Tag Archives: fascism

Another Open Letter to the Delusional Hierarch Mental Health Worker… Blah, Blah, Blah

“The more completely the place of confinement eliminates sensory stimuli, the more deeply will the [subject] be affected. Results produced after weeks or months of imprisonment in an ordinary cell may be duplicated in hours or days… An early effect of such an environment is anxiety… [Captors] can benefit from the subject’s anxiety… The deprivation of stimuli induces regression by depriving the subject’s mind of contact with an outer world and thus forcing it in on itself… in /the simple torture situation/ the contest is one between the individual and /his tormentor/…”
–/The KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual/, from the Central Intelligence Agency

Dear Mental Health Therapist(?),
In early October, I sent you a kite communication with a lengthy “Open Letter”  that was also posted at seanswain.org. I looked forward to your response but still haven’t received it. Also, since the open letter’s publication, you have stopped calling me out of the cell block to speak with me, and during rounds you say, “Mental health rounds, how are you doing?,” but by the time I respond, you are already down the range, out of earshot.
If I didn’t know better, I would almost think you are trying to avoid me. Continue reading

Neo-Fascists and the Death of Meaning

I recently transferred to the Ohio State Penitentiary, Ohio’s only super maximum security facility. I have been sent here not for any violative conduct but for merely communicating ideas and observations to the outside world. Those who tell the truth are terrorists

This situation provided me with a great deal of time to pace my cell and ponder the curious claims of my captors and in my ruminations I came upon some insight, I think, which applies not just to the specific war criminals who targeted me for my ideology, and not just the corrections control freaks who run the Ohio Department of Retribution and Corruption. I think I have discovered a general truth that applies to all of the hierarchy neofascists, particularly of the American variety; there is a psychological condition shared shared by all tyrants who assume the right to rule us.

In the beginning I assumed then to be liars. In my own circumstance, the neo- fascists consistently reinvented reality. Their descriptions of events were wholly false and inconsistent, their characterizations and conclusions irrational and incoherent. So,in my own laziness, I concluded that neofascists were simply dishonest, which is an easy conclusion to draw. Continue reading

On Fascism: One Anarchist’s Response to CrimethInc’s Podcast #11

In a recent podcast, CrimethInc presented a feature on fascism and anti-fascism.  In this feature, Clara presented that fascism “attempts to be a popular movement: which “advocates for strong centralized power in the state.” In this way, fascism “offers an authoritarian vision of society as a solution.” Clara also presented that another “core principle is nationalism,” and that this translates, often, into “hatred of the outsider.” Fascism is also “virulent” in its “opposition to communists, anarchist, and most other radicals.”

For the purposes of the podcast, this served as a good working definition, though a somewhat superficial one. What follows is my response, an effort to provide a fuller context and, hopefully, a much greater appreciation for the reasons that anarchists more than anyone recognize the danger that fascism truly represents.


Let’s start this off by talking about freedom. To approach this from a purely Anarchist perspective, I think that’s where we have to start, because ultimately freedom is the true point of conflict. As I think this will demonstrate, Anarchists more than anyone else are for freedom, and fascists more than anyone else are against freedom. And this, then, would explain why the struggle between Anarchists and fascists is such a bitter and important one. In fact, if freedom matters to you, then this ongoing battle is more important than anything else.

But before we get rolling too fast, before we get ahead of ourselves, I think we need to define “freedom.” If we don’t, we’re left with everyone thinking of freedom in a million different ways – in a world where we have something called “freedom fries,” no less – and that can only lead to confusion. So, for clarity, let’s define freedom. For that purpose, I would like to defer to Ward Churchill who has defined freedom as “the absence of external regulation.”

I think that’s a good definition. The more external regulation you have – the more someone or something else is telling you what to do – the less free you are; the less you have someone else telling you what to do, the more free you are. So, without getting into the questions of all the potential activities we either have or lack the freedom to engage in, we have a decent, working definition of what freedom is.

This is important, because everything else rests on this.

So now, imagine a continuum, a line. Often we see this in order to compare and contrast liberals, who occupy the left end of the line, with the conservative, who occupy the right end. But for our purposes, these “liberal-conservative” concepts are really irrelevant. We just want to borrow the line, the continuum.

At one end, let’s imagine freedom – absolute freedom. This is the total absence of external regulation – as free as it gets. Way down at the other end of the continuum, we have absolute non-freedom, which is the total and complete domination of external regulation. This would be the extreme of being controlled by someone or something else, 24 hours a day.

So we have our opposites, our points of reference, absolute freedom and the total absence of freedom, and all the points on the line between them would represent some interplay, some compromise, of varying degrees of freedom and regulation.

Now, having established that, what is another term for “external regulation”?  When we speak of someone or something that exercises authority to regulate us, the word we usually use is “government.” To regulate is to govern, and governing is conducted by a government.

This is important, because we turn back to our continuum and at one extreme end; we find absolute freedom, the complete absence of “external regulation.”  This extreme end, freedom, has no external regulation, no regulating, no governing – no government.

Absolute freedom, then, the absolute absence of external regulation, is absent the “external regulator” of government. This point on the extreme end of the continuum is the absence of government.

People who advocate such absolute freedom are labeled “Anarchists.” Everyone else in the entire spectrum of politics and social order advocates at least a minor amount of external regulation, a minor amount of imposition or individual freedom, a minor amount of “government.”

(A small side note here, but likely, most people if presented with the freedom to non-freedom continuum and asked what they believe to be ideal, would likely point to the Anarchist extreme of absolute freedom – particularly people in the U.S.  They would unhesitatingly point at absolute freedom even though most people, in reality, are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum ideologically. This is because we live in a culture that gives a lot of lip service to freedom while sliding ever further away from it. Keep in mind, the majority of the U.S. population also self-reported to believe in all ten of the Ten Commandments, but the average person could only name three of them…which would indicate that we’re working with a deeply irrational group of people who deeply believe in things they don’t know.)

Given this analytical framework, before we move on, it might be important to point out that everyone on the continuum, besides Anarchists, are Statists – that is, they believe in government. Also, everyone but Anarchists are defined by the degree to which they oppose absolute freedom.


In The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini,1 the Italian dictator wrote, “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State…”  For the fascist, “…all is comprised in the State and nothing spiritual or human exists – much less has any value – outside the State.”

Elsewhere he wrote, “The capital point of the Fascist doctrine is the conception of the State, its essence, the work to be accomplished, its
final aims. In the conception of Fascism, the State is absolute before which individuals and groups are relative.”2

And Giovanni Gentile, in the Philosophic Basis of Fascism, wrote, “The politic of Fascism revolves wholly about the concept of the national State…”3

Given these quotes, we can see that what distinguishes fascism as a political philosophy is its belief in the absolute transcendence of the State, of government, and simultaneously, the “anti-individualistic”  position that nothing human, i.e., individual freedom, exists. Thus, fascism occupies the opposite end of the freedom spectrum from Anarchism. It seeks to eliminate all human freedom and to subject all to the dictates of an all-powerful State – the perfect and absolute negation of all liberty, all individuality.  Nothing matters but the State.

It follows then, as a natural corollary, given that individual freedom is inimical to the State, that the State would seek, under fascism, to wipe out all individuality, all human distinction, all diversity. For the transcendent, fascist State, there can be only one perfect subject, the perfect “National Socialist Man,” as Hitler advertised and promoted him.4 With imposed homogenization, conformity, uniformity, anything “other” must be eliminated.

So, anyone religiously, politically, racially, artistically or sexually “other” than what the State has decreed to be optimum for the State’s interest, must be eliminated. Fascism, then, is a dream of a freedom less world of automatons marching in lockstep, surrendering all individuality in deference to the State.

Only Anarchists Can Oppose Fascism

If we return to the freedom-versus-non-freedom continuum, there are some rational conclusions we have to draw. First, we recognize that only the extreme position on the far end of the continuum advocates for absolute freedom, which is the absolute absence of external regulation, which is the complete absence of the State.

Every other position accepts some degree of regulation, of external control, of State intrusion. This means that every single political philosophy, with the exception of Anarchism,5 accepts the existence of the State and, on this point, every political position except for Anarchism is in agreement with fascism.

Viewed this way, the entirety of the political spectrum – from communists to social democrats to republicans – is really nothing more than a sliding scale of how many degrees removed from fascism each position is. One step removed from absolute fascism may represent the hard-liners of the Republican Party – a kind of “fascism light,” – with liberal democrats several steps removed, but still firmly in the throes of state-worship.

Thus, even communists and socialists share the same belief in the necessity of the State, but differ with the fascists only in the amount of power that should be invested in it. In the analogy of state worship, fascists sit in the first pew while the communists and socialists sit in the very back – but they all attend the same service. The only socio-political formations that do not bow to the fascists’ god are Anarchists.

As a consequence, only Anarchists can present a full and complete critique of fascism. This makes Anarchism particularly deadly to fascism and explains why, historically, fascists seek to eliminate Anarchists first and foremost.

The Fascist Threat

We can now turn to the reality that confronts us, which includes Nazi Skinheads wearing Swastikas and waving flags while marching through minority neighborhood. And, certainly, as Andrew from the New York City Anarchist Black Cross pointed out in the Crimethinc podcast, these elements cannot be ignored. But realistically, these misguided flag-wavers do not hold State power and given their outspoken advocacy for an ideology most would find at least troubling, this fringe will likely never attain State power.

The true fascist threat comes from those who do wield State power and implement policies and programs that are distinctively fascist in that they serve a transcendent State. While Barack Obama does not wear a Nazi uniform or march with the Hitler Youth, he does approve the vast invasion of the world’s telecommunications; he send drones to kill U.S. citizens abroad; he authorizes the detention of ideological enemies. In short, he serves a de facto fascist agenda, an agenda of extreme and absolute non-freedom thinly-disguised as a representative republic.

The State is central to fascism. If you want to defeat fascism, defeat the State.  Only Anarchists can do that.6

End Notes

1 Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, by selected members of the Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, 1952.

2 “The Value and Mission of the State,” Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 We have to imagine that the “National Socialist Woman” would also exist, though she isn’t mentioned.

5 By “Anarchist,” I mean anything that fits our definition of advocating absolute freedom and the complete absence of external regulation, whatever advocates of such a position may call themselves.

6 To clarify, anyone who designs to destroy the State and abolish it, whatever his or her politics would be, de facto, an Anarchist. Thus, only Anarchists can abolish the State, as only Anarchists would undertake to do so.

On The Morality of Killing Police

     I wrote to a friend of mine not too long ago and shared with her that I advocated the preemptive killing of police officers when I wrote, “The Fascists Have Already Lost.” She responded with some thoughtful observations, and what she wrote prompted me to consider that perhaps I should explain how I came to the conclusions I’ve drawn, particularly since I’ve taken such an irregular position. I also considered that if she might understand my position better if I showed my math, so to speak, then so might everyone else who has read my previous advocacy for cop-killing, so I may as well write this for publication.

      First, by way of background, some ideas I have already shared in previous work: Freedom and regulation are opposites. Freedom is the absence of external regulation, and vice-versa. The more free you are, the less regulated.

      Any external entity that regulates us, we call “government.” To regulate is to govern. Regulation, government, control, all the same thing. So, since governments work to regulate, to govern, governments can never be the source of freedom because, by their very nature, they work to oppose freedom. Recall, regulation is the opposite of freedom.

      Governments regulate, that is, oppose freedom, through force. Governments enforce their laws with hired security agents who use guns, billy-clubs, pepper spray, riot gear, Apache attack helicopters, and automatic rifles with NATO rounds to control-limit-govern-regulate your freedom.

      Another observation I’ve previously made, which flows naturally from the last one: “Force” is “violence.” Whether the play-yard bully actually punches you in the face to take your milk-money, and whether the police are actually employing the Apache attack helicopter they purchased with your tax money really doesn’t matter. The threat of violence is violence. The agents of force that the government employs to limit your freedom have an attack helicopter in the hangar just in case…and they load the automatic weapons, just in case. They are prepared to encircle your house and pump tear gas into your children’s bedroom.

      Because of the way we are programmed to respect authority, we overlook or excuse state violence, as though it isn’t violence. If we see strangers sneaking down our street with automatic weapons, we perceive them to be a danger—until we see they have badges affixed to their hips, and then suddenly strangers with inordinate fire-power seem cuddly and lovable. But this delusion aside, police are agents of violence employed by an organization that has as its central organizing principle the goal of limiting your freedom and keeping you in subjection to it, whatever the cost.

      Personally, I want to be free. I want to experience the absence of external regulation. This is not a mere “lifestyle choice,” like what fashions to wear or whether I drink Coke or Pepsi. This is far more substantial, in my view.

      Freedom means I have the practical ability to choose what I think is best for me. I can serve my own survival and reproduction—my primary biological programming—and serve my own best interests without intrusion into my affairs by hired thugs from some organized gang calling itself “authority.” If I am not afforded this practical ability, then I am compelled to compromise what is best for me and my family; I am forced to defer to some external authority and do what the authority wants. That means I am doing something less than what is best for me, and I am instead doing what is best for authority—which may not know me, may not care about me, and may not consider my best interests when it compels me to do what is best for it rather than what is best for me.

      Being the best-informed authority over my own needs, I don’t want to defer to strangers with automatic weapons and attack helicopters who compel me to act in a way that is best for them. I can’t call that “freedom.” I call that slavery.

      Those armed strangers stand between me and my freedom. Even under optimum conditions where I have never been confronted by them, they still reserve the right to impose upon me and intrude into my life if my judgment conflicts with theirs, and their ever-present potential for invading me makes me un-free. They stand between me and my freedom, but also stand between all of us and a future where we rule ourselves, a world without them, without their control and regulation of us. In this sense, police murder us every day. They murder the free people we would otherwise be without them. They murder the sustainable world we would otherwise build without this fascist system of mass-production and mass-destruction. This figurative murder of us all is in addition to the systematic and literal murder, largely of minority men, that occurs on a daily basis, from the gun barrels and batons of police.

      So when I advocate the killing of police officers, I am not advocating violence instead of peace. I’m advocating violence employed by the oppressed against the oppressor to counter the ever-present violence employed by the oppressor against the oppressed. Whether or not we react with violence, the situation is already violent. The choice is whether we meet the oppressor’s violence with violence of our own, or whether we permit them to unilaterally employ violence against us. By my thinking, it is pathological to allow someone to attack you, to invade you, and to reduce you and those you love. Self-respect and self-love demand that we react in a substantial and effective way. Pacifism, given our reality, is voluntary self-murder.

      Our choices are to submit to violence and remain enslaved, or to liberate ourselves through equal and opposite force. That is our reality whether we want to face it or not.

      We must also consider the impact of our inaction on others. If we choose not to engage in liberatory violence against those with attack helicopters, we do not simply opt-out on our own freedom—which is bad enough, in my assessment—but we also abandon loved-ones and the rest of the world, limiting their capacity to obtain their own liberation. We guarantee that the future will be worse, given the present trajectory of history. By refraining from liberatory violence, we tell the poor, the oceans, the rain forests, the salmon, and our grandchildren that they can chalk it.

      Inaction against tyranny is never moral. It is cowardice wrapped in the window-dressing of morality, which is the worst kind of cowardice.

      It is true that many police are probably very nice people with children and spouses, and that they are simply doing their jobs. The same could be said for the guards at Nazi concentration camps who did their jobs and nothing more, returning home to children and spouses. Many concentration camp guards despised the excesses of their co-workers and did what they could to assuage the cruel conditions imposed upon the captives. Perhaps that would entitle those guards to receive a medal of recognition before being summarily shot for committing crimes against humanity, while their co-workers would only deserve to be summarily shot; but their kindness as concentration camp guards in no way excuses their crimes against humanity.

      This is even more true in the case of police officers who are defending a sprawling system of mass destruction, who are maintaining the power of bankers and oil barons and sociopaths. They are agents to a system that has turned our planet into a concentration camp. By my thinking, the “good cop” should clean out his locker and stop serving forces inimical to freedom. If he does not, he isn’t a “good cop.” He is an agent of the fascist machine that diminishes us all. He is a willing and paid agent of the death camp.

      When we shoot them, it isn’t personal. We shoot them because they have refused to put down their arms. They have refused to abandon the attack helicopters and assault rifles. They have refused to join us in shaping a better future we would happily share with them without having fired a shot.

      The choice is theirs.

* * *

By ____ _____1