The Fascist Anarchist Trap

I have written a lot about anarchism. I have, as of writing this piece, forty half-hour episodes discussing these topics on my own and six-teen one hour long episodes with Joe. All together that is 36 hours of me rambling about economics, statism, and voluntaryism. I have been writing about anarchism here on this blog since June of 2014. One thing (and I know exactly why that is) that I have neglected is that of the rights fascism. I say I know why that is because I originally came from the right and still hold some of those views the right holds (or at least pretend they hold). I think this is why you don’t hear about leftists becoming anarcho-capitalists. This philosophical position is much easier to achieve as a neo-conservative as there are more things in common with them than with the left. This creates a danger that I see myself and other voluntaryists slipping into.

As a prime example, look at Christopher Cantwell and his hateful spiral into supporting Trump and calling for fascism. All the while he has maintained that he is a consistent anarchist and libertarian.

It wasn’t too long ago that Cantwell was on the Tom Woods Show discussing “libertarian pretenders”.1 The problem is that his venom was reserved for people on the left only. It is clear from comments like these that he has failed to completely rid himself of statism. He still has it tainting his philosophy and it is leading him down some dark paths that inevitably lead to fascism. His concern for America and the hints of nationalist pride and patriotism invariably make someone like Trump seem more attractive to him because, as I said, anarcho-capitalists get along better with the right than the left. Anarcho-Capitalists are also too easily swayed by “outsiders” in the political arena. Anarchists like myself find ourselves intrigued by people that are “contrarian” in nature and speak their mind, even if it is wrong. This is the danger though, because there are some, even giants within the movement, that fall prey to this trait we find attractive.

It is why someone like Stefan Molyneux and Christopher Cantwell seem to have man crushes on people like Trump. Like them, Trump speaks his mind, so these giants in the field of spreading liberty fall for him. It’s interesting to note how someone like Stefan has started to side with police on many occasions in his videos as well as talk about immigration and race. I will be honest, I find many of the things he has said compelling. It is true that IQ is not equal among races, or at least that many researchers believe this to be so. There are genetic differences with peoples IQ and brains when one compares them by ethnicity.2,3 Now I am not going to just say “That’s RACIST!” because that is not an argument against these things. Instead, I will say that I don’t think Stef is looking at the whole picture. High IQ does not mean high intelligence. Intelligence quotient tests are important. They take a snapshot of someone’s reasoning and problem solving skills through testing their mathematical and linguistic skills. They do not test for creativity, curiosity, or willingness to learn.4 This is important because it is often those traits coupled with problem solving skills that dictate success in a person’s life.

I have noticed this trend for a while and I have watched myself fall into it many times. Anarcho-Capitalists have an elitist problem. It’s why someone like Molyneux puts IQ on a pedestal and it’s why someone like Cantwell is willing to accept a dictatorship if it means eliminating all liberals. It is why Molyneux is willing to tie race so heavily to IQ (which I have done as well because it can explain some things, though not all). It’s interesting to note these genetic changes in IQ in different racial groups. The Mayan’s, the ancestors of many Latinos of which I am a member of (and have a lower average IQ compared to other fairer skinned races), stumbled upon the number zero independently of the Babylonians and other cultures in the far east.5 Not only that but they created complex calendars and their own written language. They mapped planets and the movement of celestial bodies as well. Stef likes to talk about epigenetics so is it possible that the genes within races for higher IQ have been hard to identify because they are tied to epigenetics as well (even though no “genes” have been identified as indicators of higher IQ)?6 “The term epigenetics refers to heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that does not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence; a change in phenotype without a change in genotype.” Stef is eager to accept this epigentic theory when it comes to r/K selection in humans, why not IQ then? Perhaps Hispanics have lower IQs than Japanese people because both have experienced different external factors causing certain genes and traits to go active or inactive because they are not needed for survival at the moment. I could be completely wrong in this, I am not a scientist in the least. But it could explain the data someone like Molyneux puts forth (if that data is actually factual and not conjectural).

Why am I talking about elitism and IQ? Because Molyneux and Cantwell also have very statist positions on immigration and often use IQ as a metric for denying foreigners entry into western culture on the basis that a lower IQ means a higher chance of voting democrat and for welfare state policies. This, they say, is the foreign alien using aggression against you and your children.8 This seems plausible and principled on the surface if all you care about is the surface. It isn’t principled because, like the leftist side Cantwell and Molyneux abhor, the “keep them out” rhetoric relies on using government to do so. That position seems rather statist to me. Likewise, letting people in on the taxpayer dime is also very statist. I advocate for neither side. As a principled anarchist, I care very little for the “pragmatic” answers given by these people that require initiating violence on others. Cantwell and Molyneux are concerned with culturally alien brown people entering western society and voting democrat in order to receive welfare benefits and rape white women. What they seem to ignore is that using government to keep them out relies on taxation just as much as letting them in. It isn’t free to build walls like Trump. It isn’t free to pay people to patrol them. Their pragmatism requires initiating against their neighbors in order to pay for such government policies. Of course, I have never heard either of them address this problem head on.

By denying people entrance by coercing and stealing from your neighbor, you are no better than the liberal progressive. You are also punishing people on maybes. Maybe this person will enter the country and vote for Bernie Sanders, maybe not. Maybe that Mexican immigrant will rape an old white woman, maybe not. You cannot punish people on what they might do and you cannot be supportive or even complacent about the government doing so unless you are fine with the government punishing you on what you might do.

The point I am trying to make here is something that has to do with the purity of the voluntaryist ideology and Trump. Trump is a fascist of the right wing ideology. His “Make America Great Again” nonsense as well as his blaming of economic woes on minorities is very much in parallel with a certain historical figure from Germany from around the 1930’s and 40’s. The problem arises in the voluntaryist realm when the conservative nature of the philosophy is tempted by right wing fascism and rhetoric. Because anarcho-capitalists share more with conservatives than with liberals, they view statist conservatives in a far less harsher light than their liberal counterparts. This means that some almost view neo-conservatives as allies and this is when the door to right wing fascist statism starts to open. That is when someone like Trump start’s to seem plausible and that is when anarchists cease being anarchists.

Trump is a dangerous man and people like Cantwell and Molyneux may be enchanted by the dark side, but that doesn’t mean you and I need to fall too. We are not “conservatives” really. We are believers in a voluntary and peaceful society. It only takes five minutes to listen to Trump or any other candidate and understand that “voluntary” and “peaceful” have no place in their vocabulary. In the Road to Serfdom, Hayek warns “Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.”9 Yes, as voluntaryists we have some things in common with both the left and the right, but that doesn’t mean we should be like them. Humans have a 50% similarity in DNA with bananas.10 Does that mean we should start peeling people’s skin back and eating them? No. Any similarities between an anarchist/voluntaryist and a conservative or liberal is surface at best. They are statists, we are not. The other 50% in DNA is what makes us human and not bananas. It’s the non-aggression principle that makes us voluntaryists and not statists. Stick by your principles and don’t be swayed by the statism tugging at the back of your mind.









9. “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *