agorist tendencies and discouragement for the reformist ones. With this in mind, the Agorists that insert themselves into the mixture of revolutionary vs. parlor revolutionary will do well to convert as many of the latter to the side of the former.

Given the radical-reformist spectrum, the divide between those devoted to SEK3 and those allying with Ron Paul possesses a great grey spot, but if the left side can overcome the side of the right within the spectrum of libertarianism, then perhaps we libertarians will see a day where Anarchists unite against the true enemy – the state. Until this, however, the libertarian cause will never be fermented; as long as comrades waste in the waning waters of the willfully withering games of politics, the seed of potential will waste right along with them.

An Introduction to Christian Anarchism

Introduction:

In a recent e-mail, a fellow Anarchist, and a co-contributor to the blog, inquired about the position of Christian Anarchism; both questioning the validity of the title and the substance of its content, his inquiry represents a great deal of confusion within the broader Anarchist movement – namely, the religion dilemma. Indeed, any Christian Anarchist must understand that most Anarchists tend to look at any branch of religion, not just Christianity, with great suspicion and that if Christian Anarchists wish to join the ranks of Anarchist comrades, they must first present their case by answering a few of the common objections.

Of the most common challenges to the Christian Anarchist there includes the question of authority and how a Christian can account for his rejection of authority given his adherence to God, the Bakunin assertion that God is the ultimate enslaver of humanity, the supposed lack of “reason” or “proof” that suggests the Christian faith to be an irrational one, and also the general tendency of Anarchists to favor a culture separated from traditional paths associated with Christian movements. Though to a Christian Anarchist all of these objections seem unwarranted, they still pervade in the minds of anti-authoritarians as principled and solid. Given this state of mind then, the job of the Christian Anarchist is simply to demonstrate the fallacies hiding behind the veils of rhetoric in these objections in hopes of converting fellow Anarchists not to the religion itself, at least not necessarily, but to the mindset that Christian Anarchism does indeed represent a serious movement within the Anarchist movement and that as all other Anarchists, Christian Anarchists deserve the same amount of respect for their convictions and support in their methods of direct action.

The Importance of Agorist Class Theory

[Cross posted at Polycentric Order]

Before continuing, I would like to note that this entry is not about ACT itself, but rather about the importance of promoting it. Little if anything other than the bear minimum of the theory will be discussed here then, as the article is merely intended to promote ACT and not to further clarify it.

The subject of Agorist class theory is one that should interest radical Anarchists greatly, but unfortunately, like Agorism, it still receives little notice in libertarian circles, not to mention mainstream ones. Indeed, in the most successful doctrines and mantras not only does it seem important to develop an intelligent and systematic explanation of the principles and applications of a theory or strategy, but also, for the sake of further clarification or additional motivation on a psychological level, it seems important to distinguish and analyze the extent of the movement’s enemies. Though perhaps brushed off as a simple method of “scapegoating” the necessity of clarifying a movement’s position in regard for its enemies not only further defines the movement in terms of its principles by natural juxtaposition, but it also achieves an even more important goal, it helps to promote the movement’s very character binding the constituents together as comrades allied against a common enemy.

Indeed, the practice of psychology supports this conclusion of binding comrades together by picking out a – and in the Agorist’s sense, the – common threat. Furthermore, developing an identity with fellow comrades in a movement helps it to succeed in two categories. One, in the active promotion of the movement’s benefit – in Agorism’s case, the benefit of the movement comes through the benefit of the movement’s constituents – whereby the general strength and momentum of the cause snowballs into a acceleration of potency and achievement concluding in a general victory for the goal of liberty and justice against tyranny and statism. And two, in the bonding of Agorists together in fraternity as lifelong comrades for purposes not only inside the realm of the movement’s benefit, but also in the benefit of each individual within it.

As Agorist class theory dictates, with the parasitic (government) class continuously infringing on the rights of the “entrepreneuriat” (non-governmental/Agorist/free-market/etc.) in a chorus, it becomes necessary for entrepreneuriats everywhere to stand up in common defiance against their class oppressors; this can truly be called a class unity. Writing to distinguish and define class unity in the Agorist sense, SEK3 notes,

This class unity is not that of a workers’ class (though workers are heavily involved) nor of a capitalist class (though capitalists are involved) nor even of a ruling class — this class is based on the commonality of risk, arising from a common source (the State). And risk is not proletarian (or particularly capitalist); it is purely Entrepreneurial.

Absolutely, this categorizes the very strength of the entrepreneuriat, his very power thriving off of his self-interest and entrepreneurial nature, whether in labour, bonds, teaching, maritime, etc., he not only utilizes his surroundings, but also his comrades in the Agorist movement. Through the counter-economic endeavours of capital coupled with the trade of goods and information with fellow Agorists, not only can the Agorist class survive the war against the state, but they will necessarily prosper given the high incentive to do so conceived from their nature as entrepreneurs. Indeed, as communism is a philosophy for Marxists and central-planners, fascism a philosophy for statists and bueracrats, Agorism is a philosophy for radical Anarchists and entrepreneurs. Given the superiority of the market system then, and those entrepreneurs that inhabit it, it seems obvious that if only Agorists could band together, with the incentive to prosper through the natural building blocks of the counter-economy, in a rivalous way to the unity of the fascists and statists, the might and power of the counter-economy and the Agorist class would dash the head of leviathan into the rocks of its grave. The importance of Agorist class theory must be this, that by defining and distinguishing a common enemy for counter-economists and entrepreneuriats alike, the power of Agorism not only clarifies the situation of the counter-economy, but also the nature of the enemy itself. By bonding comrades together in a common struggle to promote the movement – by promoting economic interest – Agorist class theory molds the movement into a high powered explosive device whereby the end result shall commence with not only victory, but total domination over the parasitic regimes of the world today.

Utilizing Agorist class theory for victory then, let the state be compared to Babylon to give a small vision of the victory that fate has enstore for the Agorist movement. As in Psalms, so will be the end of the song when the Agorists defeat the state once and for all,

8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little onesAgainst the rock,
(Psalms 137:8-9, New American Bible).

Italia: A Land Ripe for Agorism

[Cross Posted at Polycentric Order]

Italian Tax Evaders 2008, Romano Prodi & Silvio Berlusconi 0

The question of the breadth and power of the Italian counter-economy requires no scrutiny or test, it is well known that tax evaders, illegal immigrants, smugglers, and black market entrepreneurs alike call “the boot” a kind of safe haven where the cops are either too drunk to chase or too corrupt to care. Whether the Anarcho-Individualistic flare of the Italian people, the entrepreneurial history of the Italian peninsula, or just a general intellectual superiority that undermines the boorish slave mentality of other Europeans under the beast of leviathan, Italians do not like, consent to, or even pay their taxes! Indeed, if we Agorists are looking for a ripe country to inhabit, a model to forge a movement after, or a people to take a lesson from, we would do well to pay attention to the Italians.

In recent events, however, it seems that the Italian government has decided to cross a line – to change the rules. Posting a list of tax evaders on a website, with personal information available for exploitation in a modern age of identity theft, the Republican guard has all but declared war on the people they claim to “represent”! What an outrage! Che cazzo!

Still, however, instead of complaining about the injustices of the government playing dirty when Italians begin to stand up for themselves against their extortionists when they demand their money, what seems to be a viable solution? As an Agorist, it seems obvious develop the counter-economy past its very rudimentary stage in Italia. Absolutely, Italia’s counter-economy does not grow for the same reason that Samuel Edward Konkin III showed that the Russian counter-economy, under Communist Stalin, did not fulfill the Agorist steps to revolution – they either did not have the full revolutionary or entrepreneurial spirits about them, or they simply lived outside of the regular economy when at all expedient, returning, in mind and body, to the statist affairs as soon as their “plunder” was made. Yes, let this be a lesson to all Agorists and proto-Agorists, for in Italia, though the entrepreneurial spirit is ripe and the capacity in capital there, the pure philosophy of Agorism has not yet sunk its teeth into the Tuscan hills or the Sicilian Mountains. Yes, if only Agorism as an ideology were to spread throughout the countryside of the Italian peninsula, the opportunity for a counter-economic safe haven seems unparalleled – if any country was ready for an Agorist revolution, it would be the Southern Mediterranean nation of Italia.

Reformism, An Impossibility: Applying Misesian Principles to Reformist-Libertarian Compromises

[Cross posted at Polycentric Order]

In the general context of the libertarian movement there seems to exist two patterns of strategic theory to achieve the end goal of Anarchist activism – a libertarian society. On one side there exists the reformist menace, a group so insecure and cowardly that they rely on the fading strength of parliamentary wash-ups and political opportunists to do the work that each individual ought to do for himself; on the other side breathes a powerful and growing camp of revolutionaries leading the way of change by combining their contempt for politics with a new wave of agitation for direct action. This situation argued elsewhere, however, the current point of interest does not so much hinge on dramatic poetry and passionate rants, as other articles have[i][ii][iii][iv], so much as it attempts to take a look at theoretical axioms commonly agreed upon by both camps of libertarian strategists. Yes, this article’s intent directly appeals to the more conservative/reformist camp and their enthusiastic love for the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and especially his theory of the impossibility of socialist calculation. Far from being a discussion of political economy, however, the question of state-socialist economies will here be applied to the reformist plan to achieve the societal liberation that free market Anarchism aims at. Proving that reformism, once applied to Mises’ implications of socialist calculation, cannot possibly be looked at as any kind of path to freedom then, hopefully the reformist camp will see the light of reason emersed in Misesian spices.

First, however, to address the arguments proposed by the reformists properly, their very plan for achieving the libertarian society, a society absent a state, must be revealed. Indeed, the reformist’s plan comes down to a step by step process of small reforms within the United States government aimed at an attempt to restrain the politicians from acting within their nature. Delegating down to a plan of fighting government internally to break it down entirely, the reformists speak mostly of “steps” to gaining their liberation from the cold clutches of the state – though the ad hoc nature of their arguments seem to make the details of their intentions slightly more ambiguous (see a comparison between the Ron Paul movement’s goals in late fall and early winter[v] to its claimed goals in early spring[vi]). Conflating their system with one of incrementalist phases, claiming a monopoly on a realistic approach to change, the reformists, narrow minded and pompous, shut off completely to external logic and consistency in favor of the compromise of a crazed lunacy that suggests the nature of an entity can be overcome by the will of a handful of old men spitting and drooling into their couch cushions every night in their father’s mothball filled coats – still that’s progress from not knowing where they were sleeping to begin with.

Yes, this strategy certainly belongs to the reformists, conservative-libertarians usually associated with Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but curiously enough, the support for a Ron Paul type step by step approach to decreasing the size of the state appears to be a direct contradiction of the Misesian background that almost all Free Market Anarchists – regardless of conservative or leftist creed – share. To understand this, take an excerpt from Mises’ Planned Chaos, a book devoted to the explanation of how middle of the road policies and rhetorical devices of conservative jargon lead to state-socialism. According to Mises, when the state intervenes in the market economy on behalf of one market variable, essentially fixing prices and wages, it must,

go further and further, fixing the prices of all factors of production – and forcing every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of production can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and this general order to continue production. If some branches of production were left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labour to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of the goods whose prices the government had fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which the government considers as especially important for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses, (24).

Adding still,

Price control is contrary to purpose if it is limited to some commodities only. It cannot work satisfactorily within a market economy... Production can either be directed by the prices fixed on the market by the buying and by the abstention from buying on the part of the public. Or it can be directed by the government’s central board of production management. There is no third solution available. There is no third social system feasible which would be neither market economy nor socialism. Government control of only a part of prices must result in a state of affairs which – without any exception – everybody considers as absurd and contrary to purpose. Its inevitable result is chaos and social unrest, (25).[vii]

The conclusions drawn by the great, free market economist Ludwig von Mises seem clear here. Given the involvement of the government in one area of the economy, unless it is removed entirely from all market variables at once, one step towards a free market economy in the marsh of state-socialism will only result in a further sinking towards the bottom of an unpleasant floor laid with the stench of mud and feces.

Indeed, to deny that state-socialism only results in planned chaos where every single move contradicts every other move displays a surprising lack of understanding, or perhaps just a willed ignorance, for the principles of Mises. Even in an instance where the general tide swings towards liberty, without instant and total abolition of the state the blame for all the damage felt by the people, an inevitable in a state-socialist economy, will fall squarely on the shoulders of those in power – the reformist libertarians. As demonstrated by Mises, by attempting to play in the mud of the state’s economy, no matter what intentions to clean up the marsh, the murk’s victory is a certain one forever creeping up the body of those that jump gleefully into its muck. By cutting off one head of the hydra-leviathan, not only do libertarians drain themselves in a flare of roundabout activity, but they cause ten more to grow in its place. Indeed, the harsh fall of the government is a guarantee and with it must come considerable pain to the people, but if that pain is accompanied with a continued existence of the state, with the incompetent boobs in the reformist camp of libertarianism sitting on the throne, no victory for liberty will ever occur – only reactionary hate for the philosophy and those claiming its name. Absolutely, the best that can be hoped for is a revolution walking the lines outlined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in his New Libertarian Manifesto – where the use of the counter-economy doubles as a weapon against the state and as a crutch for the innocent to rely on when the state-socialist economy inevitably collapses.

Applying the principles of Mises to revolutionary strategy seems to create an obvious glass through which to look here. With the reformist strategy supporting a state-socialist whack-a-mole game, where one step towards a free market results in three more towards continued oppression, the only other option, and fortunately the most efficient one, must be pursued. Direct action, specifically Agorist action[viii], then seems to be the train that each and every self-respecting liberty lover should embark upon if he wishes to establish and maintain a libertarian society in the near to distant future. Absolutely, if one rightfully understands that reformism is an impossibility and a counter-productive one at that, then one must also understand that revolutionary Market-Anarchism is a fast sailing ship, powerful and decisive in its course of action.

---

[i] de Cleyre, Voltairine. "Direcet Action." Molinari Institute. 1912. Molinari Institute. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[ii] Adami, Niccolo M. "Purge the Parlor Revolutionaries." Polycentric Order. 27 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[iii] An Apolitical Approach to Libertarianism." Brainpolice. 5 Apr. 2008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[iv] Molyneux, Stefan. "The Ron Paul Revolution – A Postmortem (& Prescription)." Freedomain: The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom. 6 Feb. 2008. Freedomain Radio. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[v] Murtaroe, Kathryn. “How a 'Third-Tier' Candidate Wins the Primary.” Lewrockwell.com 9 Nov. 2007 .

[vi] Sunwall, Mark. “Ron Paul as Prophet.” Lewrockwell.com 3 March. 2008 .

[vii] von Mises, Ludwig. Planned Chaos. 6th ed. Irvington-On-Hudson, NY: FEE, 1977.

[viii] Adami, Niccolo M. "The Virtues of Agorism: A Direct Action." Polycentric Order. 16 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008 .

Purge the Parlor-Revolutionaries

[Cross Posted at Polycentric Order]


Quite often, especially in these post-Ron Paul days, I am asked by my comrades why I so detest the reformists in the broader libertarian movement. After all, they say, are we not all working towards the same goals? Are we not all libertarians? Are we not all fighting the same enemy? If only such were the case, but unfortunately it is not. Unfortunately, to reach victory we, the revolutionaries, must follow a path of truth, and though truth may be less kind than the reformists' compromise, its path of success is undeniable.

Indeed, reformists are everywhere a disease, a terrible virus leeching off of the strength of Anarchist youth while injecting a poison into the veins of the libertarian movement. Extinguishing the burning flames of liberty within our comrades, those that may once have been fully hostile to imperial-collectivism and completely willing to die for their beliefs in freedom and justice, they spread their wings of preclusion and barrel their beaks into the fresh streams of Anarchist power snapping up the minnows of our movement like a hawk from the high hills of Gareb.

Oh, but the reformists tell you that they desire the same thing; they tell you that we are all in the same boat. But are we really? Are victory and defeat really so similar? But of course the reformists will not admit to being defeatists; they will not admit to their compromise, their abhorrent corruptions! They will lure you with a soothsaying tongue of deviation; they will attract the weak like a pedophile predator offering candy in a white van outside of the elementary school. Yes, the father of Agorism, Samuel Edward Konkin III, warned us of these defeatists.

Advises our dear comrade from his book the New Libertarian Manifesto,

since few libertarians are very consistent yet, deviationism will run rife and tend to overwhelm activism. “Get-Liberty-quick” schemes from anarchozionism (running away to a Promised Land of Liberty) to political opportunism will seduce the impatient and sway the incompletely informed. All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual… The strategy of the first New Libertarians is to combat anti-principles which strengthen the Stare and dissipate anarchist energy uselessly. The general strategy outlines previously applies; get libertarians into counter-economics and get the most active of the Agorists to get counter-economists into libertarianism, (61-62).

Yes, driving the movement to its knees with their false promises, the reformists are the bearers of bad will and lost hopes; they are the essential definition of counter-revolutionaries in a war where no time or resources can be wasted. Indeed, as it almost seems they are too destructive to be true, we can almost wonder if they were sent by the state to deliberately destroy the product of years of our hard work - such would be the speak of a conspiracy theorist!

Like the never-ending story of man’s fatal demise, the counter-revolutionaries prattle on with their soothsaying and their bloodied knives neatly nestled next to their bags filled with their thirty pieces of silver. Oh, the reformists speak of changes brought down by votes calling them steps to a path, while knowing fully well that not only are these merely the exceptions to the rule – and counterproductive ones at that! – but that such “victories” can only be accounted for as the initial results of the radicals’ direct action forcing governments into a bind where the only two options are to concede liberty, as we desire, or appease a few of the “libertarian-junkies” with momentary relief while simultaneously derailing the entire movement all together! With the government on the libertarian-junky’s side then, it is no wonder why our libertarian movement, despite all the professed progresses pointed to by the reformists, continues to flounder in the puddles of despair with a bunch of parlor revolutionaries sitting sea-sick at the helm.

Indeed, the reformists, bromidic as they are, find it all too easy to praise themselves for maintaining “repeals” and libertarian “progresses” while ignoring the actual engines that support the continuously undermined revolution. Pointing towards the repeal of the Corn Laws in the 19^th century, for example, the reformists, dressed in their usual cloth of deceit, speak highly of the politician credited for the repeals, Robert Peel, while completely ignoring such valiant examples of direct action as the continued riots in London after the initial imposition of the acts, the common harassment and assault against the dreaded extortionists that attempted to collect the fees of intimidation for their king, or the rampant counter-economic acts of smuggling shipments bypassing British law. Clearly, despite this pompous back patting, any attempt to claim victory by the incompetent hands of the parlor revolutionary is a slap in the face to the radical – and a most comical one at that!

However, not to take the credit for these moments of clumsy self-defeat, made by mere drunkards, rakes, and fools claiming the good name of libertarian, we radicals by no means find any particular pride in these specific conclusions to our momentous actions. Much like an inebriate adolescent stealing his father’s new car, a car used to further the health of his family, and crashing it in a dramatic blaze only to roll out reeking of rum and whores, the reformists ruin our movement’s diction and utterly destroy its potential. Taking the incentive and hope away from our comrades, substituting it for eased lullabies of a soothsaying Satanist in politician’s clothing, the reformists are collectively a rapist of the movement, a defeatist on the battle field, a deserter, a Benedict Arnold, a cross to bear, and a beast of burden that can neither be reasoned with nor converted.

The words of Voltairine de Cleyre resonate here,

The words of resonate here,But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!

Absolutely, it is the reason why our libertarian movement so consistently fails today. Packed primarily with the weak, the paltry, the timid, we have a movement filled with few more than parlor revolutionaries – reformists! Working towards the complete demise of the Anarchists’ cause then, these beasts of burden, these cowards, these fools can be defined in no better terms than as counter-revolutionaries. They are the snakes, the sniveling brats of the family, and the frightened daughters of liberty walking demurely into the black night well behind their more radical siblings. A Tory in drag, the reformists identify primarily with the conservatives and so thus will their demeanor dictate – conservatively, frightened of change, and far too weak to be granted a place in this revolution!

So, when my comrades, my friends, and my allies ask why I detest the parlor revolutionaries, I reply thus: There is no greater burden to a movement than compromise – it is an ultimate corruption of the spirit, a sapping of hope, and a disenchantment with principle. Here, I can only say that I, as the brother of a movement thieved and kicked to the ground in a huddle by the reformist, identify with the brother of a sister raped by his supposed ally. Indeed, the reformists are a disease, a cancer, and a virus, so only after this cancer is purged, only after this tumor is removed by force, can the body of the libertarian movement succeed; only after the radicals stand up to the reformists, only after the counter-revolutionaries are beaten back to the swamps will there ever be a realization of libertarian principles.

So then let this be a beginning of a beginning of a revolution. Let this commence a New Libertarian Alliance, not just against the state, but against all enemies of freedom and radicalism. Make no doubt about it, our revolution will be sweet, our revolution will be pure, but this can only be so after the disease of compromise is purged and the trials of the reformists resolved.