All Types of Anarchy Welcome

From the World National Anarchist Alliance.


The great thing about National Anarchism is that it works as a conflict resolver regarding the various types of anarchism in existence. A lot of fighting happens, especially between the capitalist and more socialist forms. Anarchy is not a “winner takes all” type of society. The concept that should stay with all anarchists is the concept of a voluntary society.

National Anarchism solves the conflict by acknowledging that different people have different ideas regarding how they would like to see society. In acknowledging this, the solution of living in separate tribes is proposed. This allows anyone from the anarcho-capitalists to the anarcho-communists to have a community dedicated to their ideals. Basically just about any distinct ideology could be used to form a tribe around. Economics, religion, sexual orientation, race (if you so desire) and many other categories could be used to build a community around.

The best thing about this solution is that a tribe succeeds or fails on its own merits. A voluntary society means a society of responsibility for how you live, and what type of community you would associate with.

The most upsetting about all of this is that many anarchists brand National Anarchism as “fascism” clothed to persuade anarchists over. The only workable solution to sort out our differences is demonized and left to the wayside. Sometimes I wonder if just using the title “Anarcho-Tribalism” would convince more people. I am convinced that even if we used that title exclusively, Chomsky and others would continue to find problems with it.

Are we the first to use “nation” to describe a tribe and not actual borders of a country? The answer is no, and just about everyone would remember this fact if they thought about it. The various Native American tribes are sometimes described as “nations”. One could disagree with their top-down vertical structure of having a chief at the top (and I do), but this still proves our point that a “nation” does not mean what people take it to mean in the modern era. People do not accuse them having to be pawns of the establishment to call themselves nations.

I hope this shows some visitors the frustration that National Anarchists get when these arguments are leveled against them. The “Antifa” crowd would like to beat anyone up who even suggest such a thing. This shows that they clearly do not accept the Non-Aggression Principle or any ideal of Voluntary association. Some “anarchists” make themselves into leaders and destroy the concept of anarchy altogether.

I am making a call to anarchists of all stripes to consider National Anarchism as the solution to the problem of division. If we all unite, we can see liberty much sooner. Let us all fight for the right of people to form communities which choose their own economic system. As a mutualist, anarcho-capitalism doesn’t scare me, because I believe that a free market will inevitably lead to a voluntary form of socialism. Even if this is not the case, let people stand or fall on their own two feet.

Unite to smash the interests of the State and the global Elite. I don’t know how much more fair anyone can make it other than to let everyone choose which type of society they want to live in. Trying to force people to adopt your ideology is selfish in the highest degree. I would never try to force someone into Anarcho-Mutualism or Buddhism. It is fair to ask that everyone has the same attitude, lest you sacrifice anarchy on the altar of Selfishness.

Categories: Uncategorized

18 replies »

  1. Fuck off jew hater. Your head will look good on a spike with the rest of your nazi friends after the revolution.

  2. Eat shit, romanticanarchist. There’s nothing “romantic” about you. You’re a violent asshole just like the rest of your fascist friends. You clearly do not believe in the non-aggession principle. The difference between wannabe anarchists like you, and anarchists like me and creators of Attack the System, is that we are armed and will defend ourselves against fascist poseurs like yourself who attempt to use spikes against peaceful anarchists and libertarians. You missed the point of the article clearly, which was that after the revolution, when you and your poseur friends attempt to enforce a socialist paradise on a small commune, it will fall to pieces and devolve into a fascist animal farm. Good luck, loser. (God, I love talking shit to assholes on the internet sometimes.)

  3. @romanticanarchist: You people are such lunatics about “exposing the Anti-Semites” that when I wrote nothing in the article about Jews, you still came to aid the Jews like the moron you are. I suggest you take a look at my blog. There I posted a video I recently made about what Proudhon and Bakunin (the first anarchists) thought about your beloved Jews. That being said, I wish no harm to Jews… I mean that in all sincerity. They should be able to have their own tribes just like anyone else, as long as they harm no one else in the process.

  4. Ha ha. See you on the streets Mr. Cockadoodledoo & Co – if you’re able to tear yourselves away from your X boxes and death metal wank-off that is. i’ve seen your anti-semitic little site Michael. You’re just the type of adolescent jerk that impresses these losers. The only good nazis are dead nazis, kiddies – and the ACTUAL anarchist movement is going to be only to happy to oblige…

  5. “The only good nazis are dead nazis, kiddies – and the ACTUAL anarchist movement is going to be only to happy to oblige…”

    What are you gonna do: herd the “Nazis” into camps ‘n’ chambers? LOL!

    Anarcho-totalitarianism: the Final Solution!

  6. “What are you gonna do: herd the “Nazis” into camps ‘n’ chambers? LOL!

    Anarcho-totalitarianism: the Final Solution!”

    Indeed: “The Final Solution to the Nazi Question” 🙂

    There seems to be some truth in the adage “You become what you hate.”

  7. Romantic Anarchist,

    Not that you give a flying fuck, but I think Michael’s point is not so much that “Jews suck” as much as to point out that by your PC standards even the founders of anarchism would not qualify as anarchists. The source of the hysteria over National-Anarchism exhibited by the “mainstream” anarchist movement appears to be the un-PC views some NA adherents have on race or a few other matters. But if holding post-1960s radical leftist views on social questions is to be the litmus test on who is a “true” anarchist and who is not, then you would have to disqualify much of the historic anarchist movement, including many of its founders and principal theoreticians.

  8. Is that really the best you lot can come up with? Keith, you may have decided to cosy up to right wing bigots, sorry ‘tolerate’ them. Not so difficult to do really for a white middle class male is it? But as I said, the genuine working class anarchists right across the world will be kicking nazis off the streets whenever we have to. Thanks to everyone who came to see off the EDL in London at the weekend by the way. You lot may now like to go back to your conspiracy theories about Jews etc – maybe have a ‘demo’ in your bedroom on 9/11? I’m sure you’d all fit comfortably…

  9. Another irony is that the antifa is primarily dominated by communists, at least in its better organized forms, and anarchists who align themselves with the antifa out to be more aware of the historic relationship between anarchists and communists.

  10. “Keith, you may have decided to cosy up to right wing bigots, sorry ‘tolerate’ them.”

    If you want to learn about “bigotry,” you might being by looking in the mirror.

    Btw, you wouldn’t happen to be Daniel “Anarchist for the Draft” Owen, would you? 🙂

  11. Perhaps you need to learn the difference between oppression and resistance. Whilst you continue to align yourself with counterrevolutionaries, racists and, frankly, idiots Keith – nobody will even begin to take what you have to say seriously.

    I’ve never heard of Daniel Owen.

  12. I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that most, if not all American Indian tribes are or were National Anarchists, though our world philosophy comes from a very different tradition, and we would never use the term to describe ourselves. Still, the similarities cannot be denied.


    If you go after white tribes, you should come after us, too. We’ll bury you in mass graves in the lands where we have suffered a 95% casualty rate to defend and keep what is ours.

  13. And on joo hating, you ought to read the comments on this ATS post:


    A portion of one of Keith’s relevant comments:


    “Jesting and ad hominem aside, I would like to respond to your arguments fairly and intelligently, but the problem is that, from my perspective, your arguments don’t seem to amount to much more than the usual “Jews are undermining white people by using the media to brainwash them into accepting ideas that are contrary to their own interests.” You are more literate and articulate than many people who make such arguments, but it’s still the same lowest common denominator bullshit.

    “He simply talks about a minimum genetic and moral endowment for a minimally healthy and moral society. The quote is basically tautological. That’s why you have to add elements (these genetic endowments will guarantee always positive outcomes eternally) to justify disagreeing with him — but why do you want to?”

    I don’t disagree with that particular statement from Pierce taken on its face. But I would disagree with the direction Pierce would go from this observation. I disagree that “white” genetic endowments are inherently superior to those of other races, which is what Pierce spent virtually his entire adult life arguing. There may be differences among the races, including those with genetic roots, that lead to differences of aptitude in certain generalized ways. But within all races you find a stratified system of “ubermeschen” and “untermenschen” (for lack of better terms) ranked according to natural ability. I also disagree with IQ determinists in the same way I disagree with racial determinists. It has been fairly well-documented, by Thomas Sowell and others, that IQ is more elastic than what the determinists would allow for. The same is true of race. Race is a continuum. It is easy enough to general particular patterns that are distinctive among races. Welf pointed out some of that in his piece. But keep in mind you’re dealing with hundreds of millions if not billions of people when you discuss a “race” including all sorts of ethnic and cultural subgroupings. Not too mention wide disparities between individuals. Among whites, for instance, you have people with IQ in the 170 range and you have those with Down’s Syndrome.”

  14. “Perhaps you need to learn the difference between oppression and resistance.”

    You’re just speaking in platitudes and generalities, not making factual arguments.

    “nobody will even begin to take what you have to say seriously.”

    LOL, I’ve heard the same line from “pro-American” neocons for years. Actually, I’m surprised at how many people there are who take what we do here seriously. A lot more than I would have originally thought.

    “I’ve never heard of Daniel Owen.”

    You’re not missing much.

    I used have attitudes a lot like yours….then I grew up.

  15. It sounds more like you had some sort of breakdown to me – so maybe you genuinely do need somebody to spell everything out for you. But that person is not going to be me. Sorry..

  16. romanticanarchist’s problem is that I promote classical anarchy. I don’t see how anything I’ve said deviates from Proudhon, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, etc.

    I’ve been sure to read much of their material before saying anything on the subject. They would be disqualified as anarchists by people like romanticanarchist if they existed today.

    What really makes these people mad is that I do not promote globalization like they are currently doing. I ask any errors to be pointed out in my articles. If there are demonstrable errors, I will correct them. However, ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy, and do not prove any points in an argument.

    Various National Anarchists have different views on the “Jewish question” (A term created originally by Zionists themselves). It is not my point to promote one or the other on my blog. I do different types of activism outside of my blog. The point of my blog is to aid in uniting anarchists toward the goal of liberty.

  17. “What really makes these people mad is that I do not promote globalization like they are currently doing. ”

    Right. Most of them are communists under another name, and exhibit the same capacity for dishonesty and thuggery as their Stalinist forefathers.

    “Various National Anarchists have different views on the “Jewish question” (A term created originally by Zionists themselves).”

    There are also Jewish NAs. Some of the most fervent anti-Zionists you will ever meet are Jewish.

    Anarchists have always differed on the question of ethnic, racial, national, and related issues. There have been some with strong internationalist views similar to the Marxists (an added confusion is that there have been plenty of movements blending nationalism and Marxism). It was not uncommon among classical anarchists in the US to have anarchist federations oriented towards specific ethnic groups (Irish, Italian, German, Jewish).

    Some of the historic anarchist thinkers had quasi-nationalist views like Proudhon and Bakunin. Others were critical of nationalism like Rudolf Rockers who saw nationalism leading to the deification of the state. Kropotkin became a Russian patriot during WW1 and regrettably supported Russia’s war effort. Tucker became a French nationalist after relocating there later in life. Gustav Landauer, a German Jew, might be considered a prototypical national anarchist. Even now, on the leftward end of anarchism, you have tendencies like black anarchism or indigenous anarchism.


    As you’ve mentioned in some of your recent posts, the whole point is to have multiple tendencies capable of accommodating different people with different beliefs, even those with otherwise irreconcilable differences. The fact that our friends like “romantic anarchist” find that so objectionable is powerful evidence of their totalitarian personality.

Leave a Reply