To err is human, to hate divine?

Well, it seems that this anarchist has pissed off some rather unsavoury licorice all sorts.

A newly popped up blog designed presumably for no other reason than to expunge their hatred of what they consider to be an invalid form of anarchism, has the audacity to state that free speech does not include hate speech, whilst at the same time describing me as an uneducated buffoon incapable of stringing a sentence together. Hypocrisy anyone?

But then, I suppose free speech doesn't become hate speech when you disagree with the other person and believe yourself to have the moral high ground?! Right guys. I couldn't care less what you call me, but the fact is, you've offended me, and by your definition, that's hate speech and it's oppressive. So either you lot aren't anarchists, or you agree with me, and hate speech does in fact include the RIGHT to offend another human being.

Further to their accusations that I am not a true anarchist, they request any personal information about me to be sent to someone I believed to be a true Anarchist and comrade (with whom I did not necessary agree with on everything, but supported on my blog anyway), @ndy, or Slack Bastard.

You accuse me of hate speech (whichby your definition) is coercive and removes the freedom of others, and yet at the same time, you request my personal information so that you may take away my privacy. Something, which I believe is totally unethical and un-anarchist in nature. A behaviour, which I would expect the State to engage in, not fellow political activists.

Perhaps that is my punishment for such thought crimes and thinking outside the square?

As for the rumours of my location - sure, I'm in Melbourne, I've been to protests in Melbourne, which have been documented on my blog. I haven't been to a climate change one, and had I, you can be sure I would have posted pics and a report accordingly. Shit happens, and I haven't kept up my blog for yonks. I haven't done any political activism, or even been posting regularly on the blog. Work's been HELL!

Am I at La Trobe? I sure was. I even ran in the elections, and I've even had some stuff published from the blog in the La Trobe magazine. The great thing about La Trobe (not just that it's an activist hub in Melbourne), but it's also got free internet access. If you're an anarchist, or just on the cheap, the library offers free internet, and no need for a student login. So head on over, I'm a cheap skate, they're open till 10pm on weeknights!

As for me being called a woman... well, I've been called worse :-)

So please, slander me with your hate speech all you want, but don't turn around and hypocritically tell a Neo Nazi that they are bigoted, hate filled people. At least a Nazi admits what they are.

National or Notional Anarchists?

So what are the different kinds of anarchists? Well, here's my list of all the ones I could find, and in no particular order.....

Indivdualists Anarchist; Autarchism; Collectivist Anarchist; Anarchist Communism; Anarcho-Sydnicalism; Anarcho-capitalism; Agorist; Christian Anarchist; Orthodox Anarchist; Punk Anarchist; Green Anarchists; National Anarchist; Market-left libertarian; Crypto-Anarchism; Analytical Anarchism; Left Anarchy; Right Anarchy; Insurrectionary Anarchy; I'm sure the list goes on.....

My personal favourite, Anarchism without adjectives is an ideology which tolerates the coexistence of different anarchist schools. I wanted to do a post about this as there seems to be a lot of talk lately about what constitutes an anarchist, and the right for one group or person to call themselves an anarchist, and their dismissal of alternative schools of thought as not.

"Intellectual property and the title anarchist" by Royce Christian

It's amazing that while most Anarchists, of all stripes, reject intellectual property laws as simply a construct of the state, the most extreme among us have this tendency to enforce their factions ownership of the term 'Anarchist'. Truly, it is amazing to see. Fanatical Anarchists unquestioningly support their own brand of Anarchism denounce all others as somehow 'fake'. They are in fact the largest hypocrites among us. These are the people who have a unyielding confidence in what they know is the truth, the way and the light. Anything that doesn't accept this obvious truth is deemed false and thus statist. Unfortunately for the rest of us, this kind of unreasoned fanaticism has many proponents within the Anarchist movement.

Let's consider the National Anarchists, as they seem to be the most polarizing of all the different factions. National anarchism has its origins in the UK, and is largely the brainchild of Troy Southgate, an individual with a long history of involvement in the British neo-Nazi movement, including organisations such as the National Front, the International Third Position, the English Nationalist Movement and the National Revolutionary Faction. Critic Graham D. Macklin notes that “When put into its wider context… ‘national-anarchism’ appears as one of many groupuscular responses to globalization, popular antipathy towards which Southgate sought to harness by aligning [his activities]… with the resurgence of anarchism whose heroes and slogans it arrogated, and whose sophisticated critiques of global capitalist institutions and state power it absorbed…”. In essence, ‘national anarchism’ is an attempt to use anarchist rhetoric and imagery in order to better advance the cause of reactionary, racist and fascist politics.

So, we've established that national anarchism itself was created by fascists and is thus considered a racist form of anarchism (because it's anti-state). Wikipeadia has a lot to say on the topic of the history of Anarchism with Nationalism , so in reality, the idea isn't particularly new, and is really just the rehash of an old story.

But are they really racist, or just exclusionary? I believe the later, but I'll come to that in a moment. I believe that national anarchism isn't just for Europeans, but rather national anarchism embodies the idea that people can form communities based upon lines that suit their interests.

Each type of anarchism which I've listed above is just that. A group of anarchists who have come together along an issue which they believe to be important. Be it, social (communism anarchists), economic (agorist), religious (orthodox or christian). These are all anarchists who have formed a group with similar ideas.

In the words of a famous european anarchist; Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Whoever puts his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant. I declare him my enemy.

My conscience is mine, my justice is mine, and my freedom is a sovereign freedom.

Under anarchist doctrine, people have the freedom to form groups based along whatever issues are important to them. Further, freedom includes the freedom to hate, the freedom to offend, and the freedom of self-expression, on the basis that there is no physical harm impacted upon another.

From my point of view the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no Anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what Anarchism stands for...
Joseph Labadie

"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."
Leo Tolstoy

Therefore, so long as there is no violence against another, the principle of national anarchism is a principle of freedom of association. National Anarchism is really something in which we all practise with our different forms of anarchism. Instead of the term National Anarchism, we can change the name to "ideas based anarchy" or "community anarchy". It seems to me, that each group of people organicly formed will be based upon principles agreed upon by that community. Be it religious doctrine, racial, cultural or sexual orientation homogeneity. That is, communities can form along homosexual lines, along identity politics or economical politics. Regardless of your particular opinion as to the validity of these communities, the reality is, that they will form, and in fact, your allegiance to a particular school of anarchistic thought, is by it's nature exclusionary and a form of national anarchism.

So why national anarchism? Based on my assumptions above that it's not neccessarily racially based, but based on any idea or principle important to individuals, "National" is the description of what the community is. After all, each community can be considered a "Nation unto itself". One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. These nations - as described are anarchistic schools of thought. So, in essence we are all national anarchists - but what about the European National Anarchists? These are the National Anarchists who wish to form along racial lines, or upon identity politics.

My answer - remains the same. Freedom. Freedom from co-ercion is the highest form of anarchy. The ability of a "nation" (as described in this post) to self-determination. Further, there are other racially based anarchists out there who believe identity politics is important. Power 2 the people is an African American Socialist Anarchist, with a strong emphasis on anti-racism, and yet has strong support for the Black Panther Party, and the struggle for his African brothers under their current dictatorship and imperialism. If this is not racist, how can Europeans with the same strong ethnocentric community ties be considered to be racist? While this isn't the main point of the article, and needs much further investigation, I think it's important to note, that National Anarchism, the rise of "nations" of anarchy, are a central doctrine of any true anarchist. The fact that we disagree on certain ideas and principles, which gives rise to the different factions only further supports the principle that:

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

- Rudyard Kipling

and thus, National Anarchism is one answer to such a dilemma.