Friday, 21 October 2016


In Memory of Muammar al-Qadhafi

by Sean Jobst
October 20, 2016

On this day five years ago, 20th October 2011, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi was brutally murdered by a fanatical mob of Wahhabi barbarians, who were armed and financed by the governments and intelligence agencies of the U.S., Israel, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in a phony "revolution" financed by the "Open Society" networks of billionaire financier George Soros through the phony "humanitarian" interventionism of "Avaaz", along with the Zionist-Neocon Bernard Henri-Levy. And this slaughter under the guise of "human rights" was eagerly pushed by the Obama Administration and Clinton's State Department, complete with cheerleaders from both political parties and including even oligarchs as varied as Trump. Mercenaries were found from among extremist Wahhabis and backed by the different branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, to form this new phony army of "revolutionaries". Even Russia, Iran and Hezbollah were complicit in the bombing of Libya and the overthrow of Qadhafi.

Why was Qadhafi overthrown and murdered? Because under his reign Libya was absolutely Debt-Free. He kept the vast gold resources of Libya within Libya, not making the same mistake as other countries in handing it over to private international banks in New York or Geneva where they quickly "disappear". The international bankers had absolutely no control over the economy of debt-free Libya, and its a telling fact that the first act of the rebels in their new state in Benghazi was to establish a central bank open up to private banking interests for a looters' free-for-all. After his death, the previous prosperity of Libya sunk into a new state where feuding warlords and fanatic religious extremist gangs run the show, where the women rights guaranteed and protected by Qadhafi are now in full decline, where tribal and ethnic minorities are once again being persecuted.

Qadhafi was overthrown and murdered because he was harnessing the water resources deep under the desert into a monumental project called the Man-Made River. This was itself a model for the "Third World," but another was his efforts to institute a debt-free, commodity-based currency across all of Africa. This was a threat to the control of the IMF, World Bank and Multi-National-Corporations, whose control is based on crippling entire nations with the compound-interest loans, and looting the natural resources - including even something as basic as water - through "privatization" which is a primary condition of these loans, themselves sold to these nations through the false euphemism "development."

Geopolitically, he was able to deconstruct the same political events in this world that look one way on the outside, but when you truly examine them you see a very different reality. He was able to see the financial interests and globalist think-tanks orchestrating so many of these phony "revolutions" and rebellions. The world is now facing the consequences, as it was the same rebel groups backed against him in Libya, that were soon after sent and turned against Syria, and these formed the nucleus of ISIS. He walked in that Arab League hall and spoke truth after the hanging of Saddam Hussein, telling other Arab leaders they would be next, only to be laughed at by those without his foresight.

And Europe itself is facing the consequences of the bombings against Libya, with the current Zionist/Globalist-engineered migration crisis into Europe, itself the stated goal of certain anti-European, mostly-Jewish social-engineers for the Kalergi Plan, combined with the results and blowback of the Neocon/Neoliberal bombings and invasions of countries across the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia. His murder caused many of the Africans living in Libya to flee for their lives, as the Wahhabi and tribalist mobs were whipped up into an anti-Black racism that even led them to murder indigenous blacks of Fezzan. He knew that Globalism ultimately wants to destroy and eradicate all cultures and ethnicities into some global state where we are all reduced to economic identities with some vague consumer/debt-based monoculture.

No politicians are completely free from excesses, but one thing that is very clear is under him Libya was a very prosperous country. Education, health, literacy, personal income - all of Libya's high standards were beacons not only for Africa but for the entire "Third World." Women had so many rights and their rights protected by Qadhafi. In his character, he was far more humble, accessible and honorable than all the gangs of political and media criminals who slandered him. As a political philosopher, he had much wisdom about the Global system and parliamentary politics. The world made a huge mistake and a crime when it overthrew and allowed the mob to brutalize and murder Muammar al-Qadhafi like barbarians. Justice is ultimately served and everyone will answer for their crimes.

"The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments." - Muammar al-Qadhafi (1942-2011)


Thought on the Bush E-mails
by Sean Jobst
October 14, 2016

I should preface this by first saying this doesn't excuse Hillary Clinton's own email issue, but it does show the hypocrisy of those who attack her primarily for that and not the issues themselves (like I do), knowing that their boy Donald Trump and their entire movement is just as complicit as the Democrats in the actual substance of the emails - what they reveal in policies - and not merely in the act itself, which is as much a distraction as the carefully-calculated recent release of the 2005 "lewd" Trump tape. The way the media frames these issues are carefully-calculated distractions, meant to polarize the two sides of the system to their respective cults (and it IS the "lesser of two evils" cult no matter how partisans on each side may try to justify their support for one over the other) while distracting minds away from the real issues.

There is a pattern here between ALL these administrations. Its actually a continuity, because if we go back to political science the State and its bureaucracy remains the same - only the outer facade called "government" is interchangeable. There are certain financial and Big Business interests which are the real power behind the throne, no matter if they choose a Democratic or Republican puppet, or a Hillary or Trump this year. I'll save more details about that side of the story for future posts. As for the emails....

The emails which have leaked out from Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department reveal much deeper than the Benghazi attacks which Trump cultists and fellow-travellers like to get bogged down into. No, what they reveal is that both sides are complicit and he is just as much as she is - they are both complicit in the foreign policies that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, in the rise of Daesh (ISIS) and the blind subservience towards Israel....they are both complicit in the domestic banking policies which have further delivered up our country - just as other countries have likewise been bought and sold - to the international financiers and Big Multinational/Special Interests.

I could only wish the Bush emails were likewise exposed, but if I had to take a guess I'd say they reveal where the trillions of dollars that went up missing from the Pentagon before 9/11 went; how the Neoconservatives were already implementing broad warmongering plans going back to the Oded Yinon Plan and the Clean Break document they previously wrote on behalf of their true master, Benjamin Netanyahu - the blood and treasure of American "goyim" and the blood of Iraqi and other "goyim" being of no concern at all to the Neocons; and I'd say they reveal the shift in policy called "The Redirection" of 2006/2007, whose results we are clearly seeing in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and other countries right now.

Just like the Hillary Clinton emails reveal such facts that we, who are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists," "isolationists," or even much worse than that (for example, "anti-Semites") were saying all along: That the Obama administration, Hillary State Department, and the complicit politicians on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and House of Representatives, were illegally arming, training and financing the rebel groups in Syria (including ones that have since openly linked up with ISIS), on behalf of a pro-Israel agenda of overthrowing the Syrian government and isolating Israel's enemies of Iran and Hezbollah. THIS was and is the main driving force behind the Western governments' meddling in Syria - it goes back to the Oded Yinon and Clean Break plans which BOTH called for the destabilization and ultimate division of Iraq and Syria so that Israel can then expand its control and influence over the region.

And the emails that have been released by WikiLeaks also reveal how Hillary Clinton was using her office in the State Department on behalf of her Big Business friends from Boeing and Raytheon, to ensure they were able to sell fighter jets and other weapons to Saudi Arabia which have now been used to slaughter thousands of Yemenis in that country's barbaric war against an impoverished yet culturally and architecturally-rich country. And the emails that have been released by WikiLeaks likewise reveal the extent to which her own campaign raised and grew the spectre of Donald Trump in this staged political charade.

And before Trump fans and Republicans agree with my attack on Clinton like their own side is saintly, let me point out Trump has likewise been slavishly pro-Israel (with a record as such going back WAY before he was even running for President), he was an eager supporter of the wars in both Iraq and Libya - and so just as complicit in the current situation with ISIS - and has his own Wall Street financiers and oligarch friends I can likewise name, complete with the exhaustive sources of everything I write and expose.

Finally, as an aside - while I attack the financial interests and their puppet politicians and their murderous policies over the government in my own country - I will say that likewise Russia and Vladimir Putin is not innocent or bloodless either, with their own history of imperialistic policies and false-flag attacks, and that WikiLeaks has its own political agenda that isn't always consistently devoted to the truth (why does it never expose Israeli leaders, for example?). Nevertheless, I will say that NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden whom BOTH Hillary and Trump have pledged to prosecute or even kill, is a HERO for exposing what the U.S. government does that we the people are not privy to, and that it is the politicians who are guilty of treason and not Snowden.


The Oligarchy's Staged Hillary/Trump Charade
by Sean Jobst
October 12, 2016

WikiLeaks recently uncovered an email from April 2015, which seems to expose how the Donald Trump phenomenon was actually much promoted by Hillary Clinton. "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously," wrote Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta.

Specifically naming Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson as the three "Pied Piper" candidates, Podesta also wrote: "In this scenario, we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party."

This information is significant for two reasons, both examples of the staged charade called the two-party presidential election: First, those who are Trump supporters and like to pretend their candidate is somehow "anti-Establishment" and "persecuted" by the media, when it was the media that promoted him and gave him all this publicity in the first place. Second, those who are Hillary supporters because they are more offended by Trump's words than Hillary's actual policies, should realize the Trump spectre was largely created by their own presidential campaign to begin with. Both groups who buy into  "lesser of two evils" should realize they're ALL being played for fools in this entire charade staged by the Oligarchy.

Anyone familiar with Public Relations would know that any publicity is ultimately good publicity. This may sound strange except for those who recognize just how the game IS staged. The masses are polarized into two competing factions, obviously controlled by the same financial and special interests at the top (i.e. the intersecting power-elites of Zionism/AIPAC, Wall Street/international banking houses, the Military-Industrial-Complex, Globalist secret societies, and their neocon/neoliberal think-tank fronts).

Its no accident that Public Relations really took off when corporations hired Edward Bernays, nephew of the famous psychologist Sigmund Freud. PR is psychology, and the strategies created by presidential campaigns are no exception. Neither is anything which the mainstream media "reports" on or covers; ALL is calculated and staged for certain ends, intended to set up the discourse to which one or the other side react in different ways.

The majority of the mainstream media clearly prefers Hillary Clinton, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean they really fear Trump, whom they frame as the "opposition." The entire discourse which has been framed by the MSM is one of two "choices", around which the people are conditioned to rally around either because they like one or they hate or fear the other.

The Trump campaign has been made by the MSM, simply because it compelled him out of nowhere in politics and gave him 24/7 media coverage as the mirror to Hillary. Controlling the discourse, they then make carefully-calculated and timed attacks of Trump so those on that side can then rally more around their "anti-establishment" candidate, even though they wouldn't even know of his "opposition" to the "establishment" which is Hillary except from what they're even told by the MSM discouse in the first place.

Donald Trump is only too happy to play along, as he laid out in his book, The Art of the Deal: "One thing I've learned about the press is they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational, the better. It's in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you. I've always done things a little differently. I don't mind controversy, and my deals tend to be somewhat ambitious. The result is that the press has always wanted to write about me."

Behind the scenes, while their groups of followers and fans may fight and argue against each other, the likes of Trump and the Clintons are actually quite close with each other - laughing it up in their oligarchic cackles at the naivete of the masses who keep falling for the very same game every four years, and then wonder why things keep getting worse and the status quo remains the same. As it relates to these two political clowns, the record is there for anyone with a mind and common-sense:

In 1999, President Bill Clinton appointed Donald Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, to a U.S. Court of Appeals. The Clintons were honored guests at Trump's wedding to Melania on his Palm Beach, Florida compound in 2005. According to The Clinton Foundation's own records, Donald Trump has donated at least $100,000 to this non-profit he now attacks; he also has donated to Hillary's senate and presidential campaigns. (<>)

In 2008, Trump told CNN: "Hillary's a great friend of mine. Her husband is a great friend of mine. They're fantastic people. She's a very nice woman, and he's a very nice guy." (<>)

Trump wrote in a blog post on his "TrumpUniversity" site, dated March 13, 2008: "I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great President or Vice-President." He followed this up with an October 2013 interview on the Larry King show: "I know her very well. They're members of my club, and I like both of them very much, and he was with you one time and he said he likes me. And I do like him." (<>).

This is in addition to the "friendly" telephone conversation between Trump and Bill Clinton in May 2015, just weeks before he announced his run for the presidency. (<>)

In addition, Trump shares many of the same corrupt links to Bill Clinton, which reveal some about the entire game and the REAL powers behind the thrones, links that include the infamous NYC real-estate mogul Larry Silverstein (<>)(<>) and convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein (<>).


"Make Oligarchy Great Again": Donald Trump's Zionist Oligarchs
by Sean Jobst
October 7, 2016

Trump himself is an oligarch - and it has nothing to do with being "rich" or whatever. Oligarchy goes deeper than that. He is financed by a number of oligarchs and financiers: the likes of the Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who has funded his super PACS to the tune of over $100 million. The CEO of his campaign is the former Goldman Sachs banker Stephen Bannon (also a leading light of the controlled-opposition Alt-Right movement).

His economic advisors include the ruthless "corporate raider" Carl Icahn, named among "the world's 50 richest Jews" by the Jerusalem Post, who Trump has already said would be appointed Treasury Secretary. And they include the ruthless banker and apartment slum lord Steven Mnuchin, who worked at Goldman Sachs for 17 years and, as head of the Soros-controlled OneWest Bank, stole millions from people he cruelly threw out on the street because their ends' meet wasn't enough to satisfy his greed.

His team of economic advisors also include John Paulson, CFR member and former hedge-fund manager who made billions speculating on the housing market; Stephen Calk, founder of the Federal Savings Bank who previously worked for Chase Manhattan Corp. and the infamous Bank of America; Wilbur Ross, the billionaire who spent 25 years running Rothschild Inc's bankruptcy practice; and Steve Feinberg, co-founder and CEO of the hedge fund Cerberus Capital Management, L.P..

Another Trump backer is the billionaire Stewart Rehr, who made his fortune in Big Pharma and who is the 183rd richest man in America. And they also include Bennett LeBow, who made a fortune off a luxury hotel deal in the Ukraine with close connections to Jewish mobster Vadim Rabinovich and with his business partner being Ronald Lauder, who was simultaneously heir of the cosmetics company Estee Lauder, U.S ambassador to Austria and president of the World Jewish Congress.

As for the Neocons, then they have split. While Robert Kagan, Max Boot and Victoria Nuland have been close foreign policy advisors to Hillary Clinton, including during her time in the State Department, Trump has earned the endorsement of the "father of Neoconservatism," co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) Norman Podhoretz. Other Neocons are among Trump's foreign policy advisors: Joseph Schmitz, former Blackwater executive and fellow at the Centre for Security Policy, the rabidly Zionist think-tank funded by war-profiteers Raytheon and Lockheed Martin; and Joseph Keith Kellogg, former Chief Operating Officer (COO) at the war-profiteering Oracle Company and COO of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq from 2003 to 2004.


Divide and Rule
by Sean Jobst
October 7, 2016

The truth about this election, as with every other election, is that two parties controlled by the very same financial interests, ultimately serving the very same agenda with only the minor details differing, pick their respective puppets for the American people to "vote" on, so that they can continue to have the illusion of "choice." The media creates a spectacle, distracting us with non-issues while giving both puppets a platform. This polarizes the people into "right" and "left", so that each side can attack the other for the very same things that their candidate does. Lest the people begin to wake up, they are inundated with the latest distractions and bombarded with soundbytes and preselected images/stories 24/7.

The truth is neither of the Republican or Democratic candidates represent any of you, the people. They represent Zionist special interests and the Wall Street/international financiers. Each side has their own favored oligarchs. These financiers funnel millions into the PACs representing both candidates, by this way getting around U.S. election laws. These politicians are nothing but whores of the worst kind, selling themselves out to the highest bidder because the State (different from "government", which is merely the interchangeable outer trappings) is nothing but the political service industry of the Big Banks.

Their system is one of profits for the big bankers, and debt for the masses. In return for their blood money donations, the politicians then ensure that the status quo remains the same for the financiers. To finance their own operations, the State borrows from these private bankers to make money out of nothing. Then they pass along the debt to the masses, creating this fiction of a "national" debt when you, me and none of us aren't party to any of their agreements. Yet we're supposed to play their games and pretend they have our "consent"?!

Monday, 26 September 2016


I have been forced to take action over a problem that has been fermenting for some time and must inform National-Anarchist supporters that NATA-NY is no longer part of the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM). When Craig FitzGerald became involved with us several years ago, he wanted to (a) get rid of the hyphen in 'National-Anarchism', and (b) take a non-racial approach. This was not in line with N-AM principles, of course, but in the spirit of unity and having respect for the work being done in New York, I tolerated it. In fact I ended up defending NATA when Josh Bates tried to cause problems and divide us back in 2015. I am perfectly happy, therefore, for people to adhere to the N-AM if they do not share our beliefs about Race, but what I will not tolerate is people trying to change the N-AM itself or distort our views. As some of you already know, Craig was recently involved in a discussion about the so-called 'Alt-Right' on his timeline and insinuated that "scary anarchists" were part of it. At one point, somebody called Jack Neison wrote to say "there are no anarchists who are part of the alt-right." Craig replied by saying "wrong, ATS, & NAM etc are both associated with Alt right." Steven Saragian later appeared on Craig's thread and said "I have seen Troy Southgate and others distancing the NAM from the alt right." Saragian is correct. Despite our mutual opposition to Leftism and political correctness, the N-AM has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Alt-Right'. Indeed, when the N-AM Manifesto was written the 'Alt-Right' did not even exist and we have always made it perfectly clear that we stand beyond Left and Right altogether. Not simply the Left and Right of the Centre, but the Extreme Left and Extreme Right. Over the last few months, NATA members have become increasingly more involved with the Right, but instead of bringing people from that side over to our way of thinking, through entryism, NATA itself is being subsumed into the Right and gradually moving away from National-Anarchism. Let's be perfectly honest: if you support Trump or any other statist - regardless if the other politicians seem worse or you are sick to death of the drones on the Left, as we all are - then you cannot possibly be N-AM. This is basic common sense. We are neither Right nor Left and will not be pigeon-holed to suit the Kosher-Nationalist agenda. Commenting on the N-AM group's 'burkini-on-the-beach' thread in early-September, meanwhile, Craig said to me that "our anti Zionist efforts over the years have done more for Islam than any crying about this lady will ever do." I was disappointed by this statement. Not simply because I care very little about the woman herself, but due to the fact that I was clearly defending the wider principles of identity and personal liberty. My reasons for opposing the actions of the police, therefore, are quite different to those people on the Left and I am surprised that wasn't obvious from my accompanying comments. Meanwhile, what Craig said about anti-Zionism sounds like something your average Zionist would say. I have never actively worked for the Islamic religion in my life, in fact whilst I oppose ISIS with a vengeance many of the victims of Zionism happen to be non-Muslim and it would be completely ridiculous to ignore it on account of being unable to contain one's anger at economic migrants who, themselves, are mere consequences of capitalism. Craig also referred to a "Muslim take over". That simply isn't happening and the banks, corporations and mass media are controlled by Organised Jewry, not Muslims. In conclusion, the N-AM and NATA have now gone their own separate ways. We have a clearly-defined Manifesto and that is what attracts people to the Movement in the first place. It's the first port of call. Once people cease to honour the Manifesto or try to include us within someone else's analysis of what constitutes a political umbrella group, then the situation obviously becomes untenable. I bear no ill-will towards Craig, Gabriel or anyone else from NATA and write this with a heavy heart. Unfortunately, however, all the time they are unable to see that every politician is working for the Zionist system and willingly accept the terminological parameters set by others then it seems there is very little basis for a working relationship and their actions are undermining what we are attempting to achieve. As I said, working alongside the N-AM is one thing, but telling people we are 'Alt-Right' or actively promoting the likes of Trump and Putin sends out a completely wrong message and is unacceptable for those of us who reject the Right as much as the Left. ~ Troy Southgate

Wednesday, 31 August 2016


Over the last few years, National-Anarchists have built up a good following on the internet and we now have a strong presence and a principled reputation. We also have some very good activists around the world who have taken part in demonstrations, propaganda exercises, regional meetings and cultural events. However, now that thousands of people have joined our Facebook groups and read about our ideas and activities, perhaps even joining in the discussion, it is now time for some of you to think about ways that you can help promote the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) in your own areas. We need people who are prepared to act as regional contact points, to start up co-operatives and box-vegetable schemes, invent alternative currencies and black markets, run home-schooling networks and form music projects, establish regular study groups and poetry clubs, and begin self-defence and survivalist groups. It is time to take things to the next level and to do that we need YOUR help. If you want to turn ideas into reality, then please get in touch.

Friday, 26 August 2016

DEATH IN JUNE - Last Europa Tour 2016

DEATH IN JUNE - Last Europa Tour 2016











13.X.2016 - ROME, ITALY @ CUBE



Sunday, 29 November 2015

RADIO INTERVIEW: Josie the Outlaw - Anarchism: Speaking Out Against Tyranny

Josie the Outlaw is an anarchist, activist and promoter of the ideas of voluntarism, self-ownership and a stateless society. Her YouTube videos have reached more than 200,000 viewers in just a month. Her philosophy states that "Living outside the confines of unjust laws is necessary to living a just life." We'll discuss her work partnership with Larken Rose, their current project and the rise of true anarchism across the globe. She explains her philosophy of being an outlaw. We also question why there are so few outspoken female anarchists. Other topics we discuss include law, taxes, gun control and police brutality. As an anarchist, she shares her approach to mandatory licenses, insurance and permits. Josie explains why it is our duty to speak out against tyranny. We'll also discuss the ridiculous notion of the "greater good" and the rise of socialism. Only a stateless society is logically or morally compatible with non-aggression, self-ownership and voluntaryism because government is always coercive and violent.

RADIO INTERVIEW: Attie Schutte - Post-Apartheid South Africa & Afrikaner Self Determination

Attie Schutte is an Afrikaner blogger and political activist who lives and works in Johannesburg, South Africa. His interest varies from self-sufficient localism and Ethno-Nationalism to Austrian economics and the various schools of Anarchism. He’s a member of the Orania Movement. We’ll discuss never spoken of events in South Africa that concern colonialism, Apartheid and post-Apartheid life. Attie also shares some history of early Europeans in South Africa. What is life like in South Africa’s “rainbow nation” How is the White minority treated in South Africa Attie tells about violence against White South Africans and why the media doesn’t report it. We’ll discuss healthy segregation verses government intervention and how government is always a force behind genocide. Attie speaks against government policy involving discrimination and race based conflicts. Government always creates more problems. We’ll talk about one Afrikaner self determined community called Orania that refuses to be part of South Africa’s “rainbow nation” and how they’re labeled racists for propagating Afrikaner culture in solitude. Orania is the only hope of survival for the Afrikaners wanting their own government, in their own territory. We talk about the healthy aspect of separate homelands for every ethnic group and how it can bring the most amount of peace. Later, we discuss the current colonization of Europe, the failure of democracy and the idea of Free Market Nationalism.

SEE ALSO: Reggie Yates: Extreme South Africa - White Slums (S01E01)

RADIO INTERVIEW: Cody Wilson - 3D Printed Guns, PC Hacktivism & Cultural Terrorism

Cody Rutledge Wilson, a student of law, political philosophy, and social theory, is a USA crypto and free-market anarchist. He is best known as a founder/director of Defense Distributed, a non-profit organization that develops and publishes open source gun designs, so-called "Wiki Weapons," suitable for 3D printing. USA Carry named Wilson one of America's "30 Influential Pro-Gun Rights Advocates," and Wired Magazine's "Danger Room" has named him one of "The 15 Most Dangerous People in the World." 

Cody speaks of his conservative southern Christian upbringing and what brought the power of anarchy to his awareness. He explains his impetus for creating the world’s first 3D printable gun and the State Department static he has encountered since making the plans available on the worldwide web. Cody touches on the filament modeling process and the printing of bullets, and we talk about these schematics getting into the wrong hands. We also consider the European migrant invasion that is bringing with it firearms into unarmed countries. Then, we discuss the potential for anarchism to embrace primordial traditionalism in breaking from hegemonic modernity. We get into the changing demographics of the US and what a majority minority means for politics in the country. Cody talks about how certain forms of new technology are being suppressed by the SJW political system and likens this conformist catering to an outgrowth of the Cold War. We discuss hacktivism, alternative payment processing, and the obstacles in separating from the capitalist banking system. Later, Cody gives his take on Trump, who he calls the “avatar of anti-politics,” and he shares what it’s like to live in the racially realistic south as neo-liberals fight to whitewash Confederate history and eradicate southern culture.


RADIO INTERVIEW: Keith Preston - 21st Century Anarchism: Anarcho - Pluralism, Radical Localism & Effective Resistance

Keith Preston received a B.A. in Religious Studies and an M.A. in History with additional graduate study in Sociology and Criminology. He is a former instructor of sociology, a former regional delegate for the Industrial Workers of the World and a former member of the National Committee of the Workers Solidarity Alliance. He is the founder and director of American Revolutionary Vanguard and the chief editor of He is also the host of the "Attack the System" online podcast series. We’ll discuss what Keith calls Anarcho-Pluralism and Pan-Secessionism. He’ll talk about the core strategic efforts for the pan-anarchist movement. The idea is to work to abolish the central state and give every political interest group its own territory to create whatever kind of society it wishes. How do we go about dissolving the state? What are the methodologies for practical implementation of anarchism? What are the problems perceived in the mainstream of the anarchist milieu? How has mainstream Libertarianism failed? Keith explains how various types of anarchists can work together to crush the state and become an effective resistance. He will explain the real threat currently facing anarchism: totalitarian humanists, liberal humanism, progressive imperialism, cultural authoritarianism, tolerance of repression and political correctness have waged war on freedom. We speak more on how “radical localism” is the best possible method of avoiding tyrannies and abuses of Leviathan states. Anti-statism sentiments in America are becoming the norm. Will 21st century anarchists succeed in their efforts, or are we destined for tyranny?

RADIO INTERVIEW: Craig Fitzgerald - NATA & Multicultural Madness

Craig Fitzgerald is one of the founders of the National Anarchist Tribal Alliance of NewYork. We’ll discuss the national anarchist movement and how it can be a solution to the problems we’re facing. We’ll discuss what a nation is and how it has nothing to do with government. As multiculturalism is being forced onto the west, we’ll talk about the madness of mass immigration, cultural genocide and the government’s involvement. Who is out to destroy western civilization? Craig elaborates on the culture wars and talks about radicalized extremists out to destabilize Europe. In the days of diversity being pushed down our throats, we’ll talk about how true diversity comes with de-centralization and voluntaryism. We’ll talk about the need for Europeans to move beyond the eastern Abrahamic religions and find their true heritage and roots found in Europe. Craig presents the idea of forming local communities and sovereign enclaves with like minded people to combat globalization, homogenization and government tyranny. Later, we talk about government infiltration of White nationalist groups. We’ll also talk about the violence and hypocrisy of Antifa, a collective of militant so called anti-fascists. We’ll end the hour on suppressed American history and megalithic sites that are hardly spoken about.  

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Anarchism: Its Rational Basis

Anarchism, far from being irrational and naively optimistic, may be our only hope.

Mikhail Bakunin, the founder of modern anarchism, though unsystematic, was a most prescient thinker.

Long before Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek Bakunin warned that no “group of intellectuals no matter how great their genius” could “understand the plethora of interests, attitudes and activities” needed to centrally plan and administer the rational allocation of preferences in a modern industrial economy.

The anarchist origin of this critique of central planning is just about universally ignored precisely because its neoliberal variant, which is crucial to the legitimacy of contemporary economic policy, claims a monopoly on rationality and efficiency.

It is often said that anarchism is an irrational way in which to organise a modern industrial society, and this argument is presented by serious minded critics as the most forceful against anarchist arrangements.

Anarchism is a doctrine for the warm hearted romantic, not the hard headed rationalist, we are told by those who possess the cynicism of the sophisticated.

One of the more well known dismissals of the “naive optimism” of anarchist thought and practice, that due to James Joll, observed that “mass production and consumption and large scale industry under a centralised direction, whether capitalist or socialist, have, whatever one may think about them, become the characteristic forms of western society and of the newly emergent industrial countries elsewhere.”

Anarchism swims against the tide for “the basic assumptions of anarchism are all contrary to the development of large scale industry and of mass production and consumption” so “for this reason, much anarchist thinking seemed to be based on a romantic, backward looking vision of an idealised past society of artisans and peasants, and on a total rejection of the realities of twentieth century social and economic organisation.”

The argument is an intriguing one for it presupposes that there is a necessary correlation between rationality and centralised modes of economic and political organisation, and the only defence offered for this presupposition is that is how matters are currently arranged.

The mere existence of centralised modes of organisation imply their rationality.

The reality, and necessity, of centralised modes of organisation is one of the charges that some Marxists continue to make against anarchist thought. Certainly Marxists would not disagree with Joll regarding present realities for, as related in The Communist Manifesto, capitalism “has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization.”

Marxists, crucially for our present purposes, have tended to argue that this centralisation is an historical stage that civilisation must traverse for the advent of production for surplus, and its underlying productive basis, make communism possible in a modern setting.

One of the reasons why the Bolsheviks ruled via the iron hand of the state was because they sought to amass capital, especially at the expense of the peasantry, so that Soviet society could pass through this necessary stage of industrial development upon the road to communism.

One may accuse Lenin and Stalin of many a thing but surely “naive optimism” be not one of them.
The last thirty to thirty five years has witnessed a one sided class war waged against the working classes by the corporate elites and the states to which they are tightly connected.

This attack on the population, dressed in the garb of neoliberal theory, has to no small degree been justified on grounds of rationality and efficiency. From “free trade” to labour market deregulation the market has been unleashed for the mantra has it that the market can ensure the rational production, allocation and distribution of resources. Behind the scenes, in the meanwhile, corporations derive benefit from state tutelage whilst the working classes are subject to its disciplining rigours.

A key argument made by neoliberals, following on from the socialist calculation debate, is that market based societies alone are rational or efficient allocators of resources because of their highly decentralised nature. The panoply of buyers and sellers operating in markets incorporate all available information needed to ensure the rational allocation of preferences. That information is reflected in market prices.

The most graphic, and most intellectually bankrupt, application of this doctrine is the efficient market hypothesis which asserts that capital market prices incorporate all available information regarding future capital earnings. This means that market prices are rational and based on economic fundamentals, rather than manias, irrational exuberance and the like. Given that it is via capital markets that investment is made in capitalist society there exists a strong tendency toward the rationality of investment and the allocation of capital.

The link drawn here, intriguingly, was one between rationality and decentralisation, yet it is the decentralised aspect to anarchism that makes it “naive optimism.”

The reality of financial market instability, most especially the manic driven cycles of boom and bust, demonstrate that capital market prices cannot be reflective of the rational processing of all available information regarding future earnings. This fact is of no small moment as the Chernobyl scale meltdown of financial markets and the resulting misallocation of capital sits at the core of the global financial crisis.

We all know that investors and speculators spend a great deal of time hunting for information prior to taking a position in capital markets. If capital market prices incorporated all available information such activity would not be necessary so the fact that it occurs, and that upon a large scale, suggests that markets in fact are quite inefficient.

The purported rationality of markets, despite the grim reality, is neither utopian nor naively optimistic. To the contrary, neoliberal policy making continues to frame our age.

A centrally planned economy cannot possibly incorporate all available information, the neoliberals told us, and we are told that only they told us, for the central apparatus of the state cannot possibly possess the information needed to ensure a rational allocation of goods and services.

Mikhail Bor, a Soviet central planner, observed in the 1960s that “the planned organisation of the economy in the USSR allows for the rational use of labour in the interest of the whole of society.” Similar sentiments applied to other sectors of the economy.The expectation was raised that advances in mathematical modelling, made by possible by supercomputing, linear programming and cybernetics, would make central planning yet more rational.

Such be a species of “naive optimism.” But one of no small moment as the travails of the Soviet economy were used to buttress the case made for the rationality of markets in the advanced industrial societies. The failure of Soviet central planning added impetus to the next, post cold war, phase of the neoliberal offensive on society. Alternative critiques, to the extent even addressed, could be dismissed as naïve optimism.

Ours is a society dominated by large corporations whose highly hierarchical and centralised systems of management plan the production, allocation, and distribution of goods and services. As Alfred Chandler observed “in many sectors of the economy the visible hand of management replaced what Adam Smith referred to as the invisible hand of market forces.”

It should be stressed that these visible hands are quite centralised and hierarchical. Ours is an economy composed of strategic alliances between connected islands of centralised economic and political power.

Interestingly Chandler argued that in the domain of consumption market dynamics still apply, but even here one must be cautious. The vast public relations industry, through highly crafted propaganda, plays a very important role in shaping the pattern of consumption, and this is done from cradle to grave twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Information asymmetries are endemic to corporate dominated societies for there is much that the visible hand of management knows that other hands do not. When there exist asymmetries in the possession of power so there must exist asymmetries in the possession of information. When asymmetries of information exist within markets then the misallocation of resources follows, and so we get, often colossal, market failure.

Markets have the tendency to encourage the central agglomeration of capital as they evolve with respect to time so this is an inherent tendency to any market based society.

Anarchism, at least its traditional left wing variants of anarchist communism and anarchosyndicalism, is a vision of a modern industrial society that is highly decentralised.

The vision is of a society that consists of a decentralised federation of worker owned and managed enterprises and that, for anarchist communists, distributes and remunerates production upon the basis of need.

The planning decisions of these enterprises would account for the production, distribution and allocation of resources.

These enterprises would be non hierarchical and non authoritarian. That is, their management would be based on principles of participatory democracy so therefore all economic agents would be managers involved in the framing of economic decisions. There would, thereby, exist a robust degree of equality among the participants of such an economic order.

One of the main arguments for democracy is epistemological. Democracy, unlike other systems of governance, has epistemic virtue for when all participate in the framing of decisions it is possible through free and equal deliberation to incorporate all the accessible information needed for a relatively rational allocation of preferences.

There is nothing inherent to economic governance that renders less force to this argument as when applied to the political domain.

A decentralised federation of worker owned and managed industries would be best at incorporating all accessible information needed for a relatively efficient production, distribution and allocation of resources because it would be thoroughly democratic. That is not to suggest that such a society would be a rationalist heaven in some absolutist Laplacian sense for such a society would be required to confront the pervasive effects of uncertainty like any other.

So we might say that of Marxist centralised systems of planning, corporate dominated society, free market nirvana, none would be more rational than anarchism for none is nearly as participatory.

Feel free to call this naïve optimism if you like. To paraphrase Princess Leia, it's our only hope.

What Is Anarchism All About?

Whenever public protests ignite into violent behaviour, the mainstream media are often quick to refer to “anarchy” and to “anarchists”. Those who are referred to as anarchists are protesters who burn tyres or engage in battles with the police. In this narrative, anarchists are lawless hooligans and anarchy is about chaos and pointless violence.

The latest example is the Million Mask March in London on November 5. This event was indeed organised by a number of anarchist groups – and there were limited outbreaks of violence – but the equation of chaos and violence with anarchism is about as productive as the equation of circles with squares. It is a crude and bizarre misrepresentation.

What is anarchism anyway? It is a radical and revolutionary political philosophy and political economy. While there are many definitions and many anarchisms, most would agree to the definition formulated by PeterKropotkin. This definition is in an article which Kropotkin was invited to write for the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

According to Kropotkin, anarchism: “is a name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government – harmony in such a society being obtained, not by the submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being.”

Free society of free individuals

Let’s unpack this a bit. The etymology of the term traces back to the Greek word “anarkhia”, which means “without rulers” or “without authority”. It stands for the absence of domination, hierarchy and power over others.

Anarchism is a process whereby authority and domination is being replaced with non-hierarchical, horizontal structures, with voluntary associations between human beings. It is a form of social organisation with a set of key principles, such as self-organisation, voluntary association, freedom, autonomy, solidarity, direct democracy, egalitarianism and mutual aid.

Based on these principles and values, anarchism rejects both a capitalist economy and a nation state that is governed by means of a representative democracy. It is a utopian project that aspires to combine the best parts of liberalism with the best parts of communism.

At its heart is a mix of the liberal emphasis on individual freedom and the communist emphasis on an equal society. I particularly like the definition of Cindy Milstein about anarchism being a “free society of free individuals”.

Long history

The political philosophy of anarchisms emerged in the mid-19th century – as part of the thought of Enlightenment. Key anarchist thinkers include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William Godwin, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and Max Stirner. Proudhon is credited as the first self-proclaimed anarchist and is often seen as the founder of classic anarchist thinking. In particular, he developed the concept of spontaneous order in society, where organisations can emerge without central or top-down coordination.

In fact, Godwin developed his anarchist theory half a century earlier – without ever using the term. His writings are a profound critique of the state and its structural violence, arguing that the state and its government has a bad influence on society in that it produces unwanted dependency. He has also pointed out that law and legislation is created by the rich and powerful. Sound familiar?

However, it is also important to emphasise that most anarchist principles, convictions and moral positions are not at all an invention of modern anarchist theory – they are as old as human civilisation. And due to the rather different political philosophies of liberalism and communism, anarchist theory – like most political ideologies – is not a consistent and homogeneous concept. It evolves as different people articulate its core ideologies in different ways.

We can at least distinguish between two rather different schools: social anarchism and libertarian anarchism (or free market anarchism). While social anarchism puts emphasis on society and often supports a political economy that socialises the means of production, libertarian anarchism is mostly concerned with ensuring the maximum amount of liberty for the individual. Here, the will of the individual is considered to be more important even than a harmonious and egalitarian society.

Anarchism and activism

Over the past two decades or so, anarchist practice has enjoyed a significant revival. This is particularly visible in new social movements that have been influenced by anarchist forms of organisation with horizontal structures and non-representative decision-making processes.

Anarchist forms of resistance have also largely informed the alter-globalisation movement – which believes in the benefits of global thinking but rejects economic globalisation. The 1999 battle of Seattle was perhaps the first moment of a reinvigorated anarchism. It has been followed my many other movements and forms of resistance such as Reclaim the StreetsEuroMayDay, various environmental movements, and more recently the Occupy movement and the hacktivist group Anonymous. And they are having quite an impact. One could easily argue that anarchist forms of resistance are now outperforming the more socialist and hierarchical forms of resistance.

Oscar Wilde, a libertarian anarchist, is widely associated with the following bonmot: “The problem with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings.”

An anarchist world?

But questions must be raised about the feasibility of anarchist practice. While anarchist organisation clearly can work on a local level, on the level of small communities and on a rural regional level (see the Zapatistamovement or large parts of Kurdish rural regions) the jury is still out on whether anarchist social organisation can be embedded in large urban areas, or on a national or global level.

How can forms of direct democracy, such as the general assembly of the Occupy movement, be built and maintained in settings with large populations? At first glance, this seems rather unlikely. Then again, digital technologies might open up new possibilities for large-scale forms of anarchist organisation. Certainly, anarchism is on the rise.

Monday, 2 November 2015

So many people spend their lives doing jobs they think are unnecessary

David Graeber interview: ‘So many people spend their working lives doing jobs they think are unnecessary’

The anarchist author, coiner of the phrase ‘We are the 99%’, talks to Stuart Jeffries about ‘bullshit jobs’, our rule-bound lives and the importance of play.

A few years ago David Graeber’s mother had a series of strokes. Social workers advised him that, in order to pay for the home care she needed, he should apply for Medicaid, the US government health insurance programme for people on low incomes. So he did, only to be sucked into a vortex of form filling and humiliation familiar to anyone who’s ever been embroiled in bureaucratic procedures.

At one point, the application was held up because someone at the Department of Motor Vehicles had put down his given name as “Daid”; at another, because someone at Verizon had spelled his surname “Grueber”. Graeber made matters worse by printing his name on the line clearly marked “signature” on one of the forms. Steeped in Kafka, Catch-22 and David Foster Wallace’s The Pale King, Graeber was alive to all the hellish ironies of the situation but that didn’t make it any easier to bear. “We spend so much of our time filling in forms,” he says. “The average American waits six months of her life waiting for the lights to change. If so, how many years of our life do we spend doing paperwork?”

The matter became academic, because Graeber’s mother died before she got Medicaid. But the form-filling ordeal stayed with him. “Having spent much of my life leading a fairly bohemian existence, comparatively insulated from this sort of thing, I found myself asking: is this what ordinary life, for most people, is really like?” writes the 53-year-old professor of anthropology in his new book The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. “Running around feeling like an idiot all day? Being somehow put in a position where one actually does end up acting like an idiot?”

“I like to think I’m actually a smart person. Most people seem to agree with that,” Graeber says, in a restaurant near his London School of Economics office. “OK, I was emotionally distraught, but I was doing things that were really dumb. How did I not notice that the signature was on the wrong line? There’s something about being in that bureaucratic situation that encourages you to behave foolishly.”

But Graeber’s book doesn’t just present human idiocy in its bureaucratic form. Its main purpose is to free us from a rightwing misconception about bureaucracy. Ever since Ronald Reagan said: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”, it has been commonplace to assume that bureaucracy means government. Wrong, Graeber argues. “If you go to the Mac store and somebody says: ‘I’m sorry, it’s obvious that what needs to happen here is you need a new screen, but you’re still going to have to wait a week to speak to the expert’, you don’t say ‘Oh damn bureaucrats’, even though that’s what it is – classic bureaucratic procedure. We’ve been propagandised into believing that bureaucracy means civil servants. Capitalism isn’t supposed to create meaningless positions. The last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.”

[Left] Radical heritage … David Graeber

Graeber’s argument is similar to one he made in a 2013 article called “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs”, in which he argued that, in 1930, economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that by the end of the century technology would have advanced sufficiently that in countries such as the UK and the US we’d be on 15-hour weeks. “In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. Huge swaths of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they believe to be unnecessary. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.”

Which jobs are bullshit? “A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble. But it’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish.” He concedes that some might argue that his own work is meaningless. “There can be no objective measure of social value,” he says emolliently.

In The Utopia of Rules, Graeber goes further in his analysis of what went wrong. Technological advance was supposed to result in us teleporting to new planets, wasn’t it? He lists some of the other predicted technological wonders he’s disappointed don’t exist: flying cars, suspended animation, immortality drugs, androids, colonies on Mars. “Speaking as someone who was eight years old at the time of the Apollo moon landing, I have clear memories of calculating that I would be 39 years of age in the magic year 2000, and wondering what the world around me would be like. Did I honestly expect I would be living in a world of such wonders? Of course. Do I feel cheated now? Absolutely.”

But what happened between the Apollo moon landing and now? Graeber’s theory is that in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was mounting fear about a society of hippie proles with too much time on their hands. “The ruling class had a freak out about robots replacing all the workers. There was a general feeling that ‘My God, if it’s bad now with the hippies, imagine what it’ll be like if the entire working class becomes unemployed.’ You never know how conscious it was but decisions were made about research priorities.” Consider, he suggests, medicine and the life sciences since the late 1960s. “Cancer? No, that’s still here.” Instead, the most dramatic breakthroughs have been with drugs such as Ritalin, Zoloft and Prozac – all of which, Graeber writes, are “tailor-made, one might say, so that these new professional demands don’t drive us completely, dysfunctionally, crazy”.

His bullshit jobs argument could be taken as a counterblast to the hyper-capitalist dystopia argument wherein the robots take over and humans are busted down to an eternity of playing Minecraft. Summarising predictions in recent futurological literature, John Lanchester has written: “There’s capital, doing better than ever; the robots, doing all the work; and the great mass of humanity, doing not much but having fun playing with its gadgets.” Lanchester drew attention to a league table drawn up by two Oxford economists of 702 jobs that might be better done by robots: at number one (most safe) were recreational therapists; at 702 (least safe) were telemarketers. Anthropologists, Graeber might be pleased to know, came in at 39, so he needn’t start burnishing his resume just yet – he’s much safer than writers (123) and editors (140).

Graeber believes that since the 1970s there has been a shift from technologies based on realising alternative futures to investment technologies that favoured labour discipline and social control. Hence the internet. “The control is so ubiquitous that we don’t see it.” We don’t see, either, how the threat of violence underpins society, he claims. “The rarity with which the truncheons appear just helps to make violence harder to see,” he writes.

[Left] Occupy Wall Street protests in New York in 2011

In 2011, at New York’s Zuccotti Park, he became involved in Occupy Wall Street, which he describes as an “experiment in a post-bureaucratic society”. He was responsible for the slogan “We are the 99%”. “We wanted to demonstrate we could do all the services that social service providers do without endless bureaucracy. In fact at one point at Zuccotti Park there was a giant plastic garbage bag that had $800,000 in it. People kept giving us money but we weren’t going to put it in the bank. You have all these rules and regulations. And Occupy Wall Street can’t have a bank account. I always say the principle of direct action is the defiant insistence on acting as if one is already free.”

He quotes with approval the anarchist collective Crimethinc: “Putting yourself in new situations constantly is the only way to ensure that you make your decisions unencumbered by the nature of habit, law, custom or prejudice – and it’s up to you to create the situations.” Academia was, he muses, once a haven for oddballs – it was one of the reasons he went into it. “It was a place of refuge. Not any more. Now, if you can’t act a little like a professional executive, you can kiss goodbye to the idea of an academic career.”

Why is that so terrible? “It means we’re taking a very large percentage of the greatest creative talent in our society and telling them to go to hell … The eccentrics have been drummed out of all institutions.” Well, perhaps not all of them. “I am an offbeat person. I am one of those guys who wouldn’t be allowed in the academy these days.” Indeed, he claims to have been blackballed by the American academy and found refuge in Britain. In 2005, he went on a year’s sabbatical from Yale, “and did a lot of direct action and was in the media”. When he returned he was, he says, snubbed by colleagues and did not have his contract renewed. Why? Partly, he believes, because his countercultural activities were an embarrassment to Yale.

Born in 1961 to working-class Jewish parents in New York, Graeber had a radical heritage. His father, Kenneth, was a plate stripper who fought in the Spanish civil war, and his mother, Ruth, was a garment worker who played the lead role in Pins and Needles, a 1930s musical revue staged by the international Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.

Their son was calling himself an anarchist at the age of 16, but only got heavily involved in politics in 1999 when he became part of the protests against the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle. Later, while teaching at Yale, he joined the activists, artists and pranksters of the Direct Action Network in New York. Would he have got further at Yale if he hadn’t been an anarchist? “Maybe. I guess I had two strikes against me. One, I seemed to be enjoying my work too much. Plus I’m from the wrong class: I come from a working-class background.” The US’s loss is the UK’s gain: Graeber became a reader in anthropology at Goldsmiths, University of London, in 2008 and professor at the LSE two years ago.

His publications include Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004), in which he laid out his vision of how society might be organised on less alienating lines, and Direct Action: An Ethnography (2009), a study of the global justice movement. In 2013, he wrote his most popularly political book yet, The Democracy Project. “I wanted it to be called ‘As if We Were Already Free’,” he tells me. “And the publishers laughed at me – a subjunctive in the title!” But it was Debt: The First 5,000 Years, published in 2011, that made him famous and has drawn praise from the likes of Thomas Piketty and Russell Brand. Financial Times journalist and fellow anthropologist Gillian Tett argued that the book was “not just thought-provoking but exceedingly timely”, not least, no doubt, because in it Graeber called for a biblical-style “jubilee”, meaning a wiping out of sovereign and consumer debts.

At the end of The Utopia of Rules, Graeber distinguishes between play and games – the former involving free form creativity, the latter requiring participants to abide by rules. While there is pleasure in the latter (it is, to quote from the subtitle of the book, one of the secret joys of bureaucracy), it is the former that excites him as an antidote to our form filling red-taped society.

Just before he finishes his dinner, Graeber tells me about the new idea he’s toying with. “It’s about the play principle in nature. Usually, he argues, we project agency to nature insofar as there is some kind of economic interest. Hence, for instance, Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene. I begin to understand the idea better– it’s an anarchist theory of organisation starting with insects and animals and proceeding to humans. He is suggesting that, instead of being rule-following economic drones of capitalism, we are essentially playful. The most basic level of being is play rather than economics, fun rather than rules, goofing around rather than filling in forms. Graeber himself certainly seems to be having more fun than seems proper for a respected professor.