I Hate Defending The Alt-Right

I am going to jump right into this, I do not like the alt-right. There, I said it. They hold dangerous views, and in my eyes they are some of the scariest statists. Some in the alt-right hold racism and misogyny up on a pedestal, and are entirely oblivious to the implications of the nationalist society they desire. It should make sense that as an anarchist I do not particularly care for this ideological cesspool of ignorance. Why would anyone find it necessary to defend them though?

Individual Liberty.

As an anarchist, my political ideology is driven by the desire for man to be unrestricted in what he says or does, as long as it does not infringe upon someone else’s freedom to do the very same. While the alt-right certainly has some (a lot of) troubling beliefs, they very rarely restrict others from exercising their own freedoms (with exception of that little charade with the HWNDU flag). The reasons I tolerate the alt-right are simple: They show promise on certain issues regarding freedoms (namely the second amendment), and they provide comedic relief to an otherwise depressing political landscape. Simply put, I don’t like their politics, but I tend not to mind them as people. What does this have to do with individual liberty though?

The Regressive Left.

A thorn in any rational person’s side, the regressive left commonly demonizes anyone who dares to provide opposition to their beliefs. Many who align with this branch of leftist politics will often call themselves anarchists. I can speak with some certainty that nobody on the far left is truly anarchist, they just see anarchy as a stepping stone to their Utopian communist society. Their beliefs are just as volatile if not more-so, than the alt-right. The difference between both groups is significant though. The alt-right allows dissenters to speak, and promptly retaliates by making memes or name-calling. The regressive left labels those who speak against them as fascists, and in response they attempt to silence the opposition. This stark contrast is why I can’t be bothered to defend the regressive left, but why defend the alt-right?

All voices should be allowed to speak, even if they shouldn’t be listened to.

I have the great privilege to have multiple platforms for my ideas, this website and a weekly podcast. Having the opportunity to reach a larger audience brings about an amazing feeling of responsibility coupled with fear. “What if the things I say don’t appeal to others? What if something I write has terrible consequences?” These are all valid concerns for any writer. The regressive left presents a new deluge of questions though. “What if someone attempts to hurt me or my family for writing something that someone disagrees with? What if I lose my job for holding an unpopular opinion?” These are terrible thoughts to have, bad nonetheless valid ones. The alt-right at the very least understands why speech is a protected form of expression even in our statist society, the regressive left doesn’t.

Put simply, I defend the alt-right because they have the right to talk about and share whatever ignorant views they hold. I will stop defending them when the regressive left stops attacking freedoms.

So I beg of you in the regressive left, stop making the alt-right victims so I can go back to verbally attacking both of you.

Pictured Above: The elusive an-cap writer when forced to defend people with an ideology he doesn’t like.

Antifa and Anarcho-Communism : An Open Letter and a Challenge of Godwin’s Law

Dear Antifa,
I hope this letter catches you well. My name is Karl, and I am a fellow Anarchist.
I had a few questions that I hoped you could address for me, if you have the time of course:

1. It is my understanding you are an Anarcho-Communist organization that opposes fascism. How does that work exactly? Are not those two things one in the same?
2. What is the difference between Anarcho-Communism and Communism?
3. You claim to be justified in assaulting individuals because they are Nazis, yet it seems everyone you disagree with is a Nazi. Is anything you justify OK? What is the limit?

Simply put, my questions are in jest. It has been made abundantly clear that cognitive dissonance is your gang’s main requirement to join (and those bad-ass uniforms.) Do not get me wrong though, I understand where you are coming from. You are a group consisting mostly of young artists, struggling in a country still recovering financially from war. I know you just want to cleanse society of those you feel are privileged and wealthy, and to rebuild our nation under a black and red flag. Communism is the perfect choice really, given that the last person who fit this description failed miserably (his mistake was taking a half measure by way of socialism.)

Here is a bit of advice though, from a fellow anarchist no less!
Stop infringing on people’s right to free speech, whether they are Nazis or not they are not infringing your rights by speaking.
Please read more on the economic implications of communism, there are some great articles on this very website that might help you grasp the subject.
If you insist on continuing as you are, please stop associating it with Anarchy but instead Communism.

Karl (not Marx)

Capitalism Fights The State for Clean Energy

Solar Panels harvest the energy of Capitalism.

Without government the corporations will pollute the world. 

The mere thought of a stateless society terrifies some. The reason isn’t roads, utilities, or even emergency services. These people are terrified that without the state, industry would pollute the earth to a point that it is unlivable.

Through 2014 and into 2015 NV Energy imposed fees and rate-pay caps on people who had installed solar panels on their homes and businesses in Nevada. 1 I am not arguing that NV Energy should not be able to do this, nor am I saying I approve of it. NV Energy is a state enforced monopoly, as most utility companies are. With that they are immune to the capitalistic sway of competition. Their customers rely on their government representation to negotiate their grievances with the company. The only form of competition they experience is contract negotiations. This system is flawed, but most accept it.

Enter the trusty Nevada residents who want to leave the grid. The solar regulations imposed on them after they had already invested a substantial amount of capital into clean energy via the free market (with government subsidy in some cases) are placing them in financial ruin. People chose the free market to relieve them of the economic burden of a state-mandated utility monopoly, and are now unable to get a return on investment. My first thought was “why don’t they just cancel their services with NV Energy?” but then I recalled an interesting story in Florida of a hippie woman trying to live off the grid. 2 Her story is anecdotal but brings us to our point. The residents of NV who wish to cut off their access to the power grid must pay hefty cancellation fees, and pass through state inspections that determine whether their energy supply meets code.

You might be asking yourself, what if you go off the grid without the fees and inspections. The answer is simple, the utilities keep sending you bills after they cut off your power from the grid. You will soon find a sheet of paper on your home declaring it unfit for habitation. Police will escort you out of your own property. Why? Because for one reason or another you chose clean and affordable energy for your home and with that independence you took money from the state and the businesses they saw fit to empower. This is unethical, and entirely symptomatic of a state-capitalist society. Next time a self proclaimed socialist tells you that the free market will pollute the earth, remind them that socialism is polluting Nevada.


  1. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/may/25/nv-energy-fights-rooftop-solar-cutting-into-profit/
  2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-10/off-the-grid-in-florida-robin-speronis-fights-municipal-code