Over the years I’ve come to embrace certain themes related to anarchism that aren’t talked about much. Taboo subjects for many left leaning ideologues in anarchist circles. I don’t have much confidence that articulating these views here will sway the minds of the aforementioned but may provide some useful insight into my personal views and useful ways of organization and the useful ways certain elements could be appropriated by the Left, Right and everyone in between. Let’s give it a whirl.

The Third Way: Third positionism is often looked at with disgust. Evoking the ideas of everyone from Evola to Gaddafi but as with most things, I’ve found much more nuance in the general concept itself than in the ideas of its most strict adherents. A third way (for me) is not merely a blending of “Left and Right” wings but a broad synthesis of social and economic ideas merged into a new form which transcends the binary all together! We see strains of this in everything from Nieztchean approaches of anarchism (more on that later) to the “radical localism,” diversity of ideas and pan-archy endorsed by national-anarchists (as well as various secessionist groups from Waco to the Black Panthers). This approach grants a freedom of mobility and advocates for a broad Geo-distributist approach even adopting elements of insurectioanry tactics of classical Marxists. A third way as I see it is a deconstruction of traditional forms of organization and has the potential to grant more people more options. Localism is also a key component standing firmly against neo-liberal “globalism” and “inter-nationalism” (*certainly not in the dog-whistling sense but much more in the vane of Kevin Carson and David Graeber). Not only does it encourage innovation and self sufficiency but allows people to explore multiple modes of revolutionary and post neo-liberal capitalist approaches to social organization.

Elitism: No this isn’t the social Darwinism of by-gone eras but a genuine meritocracy. Echoes of this can be found in everything from the writings of Novatore and Felipe to Emma Goldman (herself a great admirer of Nietzsche who blended his ideas of transcending the limits set on the individual by modern society with a genuine and pragmatic “feminism” focused on liberation and individual empowerment). This also applies to the various categories of identity and social constructs. An example, I owe no loyalty to “the working class” as a whole. Most in fact are devoid of ambition and have deep seated reactionary tendencies (the election of Trump is proof enough of that), but I side with them over mutual interest. What’s good for the working class is more often than not, good for me and my corner of the world as a whole. this, however doesn’t mean that I don’t care about preserving intellectual rigor, art high culture and individual merit sbove electing corrupt union bosses merely surviving a little better than before.

Identity Politics: I’ve spoken at length on this before. Mass social movements are much too easily subverted by the people both sides should hate the most and as a result, don’t get results. Few efforts are made beyond begging the state for minor concessions. I personally, find it very disheartening what happened to BLM. A robust movement laser focused on forcefully combating police brutality has devolved into a trendy marketing add for Ivy league SJW’s.

With all this being fleshed out. my only hope is that it may give others who are involved in radical circles (or on the fence) something to consider while looking at the big picture of being an anti-authoritarian.