There is an excellent site which dissenters here should be reading: Keith Preston, “pan-anarchism against the state, pan-secessionism against the empire.”

Now while the general flavor of the site is within the anarchist tradition of the Left, Preston is a highly intelligent sophisticated Leftist, who sees the limits of the Left/Right distinction. An article, which Preston endorsed, describes him as follows:

“By ‘left-wing’ I mean a kind of family resemblance. When Mr. Preston is addressing the Alt-Right or libertarians, he does so as an outsider; when he is addressing left-wing organizations, he is doing so as one of them. This is because they emphasize the same things. He sees the U.S. government as a major threat to worldwide peace and freedom, and his focus is always on the underclass and those the Left identifies as victims of state repression.”

His heart, therefore, is with the Left, which in his many criticisms he is trying to rescue from its alliance with pro-state liberalism, which thinks government power is the key to solving social problems. In reading his critiques of liberals, I thought of an observation I once heard about the Christian instruction to love our neighbors and our enemies—possibly because they may be the same people.

Why is Mr. Preston of interest to us? As he explains on his website, he wants to forge a kind of pan-anarchist, pan-secessionist movement that includes virtually all of those who “fall prey to the repressive High apparatus of the state.” Of course, his coalition would include the usual groups favored by the Left (racial minorities, drug users, sex workers), but he also wants to bring in groups traditionally despised by the Left. His list is long, and includes racists (his term), gun enthusiasts, tax resisters, motorcycle clubs, neo-Confederates, homeschoolers, born-again Christians, racial nationalists (also his term), militia groups, and people he calls “refugees from Middle America.”

Ultimately what he wants is a “separation of race and state,” that would allow people with common interests of all sorts, including paleoconservatives and racial and religious groups, to live in homogeneous communities. He understands that “severe and irreconcilable differences . . . will inevitably arise, and that such differences are best managed according to the principle ‘peace through separation.” [p. 90] From:

I believe, from what I have read of Preston, that this is an accurate description. After all, Preston is not shy about writing a piece entitled, “Why I Choose to Collaborate with the Criminal Underworld”:

The idea here is that Leftoids were wrong in dismissing the Lumpenproletariat, because the people who have nothing to lose could be the main ones capable of being organised to “attack the system.”

Like most anarchists, Preston believes that the system can be physically defeated, and he has written and reposted an article about this:

It is not my purpose here to attempt to evaluate the thought of a leading intellectual on these topics but only to draw readers’ attention to the merit of his work, for further thought and discussion, which Preston welcomes. I think that we have someone to work with, and certainly his site has a lot to offer us.

It is clear that the LaFondians are no lovers of the state, and pan-secessionism is an excellent idea. Thus, we would agree with at least 90 percent of Preston’s work. Many of us though would find his writings on race and ethnic conflict far from satisfactory, but even for someone from the Left, he has recognized that “mass immigration is the one policy that, once it reaches a certain tipping point, cannot be undone. If mass immigration continues and even expands, eventually our civilization will reach the point of no return, and thousands of years of cultural evolution will be lost as a result of demographic overrun. [pp. 73-74 of his “The Tyranny of the Politically Correct”:

The pan-secessionism position would easily allow these conflicts to be resolved in a civilized fashion, through the creation of ethnostates and enclaves:

The core issue between the type of collapseology/ Darwinian survivalist line, taken by many at this site and Preston, lies in the question of how the system ends. Preston, as far as I have seen, does not believe that the system will collapse by itself, of its own internal rottenness, but instead thinks that it needs to be physically fought and pushed over, much as traditional 19th century anarchists argued. He has given some respectable arguments for this position, but I believe that the focus here is wrong.

It is highly likely that even a dying system will be psychopathologically violent and may adopt a Samson option of going down with the burning ship. It may especially do this if there is armed resistance shown.

An alternative anarchist position from the Left, nowadays associated with environmentalism, has been to try and keep heads down and build alternative communities that will take the place of the system, preparing all the while for the use of nuclear weapons:

Here is one very useful site, even if it is from the Left:

There really is not a lot of difference here with Right-wing survivalism, if the ethnoracial material is not considered. Things are getting so bad that it is high time to ignore differences and start collecting everything which works and can aid our survival.

Only time will tell which response proves to be correct. My own pessimistic view of human nature is that the new “heroes” are too cowardly to rise to the survival challenges that we face, so civilization is set to wither on the vine, with the human grapes rotting and perishing. Only small tribes of thin-skinned monkeys are likely to survive for a time:

Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:

.