From Polcompball Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

"Putting it roughly, if all men are human, if all bipeds classifiable as homo sapiens are human beings, social harmony and a general progress in civilization will be far better brought about by methods of free agreement and voluntary association than by constraint."

Anarcho-Conservatism, or Conservative Anarchism, shortened to AnCon, is an ideology occupying a variable position in bottom 2 quadrants that advocates for a stateless society that upholds Traditional values and respects traditional hierarchies. They believe that conservative tenants should be so enforced on the society that the government doesn’t need to exist to enforce traditional values.


Religious Conservative Anarchism

The term 'conservative anarchism' has been used in regard to a number of Religious Anarchists who support conservative cultural doctrines and norms out of religious belief. The core of these types of thinkers have been Christian notably Catholic but also have included Jewish figures, it could theoretically include practically any religious doctrine.


See also: Jewish Anarchism

One of the earliest people the term has been used to refer to has been the pre-Mishnaic Jewish rabbinic sage Shemaiah,[2] who instructed in Avot 1:10 to 'Love work, loath mastery over others, and avoid intimacy with the government.'

Another Jewish anarcho-conservative figure includes the third century rabbi Gamaliel III[2] who instructed in Avot 2:3 to 'Be careful with the government, for they befriend a person only for their own needs. They appear to be friends when it is beneficial to them, but they do not stand by a person at the time of his distress.'


See also: Christian Anarchism

One of the first Christians to be regarded by some to be described as such is the spiritual leader and author Peter Chelcicky who influenced the Bohemian Reformation.[2] Chelcicky supported non-violence as a social principle and believed that '... he who obeys God needs no other authority.'[3] with the full quote being:

The Church, having lost the capacity for patience and long-suffering, has also lost God. Authority based on compulsion and the love of Christ are incompatible terms. The state sovereignty does not admit the possibility of standing under the moral judgment of God. But he who obeys God needs no other authority. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”[356] For the deeds of faith consist in loving God and one’s neighbor, and the fullness of the law is love; the secular authority cannot produce this love by its sword, but it descends from above from the Father of Lights into the hearts of good will to whom it is a delight to love God, to do His will, and to obey His commandments.

Peter Chelcicky, The Net of Faith (1443)

Chelcicky is also regarded as an early Christian Communist.[4]

Influenced by Chelcicky was the Russian Christian Pacifist Anarchist Leo Tolstoy[5] who is in turn also recognised by some as falling within the label of a conservative anarchist.[2]

In turn, influenced by Tolstoy was the Catholic journalist and activist Dorothy Day.[6]

In more modern times, one may cite the Anarcho-Capitalist and Paleolibertarian, Thomas E. Woods, who has writen on the influence of the Catholic Church in shaping western civilization[7] and a catholic defense of free market capitalism ,[8] as another example of Christian Conservative Anarchism.

Bourgeois Conservative Anarchism

The term 'Conservative Anarchism' has been employed to describe a set of views which combine the support of values commonly associated with the Bourgeois socio-economic class while also being sceptical towards the power of the state, favoring, but not limited to: private property, a strict work ethic and nuclear or nuclear-like family structures.

One of the first uses of the term with this definition in mind have been in the relation to the Classical Liberal thinker Herbert Spencer, with Russian marxist theorist Georgi Plekhanov calling him '... nothing but a conservative Anarchist' in his book Anarchism and Socialism.[9] With the full quote being:

The “father of Anarchy”, the “immortal” Proudhon, bitterly mocked at those people for whom the revolution consisted of acts of violence, the exchange of blows, the shedding of blood. The descendants of the “father”, the modern Anarchists, understand by revolution only this brutally childish method. Everything that is not violence is a betrayal of the cause, a foul compromise with “authority”. The sacred bourgeoisie does not know what to do against them. In the domain of theory they are absolutely impotent with regard to the Anarchists, who are their own “enfants terribles”. The bourgeoisie was the first to propagate the theory of “laissez faire”, of dishevelled individualism. Their most eminent philosopher of today, Herbert Spencer, is nothing but a conservative Anarchist.

Georgi Valentinovich Plekhanov, Anarchism and Socialism (1895)

The term was later used again in a similar sense to describe the Old Right Libertarian author Albert Jay Nock, who favoured a form of Philosophical Anarchism while also being a staunch supporter of Classical Liberalism, believing the so-called ' Liberalism' of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a betrayal of the doctrine. Nock was the first person to use the term ' libertarian' within a right-wing context.

One of the most well-known supporters of this type of Anarcho-Conservatism is the German economist of the Austrian school of economics, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. One of Hoppe's central points is that the 'traditional bourgeois family life' is one of the historically best and most prosperous lifestyles (as well as the best for the continual sustenance of a libertarian social order) which should be encouraged, especially via ostracism, employing covenant communities which may exclude those who violate common values.[10] Hoppe believes that the existance of this lifestyle allows the existance of other lifestyles and therefore 'deviants' should not be aggressive towards those who share the bourgeois lifestyle:

All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free. And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical family household of father, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bourgeois’ conduct and lifestyle — i.e., everything the Left disparages and maligns — that is the economically most successful model of social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumulation of capital goods (wealth) and the highest average standards of living? And isn’t it only on account of the great economic achievements of this minority of ‘victimizers’ that a steadily increasing number of ‘victims’ could be integrated and partake in the advantages of a worldwide network of the division of labour?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Getting Libertarianism Right (2018)

Tory Anarchism

'Tory Anarchism' was a term coined by George Orwell (The author of 1984) to describe his political ideology during much of the time he wrote for the literary journal New Adelphi. W.I.P.


Jean-Claude Michéa, born in 1950, is a retired philosophy professor and French philosopher, author of several essays devoted in particular to the thought and work of George Orwell. Libertarian socialist, he is known for his committed positions against the dominant currents of the left which, according to him, has lost all spirits of anti-capitalist struggle to make way for the “religion of progress”. Advocating several moral values near the socialism of George Orwell, Jean-Claude Michéa excoriates the leftist intelligentsia that has, in his view, gotten away from the proletarian and popular world. He champions collective moral values at odds with an increasingly individualistic and liberal world, which uses only the law and the economy to justify itself. He “considers that the liberal bourgeois models have prevailed upon socialism, in swallowing it up” and “regrets that socialism has accepted the political liberalism’s theories”


In his book 'The Youth, The Beats and The Right-Wing Anarchist' the Italian writer and esotericist Julius Evola establishes a dichotomy between The 'beat', a degenerate state of being in which one has limited control of the self and the 'right-wing anarchist', a person who embodies order within a chaotic state.

The term 'conservative anarchist' has been used self-descriptively by the Taiwanese software developer and Executive Yuan digital minister Audrey Tang. Tang describes Anarchism as the belief people should people cooperate voluntarily without the state coercion and preferably non-hierarchically and Conservatism as the belief that the various cultures within the Taiwanese society should be respected and preserved. Tang is also transgender and non-binary, being fine with people using whatever pronoun they see fit for them.[11][12]

The term 'Anarcho-Conservative' has been used self-descriptively by the English philosopher Stephen Richard Lyster Clark.[13] Clark is a supporter of animal rights and vegetarianism[14] as well as a writer for the U.K.-based Libertarian Alliance think tank which espouses Right-Wing Libertarianism.[15]

The Old Whig classical conservative thinker Edmund Burke wrote the satirical piece called A Vindication of Natural Society, which put forward the argument that criticisms of the church can be equally applied to the state and if one seeks the abolition of the church one should also seek the abolition of the state, despite being satirical the book inspired William Godwin in the creation of philosophical anarchism.[16] Additionally the economist Murray Rothbard accidentally mistook the contents of A Vindication of Natural Society as being sincere[17], if Rothbard were to be correct though that would make Edmund Burke an early example of an anarcho-conservative.

While largely made up of Trump supporters, the stormers of the U.S. Capital Building in 2021 have been described as ' anarchist' pejoratively.[18][19] One could take this type of arrangement as being more specifically 'Anarcho-Trumpism'. Trump's policies have also been criticised as 'anarchist' by the american brainlet journalist Neal Gabler.[20]

History [ 20 to 36 References]

Old Testament

Jacques Ellul, a French philosopher and Christian anarchist, notes that the final verse of the Book of Judges (Judges 21:25) states that there was no king in Israel and that "everyone did as they saw fit".[7][8][9] Subsequently, as recorded in the first Book of Samuel (1 Samuel 8) the people of Israel wanted a king "so as to be like other nations".[10][11] God declared that the people had rejected him as their king. He warned that a human king would lead to militarism, conscription and taxation, and that their pleas for mercy from the king's demands would go unanswered. Samuel passed on God's warning to the Israelites but they still demanded a king, and Saul became their ruler.[12][10] Much of the subsequent Old Testament chronicles the Israelites trying to live with this decision.[13]

Modern age

Anarchists will often be against the revolution precisely because they distrust political or military means, because they see the possibility of organising through the civil or economic means, and gradually letting the state wither. The subjugated English did not need to rebel against their Norman despots: they outlasted them, living in ways the Normans could not be bothered with, of trade and the common tongue. Perhaps it was a device the English had borrowed from the Welsh, the older British: why isn't Welsh a Romance language, like French or Spanish? Is it that the British were too deeply enslaved even to learn the Roman tongue, or is it that they waited the Romans out, and thereafter remembered only as a distant Emperor whom the British, in fantasy, defeated? The British do like to fantasise about empire, but the great mass of them are very ill-disposed to bother about running such a thing. The betrayed and dispossessed inhabitants of the American continent could similarly make no serious fight of it against a tyrant state, and had better keep their customs quietly and engage in private, economic means. All such anarchistically inclined peoples, in fact, are best called anarcho-conservatives.[14]

The Young England movement of the 1830s and ‘40s argued that the more feudal models of traditional aristocracy and land ownership within the framework of communities which are self-policing (i.e. each community is autonomous rather than imposed by the state) was the best path to liberty, rather than mainstream liberal models. In short, tory anarchists might have defended traditional and hereditary institutions like monarchy and aristocracy, but they had anarchist sympathies in the sense that they did not believe in a centralised, unitary government, and sometimes saw a reactionary counterrevolution as the only path to political success.[15]

The idea of a tory anarchist was first coined by Orwell to describe both Jonathan Swift and himself, and at its broadest it describes someone who is both a radical and a traditionalist. To be a Tory anarchist, then, is to embrace all manner of contradictions. It is a defence of good manners, good grammar, local customs and practices, respect for the individual and for privacy and an overwhelming hostility to the expanding power of the modern state. … Orwell saw Tory anarchism as a part of Britain's, mainly England's, rich social history, manifesting itself in particular figures at different times and places. These figures include not only Swift but Parson Bull, William Cobbett, Bishop Phillpotts and Richard Oastler.[16]

There’s not a tory anarchist tradition exactly, but the label has been applied, with good reason, to writers like Albert Jay Nock, Evelyn and Auberon Waugh, Mencken, Florence King, Dwight Macdonald, even Orwell and Max Beerbohm.[17]

Nock’s short-lived but provocative monthly provided perhaps the only intelligent and consistent critique of Fascism from the American Right. Unlike so many champions of “American individualism,” Nock was one of the few to see that Fascism posed a threat to free enterprise as great as that of Communism. Watching the Fascists maneuver to change Italy's electoral system, he observed that replacing majoritarian for plurality representation would only return the country to the authoritarianism of the Bourbon age. “The Fascisti are right, of course, when they say that democracy will not work in a great centralized State,” declared one of the last sincere Jeffersonians in America; “but does it follow of necessity that democracy must be sacrificed, in order that the State may survive? There is an alternative possibility which promises something better than a return to the tyranny of the past.” In another instance, when Judge Elbert Gary was quoted as having asked “whether we don’t think we need a man like Mussolini” in America, Nock concluded that businessmen secretly lusted after a powerful state in order to crush organized labor. “In Italy today political government fulfills its natural coercive function more frankly and directly than under the old fashioned parliamentary forms; and to Americans of a certain type the system may seem well worthy of emulation." Unfortunately other spokesmen for the intellectual Right lacked Nock's anarcho-conservative suspicion of the centralized state.[18]

Hoppe generally describes himself as libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, but I cannot see that he would reject the ultra-conservative label, or I certainly do not see how can do so consistently, since he prefers monarchy to democracy. That is he prefers rule by one hereditary individual to rule by a representative assembly, or by direct democracy, and clearly regards the global move from monarchy to democracy as regrettable. His explanation is that a hereditary ruler has a great interest in maintaining the state since it belongs to that ruler and the descendants of that ruler in perpetuity. The hereditary ruler’s interest in maintaining the state is certainly greater than that of elected politicians, as these politicians are temporary and have a greater interest in extracting resources from the state than in maintaining it’s long term existence.[19]

Let us explain what we mean by the term anarcho-conservatism . Readers familiar with Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty probably remember that Hayek discusses in his book two distinct types of liberalism: there is a continental brand of liberalism, which is concerned with positive freedoms; and there is an Anglo-saxon stream of liberalism, which is concerned with negative freedoms. Dietze's liberalism, like Hayek's liberalism, was concerned with negative freedom, which is the freedom from coercion, the freedom to say no. The anarchic component of Dietze's anarcho-conservatism derived from his commitment to negative freedom.

Anarcho-conservative quotes from notable authors[37 to 58 References]

Shmaayah (c. 100 BCE)

Shmaayah was a rabbinic sage in the early pre-Mishnaic era.

Love work, loath mastery over others, and avoid intimacy with the government.] (Avot 1:10)

Gamliel III (c. 177 – 225)

Gamliel III, son of Judah ha-Nasi the redactor of the Mishnah, and his successor as Nasi (patriarch).

Be careful with the government, for they befriend a person only for their own needs. They appear to be friends when it is beneficial to them, but they do not stand by a person at the time of his distress.[ (Avot 2:3)

Petr Chelčický (c. 1390 – c. 1460)

Petr Chelčický was a Christian and political author in 15th century Bohemia (now the Czech Republic).

He who obeys God needs no other authority.

Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910)

Leo Tolstoy was a Russian writer regarded as one of the greatest authors of all time, best known for his novels War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877), often cited as pinnacles of realist fiction.

Government is violence, Christianity is meekness, non-resistance, love. And, therefore, government cannot be Christian, and a man who wishes to be a Christian must not serve government.

For a Christian the oath of allegiance to any government whatever — the very act which is regarded as the foundation of the existence of a state — is a direct renunciation of Christianity. For the man who promises unconditional obedience in the future to laws, made or to be made, by that very promise is in the most, positive manner renouncing Christianity, which means obeying in every circumstance of life only the divine law of love he recognizes within him.

Christianity in its true sense puts an end to government. So it was understood at its very commencement; it was for that cause that Christ was crucified. So it has always been understood by people who were not under the necessity of justifying a Christian government. Only from the time that the heads of government assumed an external and nominal Christianity, men began to invent all the impossible, cunningly devised theories by means of which Christianity can be reconciled with government. But no honest and serious-minded man of our day can help seeing the incompatibility of true Christianity — the doctrine of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love — with government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars. The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility of recognizing government, but even destroys its very foundations.[26]

Christ says, "Do not resist evil." The sole object of courts of law is – to resist evil. Christ enjoins us to return good for evil. Courts of law return evil for evil. Christ says, "Make no distinction between the just and the unjust." Courts of law do nothing else. Christ says, "Forgive all. Forgive not once, not seven times, but forgive without end." "Love your enemies." "Do good to those who hate you." Courts of law do not forgive, but they punish; they do not do good, but evil, to those whom they call the enemies of society. So, the true sense of the doctrine is that Christ forbids all courts of law.

It would seem inevitable that we must repudiate one of the two, either Christianity with its love of God and one's neighbor, or the State with its armies and wars. Perhaps Christianity may be obsolete, and when choosing between the two — Christianity and love of the State and murder — the people of our time will conclude that the existence of the State and murder is more important than Christianity. Perhaps we must forgo Christianity and retain only what is important: the State and murder. That may be so — at least people may think and feel so. But in that case they should say so! They should openly admit that people in our time have ceased to believe in what the collective wisdom of mankind has said, and what is said by the Law of God they profess: have ceased to believe in what is written indelibly on the heart of each man, and must now believe only in what is ordered by various people who by accident or birth have happened to become emperors and kings, or by various intrigues and elections have become presidents or members of senates and parliaments — even if those orders include murder. That is what they ought to say! But it is impossible to say it; and yet one of these two things has to be said. If it is admitted that Christianity forbids murder, both armies and governments become impossible. And if it is admitted that government acknowledges the lawfulness of murder and denies Christianity, no one will wish to obey a government that exists merely by its power to kill.

David Lipscomb (1831–1917)

David Lipscomb was a religious minister, Christian pacifist, author and leader in the American Restoration Movement.

All the wars and strifes between tribes, races, nations, from the beginning until now, have been the result of man's effort to govern himself and the world, rather than to submit to the government of God. … God has always kept on earth a government of his own. … In Eden the government was direct, individual and personal. God spoke directly to man and gave specific commands to be obeyed. … Every one who honors and serves the human government and relies upon it, for good, more than he does upon the Divine government, worships and serves the creature more than he does the Creator. … Human government, the embodied effort of man to rule the world without God, ruled over by "the prince of this world," the devil. Its mission is to execute wrath and vengeance here on earth. Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. … It is the duty of the Christian to submit to the human government in its office and work and to seek its destruction only by spreading the religion of Christ and so converting men from service to the earthly government to service to the heavenly one, and so, too, by removing the necessity for its existence and work. No violence, no sword, no bitterness or wrath can he use. The spread of the peaceful principles of the Savior, will draw men out of the kingdoms of earth into the kingdom of God.

Heber Newton (1840 – 1914)

R. Heber Newton was a prominent American Episcopalian priest and writer.

Anarchism is in reality the ideal of political and social science, and also the ideal of religion. It is the ideal to which Jesus Christ looked forward. Christ founded no church, established no state, gave practically no laws, organized no government and set up no external authority, but he did seek to write on the hearts of men God's law and make them self-legislating.

Albert Jay Nock (1870 – 1945)

Albereeman and The Nation.

Everyone knows that the State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime that I spoke of a moment ago, and that it makes this monopoly as strict as it can. It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien. There is, for example, no human right, natural or Constitutional, that we have not seen nullified by the United States Government. Of all the crimes that are committed for gain or revenge, there is not one that we have not seen it commit — murder, mayhem, arson, robbery, fraud, criminal collusion and connivance.

Martin Niemöller (1892 – 1984)

Martin Niemöller was a German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor, best known for his widely-paraphrased statement "First they came…".

I began my political responsibility as an ultra-conservative. I wanted the Kaiser to come back; and now I am a revolutionary. I really mean that. If I live to be a hundred I shall maybe be an anarchist, for an anarchist wants to do without all government

Sayyid Qutb (1906 – 1966)

Sayyid Qutb was an Islamic theorist and leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. … The way to establish God's rule on earth is not that some consecrated people - the priests - be given the authority to rule, as was the case with the rule of the Church, nor that some spokesmen of God become rulers, as is the case in a 'theocracy'. To establish God's rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws. … This universal declaration of the freedom of man on the earth from every authority except that of God, and the declaration that sovereignty is God's alone and that He is the Lord of the universe, is not merely a theoretical, philosophical and passive proclamation. It is a positive, practical and dynamic message with a view to bringing about the implementation of the Shari'ah of God and actually freeing people from their servitude to other men to bring them into the service of God, the One without associates.

Ivan Illich (1926 – 2002)

Ivan Illich was a Roman Catholic priest, and critic of the institutions of modern Western culture, particularly compulsory mass education as in his 1971 groundbreaking book Deschooling Society.

Jesus was an anarchist savior. That's what the Gospels tell us.

Paul Weyrich (1942 – 2008)

Paul Weyrich was the co-founder of The Heritage Foundation, The Free Congress Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn’t mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn’t going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important. Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture. I would point out to you that the word "holy" means "set apart", and that it is not against our tradition to be, in fact, "set apart". You can look in the Old Testament, you can look at Christian history. You will see that there were times when those who had our beliefs were definitely in the minority and it was a band of hardy monks who preserved the culture while the surrounding society disintegrated.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe (b. 1949)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and founder and president of the Property and Freedom Society.

Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of “live and let live” should hold. Yet surely, while this “live and let live” sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this “live and let live” is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.

A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a “bad” neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a “Freudenhaus,” a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. …

The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention. There can be peaceful co-existence of different cultures on distant, physically separated territories, but multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a “strong man” and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order.

Daniel McCarthy

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age, director of the Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship Program at The Fund for American Studies, and former editor of The American Conservative (2010 – 2016).

Conservatism and anarchism share some historical background, as reactions against liberalism, and they share some critiques of liberalism.  It’s not that liberalism — broadly construed to include the “classical” variety in practice as well as the modern version — is the worst socio-political system imaginable.  The various totalitarianisms of the 20th century were far worse, and anarchists and conservatives alike have to be careful that in making a deep critique of liberalism they’re not opening the door to something far deadlier. But liberalism is not the end of history, and it’s not the final picture of justice. Under the guise of democracy and markets, and human rights, various kinds of powers and interests are able to run quite unchecked.()

Alexander Salter

Alexander Salter is Assistant Professor of Economics in the Rawls College of Business, and the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at Texas Tech University's Free Market Institute.

Embracing anarchy does not require conservatives to embrace violent revolution, or even civil disobedience. But for their own sake, as well as the sake of the civilization which they love, conservatives can and should deny the state’s legitimacy, on the grounds that it is destructive of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Affirming sovereignty in the hopes it may someday fall within conservative hands is a siren song that must be resisted.

Tripp York is a Mennonite writer who teaches religious studies at Virginia Wesleyan College in Norfolk, VA.

Christian anarchism is not a revolutionary politic for it denies the legitimacy of revolution. This is a call for something far more subversive than the replacing of one regime with another. Regime change has been the model of worldly power since its inception. Instead, Christian anarchism rejects the very presuppositions that make the idea of revolution, and, perhaps, even liberation itself, intelligible. Jesus is neither exemplified in Che Guevara or Simon the Zealot. He had no desire to destroy or replace the kingdoms that surrounded him with a different ruler; instead, he established a community of believers who developed and reside in the altera civitas on earth: the church.


Anarcho-Conservatism can be portrayed as a person who is disobedient but also cares about traditional and national culture. This puts him at odds with most of his anarchist family, but earns him friends such as Hoppeanism. Anarcho-Conservatism can also be portrayed as a person who supports violent methods in order to achieve a traditionalist society.

How to Draw

UK-inspired design

Flag of Anarcho-Conservatism
  1. Draw a ball,
  2. Draw a black line diagonally across the ball,
  3. Fill the bottom in black and the top in blue,
  4. Draw a white feather in the middle (not shown in flag),
  5. Add the eyes and you're done!
Color Name HEX RGB
Black #202020 32, 32, 32
Blue #01B8F1 1, 184, 241
White #FFFFFF 255, 255, 255

US-inspired design

Flag of Anarcho-Conservatism (Tory design)
  1. Draw a ball
  2. Draw a red diagonal line across it
  3. Color the bottom half red, and the top half blue
  4. In the blue, draw three, white and spaced out stars in a diagonal line
  5. Add the eyes and you're done!
Color Name HEX RGB
Blue #3F48CC 63, 72, 204
White #FFFFFF 255, 255, 255
Red #ED1C24 237, 28, 36

Tory Anarchism

  1. Draw a ball,
  2. Draw a black line diagonally across the ball,
  3. Fill the bottom in black and the top in red,
  4. Draw the symbol of the UK Conservative party in the middle in blue.
  5. Add the eyes and you're done!
Color Name HEX RGB
Black #202020 32, 32, 32
Red #FF0000 255, 0, 0
Blue #01B8F1 1, 184, 241




  • Authoritarian Conservatism - My fellow conservative brother, but statism, really?
  • Libertarian Feminism - You're not bad, but I do not like weed. And also you are against my values. So, no.
  • Anarcho-Capitalism - They're usually good but too often they value profit over traditional values.
  • Anarcho-Primitivism - Wayyy too far.
  • Anarcho-Naturism - Oh my! Could you please put on some clothes on brother?
  • Anarcha-Feminism - What do you mean statelessness is when no kitchen?
  • Right-Wing Populism - You're a fellow fighter against the authoritarian liberal elite? Based, but many of you are also authoritarian.
  • Korwinism - I agree with the idea that national and traditional values don't need authoritarianism to be enforced, but you should ditch the minarchy and.. really calm down.
  • Anarcho-Fascism - You definitely take things a bit too far brother.
  • Lys Noir - Anarchist monarchism is based, but you also take things a bit too far. Why do you idolize so many leftist movements? Not gonna lie, having my own cabin in the woods sounds comfy.


Further Information




  1. 1 2 3 4 Anarcho-conservatism on EverybodyWiki
  2. ↑ The Net of Faith, Chapter 26 by Peter Chelcicky
  3. ↑ Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation, p. 105-106 by Karl Kautsky
  4. ↑ The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Chapter 1, Leo Tolstoy
  5. ↑ From Union Square to Rome, Chapter 6 by Dorothy Day
  6. ↑ How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods.
  7. ↑ The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy by Thomas E. Woods.
  8. ↑ Anarchism and Socialism, Chapter 9 by Georgi Plekhanov
  9. ↑ Getting Libertarianism Right by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  10. ↑ The Anarchist Minister From the Future Who's Redefining Democracy by Asaf Ronel
  11. ↑ Audrey Tang on what it means to be a Conservative Anarchist by Hack Club
  12. ↑ Anarchists against the Revolution by Stephen R.L. Clark
  13. ↑ On the Side of Animals by the RSPCA
  14. ↑ Slaves and Citizens by Stephen R.L. Clark
  15. ↑ An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Chapter II, Notes by William Godwin
  16. ↑ Edmund Burke, Anarchist by Murray Rothbard.↵It's important to note that Rothbard's mistake came from the misunderstanding of the timescale of when the work had to be clarified to be satirical. Rothbard though it took 9 years for that to happen (when Burke's political career was beginning to start), but it in fact only took a year.
  17. ↑ Capitol was 'overrun by anarchists and terrorists': by Joshua Q. Nelson
  18. ↑ Tomi Lahren scolds Capitol rioters as 'anarchist animals': 'Have your damn minds?' by Yael Halon
  19. ↑ Forget Fascism, It's Anarchy We Have To Worry About by Neal Gabler
  20. Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre (2010). Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. Exeter: Imprint Academic. pp. 84–88. Old Testament Search this book on
  21. ↑ Ellul, Jacques (1988). Anarchy and Christianity. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 47–48. ISBN 9780802804952. Retrieved 2014-05-11. Search this book on
  22. ↑ - Passage Lookup: Judges 21:25: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
  23. Jump up to:
  24. 10.0 10.1 Ellul, Jacques (1988). Anarchy and Christianity. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 48. ISBN 9780802804952. Retrieved 2014-05-11. Search this book on
  25. ↑ "1 Samuel 8 (New International Version)". Bible Gateway. HarperCollins Christian Publishing. Retrieved 2014-05-12.
  26. ↑ "1 Samuel 9 (New International Version)". Bible Gateway. HarperCollins Christian Publishing. Retrieved 2014-05-11.
  27. ↑ Vernard Eller (1987). Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers. Wm. B. Eerdmans. Search this book on
  28. ↑ Clark, Stephen R. L.; Clark, Stephen R. L. (2002-01-04). The Political Animal: Biology, Ethics and Politics. Routledge. ISBN 9781134658602. Search this book on
  29. ↑ "Anarcho-conservatism – Is that even a thing?". The Burkean. 2017-10-01. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
  30. ↑ 1963-, Wilkin, Peter (2010). The strange case of Tory anarchism. Faringdon, Oxfordshire: Libri Pub. ISBN 9781907471100. OCLC 662410383. Search this book on
  31. Jump up to:
  32. 17.0 17.1 Kain, Erik (2011-01-03). "Tory Anarchism in America: An Interview with Daniel McCarthy - Ordinary Times". Ordinary Times. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
  33. ↑ Diggins, John Patrick (2015-03-08). Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400868063. Search this book on
  34. ↑ "Hoppe: Habermas's Anarcho-Conservative Student". Retrieved 2018-11-28.
  35. "Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter One". Retrieved 2018-12-08.
  36. ↑ "Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter Two". Retrieved 2018-12-08.
  37. ↑ Chelčický, Petr. Net of Faith. Search this book on
  38. ↑ Tolstoy, Leo. Letter to Dr. Eugen Heinrich Schmitt. Search this book on
  39. ↑ Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom of God is within you. Search this book on
  40. ↑ Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom of God is within you. Search this book on
  41. ↑ Tolstoy, Leo. What I Believe. Search this book on
  42. ↑ Tolstoy, Leo. Last Message to Mankind. Search this book on
  43. ↑ David Lipscomb (1913). Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It. Memorial University of Newfoundland Dr. Hans Rollmann. McQuiddy Printing, Nashville. Search this book on
  44. ↑ Schroeder, Theodore (1916). Free Speech for Radicals. Free Speech League. Search this book on
  45. ↑ Nock, Albert Jay (1956). On Doing the Right Thing. Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 9781610163781. Search this book onf
  46. ↑ Bentley, James (1984). Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984. Free Press. ISBN 9780029027301. Search this book on
  47. ↑ Quṭb, Sayyid (2010). Milestones. Kazi Publications Incorporated. ISBN 9780934905145. Search this book on
  48. ↑ "1988 The Educational enterprise in the Light of the Gospel". Retrieved 2018-12-20.
  49. ↑ "Free Congress Foundation Online ---". 2000-08-15. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
  50. ↑ "Libertarianism and the Alt-Right (Hoppe Speech, 2017)". The Ludwig von Mises Centre. 2017-10-19. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
  51. ↑ "Should Conservatism Seek to Destroy the State? ~ The Imaginative Conservative". The Imaginative Conservative. 2017-10-17. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
  52. ↑ York, Tripp (2009-04-23). Living on Hope While Living in Babylon: The Christian Anarchists of the 20th Century. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781498275040. Search this book on




  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Anarcho-conservatism on EverybodyWiki
  3. The Net of Faith, Chapter 26 by Peter Chelcicky
  4. Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation, p. 105-106 by Karl Kautsky
  5. The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Chapter 1, Leo Tolstoy
  6. From Union Square to Rome, Chapter 6 by Dorothy Day
  7. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods.
  8. The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy by Thomas E. Woods.
  9. Anarchism and Socialism, Chapter 9 by Georgi Plekhanov
  10. Getting Libertarianism Right by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  11. The Anarchist Minister From the Future Who's Redefining Democracy by Asaf Ronel
  12. Audrey Tang on what it means to be a Conservative Anarchist by Hack Club
  13. Anarchists against the Revolution by Stephen R.L. Clark
  14. On the Side of Animals by the RSPCA
  15. Slaves and Citizens by Stephen R.L. Clark
  16. An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Chapter II, Notes by William Godwin
  17. Edmund Burke, Anarchist by Murray Rothbard. It's important to note that Rothbard's mistake came from the misunderstanding of the timescale of when the work had to be clarified to be satirical. Rothbard though it took 9 years for that to happen (when Burke's political career was beginning to start), but it in fact only took a year.
  18. Capitol was 'overrun by anarchists and terrorists': by Joshua Q. Nelson
  19. Tomi Lahren scolds Capitol rioters as 'anarchist animals': 'Have your damn minds?' by Yael Halon
  20. Forget Fascism, It's Anarchy We Have To Worry About by Neal Gabler