A member of the Anarcho-Capitalist reddit group, which I have been posting to for the past couple of weeks, made the following comment to me today in response to my Open Letter to Adam Kokesh:
“Why don’t you create a youtube channel / podcast and do this yourself? Adam’s approach seems to be working, why would he adopt the strategy of a blogger who can’t even get readers? Not trying to be rude, I’m just saying, his strategy is working and yours isn’t. If you think it can work, why don’t you do it yourself?”
Here is my reply:-
- – -
Good questions all.
1. There are already countless channels concerned with freedom and resistance, but one of the points that myself and Entito Sovrano have been making is that there is such a mass of material on the internet that it is a) saturated, b) overly-specialised, and c) NOT working as you claim. Freedom advocates are making videos and posting links about Obama’s personal history, about a Dr. Seuss version of Atlas Shrugged, and these things are not directly concerned with the mass proselytisation effort that needs to take place (more on that in a minute). Also, if you look through most of the internet’s pages that are supposedly there to spread the message, you can see that most are filled with fairly useless or puerile stuff. And this even before one considers…
2. The differences (variations) in the message. The freedom movement likes to use the terms resistance and libertarian without properly establishing what EXACTLY the problems are that need to be solved, the principles of resistance, and the bespoke, explicit methodology for solving them. The term ‘libertarian’ encompasses both minarchists – believers in ‘limited government’ – as well as some rather odd and difficult to understand people (I know, I was one, and I don’t understand what I was thinking): voluntaryists who think that they can achieve a ‘stateless society’ through supporting those running for state office. These differences will stop anyone who is compromising from achieving their objectives. This is practically certain, not to mention morally contemptible.
3. Since electoral politics is not the answer, nor any incoherent ‘movement’ that don’t know for sure what they’re fighting, how they’re fighting, or what they’re fighting for, this begs the question “What is the answer?”
I’ve made it clear that in my view, a mass proselytisation is the only way forward, organically growing support in voluntaryist principles until such a time as there are enough people to make an impact by means of a coordinated ‘strike’. This will take time, and it will take planning, and above all it will take principles that are not compromised for short-term gains in support (the kind of ‘support’ made up of how many people one gets to a rally or how many people ‘liked’ a link).
I also think this effort has to be predominantly OFFLINE. The more that the average Joe sees friendly, articulate, positive people in his community – inviting him to engage in open-ended and calm dialogue and outreach (rather than protest and the kind of ‘activism’ that Entito Sovrano so brilliantly demonstrates is counter-productive – the more chance voluntaryism has of becoming mainstream, and the faster too.
“But the formation of local discussion groups and ‘activist’ networks is something that has already happened!” I hear people object. Yes, but see my previous point about solid principles, methodology, and coherence.
Activism is out there. Principles are out there. Consensus is out there.
We need to put it all together.
I am willing to ‘do it myself’ in that I will contribute the entirety of my spare energy, but of course I simply cannot do it myself in that I just do my own thing separate from everything else that is going on – that would be yet another exercise in futility. I know that these ideas cannot go anywhere until people understand WHY it is that I am on these boards trying to wake them up to the futility of action without clear principles, sound methodology and REAL consensus, not some big tent compromise-fest.