Talk:National anarchism


 * This page was listed for deletion on July 23, 2005. Votes for deletion/National anarchism (2nd nomination).  The result was a keep by no consensus. humblefool&reg;Deletion Reform 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I have nominated this page for speedy deletion because it was already deleted:

''I did some more checking and made some sense of the situation. There was apparently an earlier version of this article created in 2004 which was deleted. Then, on April 29 of this year, a new version of the page was created. If that recreated page was more-or-less identical to the deleted one, then it should have been speedy-deleted at that time. In any event, it has now been edited to the point where it is very unlikely to be the same, so it should be treated as a different article and reconsidered for deletion. The deletion pages should not be merged. - Nat Krause 10:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)''

Whether or not they are the same is irrelevant because no amount of content changes the fact that this article needs to be deleted. --Tothebarricades 04:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to let anyone know, I created this article and was never aware of the former one. But, Tothebarricades, you say it's irrelevant if it's the same or not and that the article just "needs to be deleted." Well, I'm kind of perplexed. You want to delete an article about a movement that had some origin in neo-facism, but in attempting to censor it you're engaging in a little facism yourself. What's the matter? Is national anarchism not authoritarian enough for your taste? That, and the fact that you just called me a "goddamn moron" in your edit message leads me to believe you're quite an irrational individual. How anarchist of you. RJII 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, shut up. I called you a moron because you're a moron. At least I didn't call you a racist, eh? Or a fascist, better yet! Don't throw out personal attacks and expect to be exempt from any abuse. --Tothebarricades 04:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I almost forgot. You're trying to get black anarchism deleted too. I guess it all makes sense now. Got your jackboots on? RJII 04:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're the one who seems to have so much interest in this fascist non-movement. --Tothebarricades 18:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, about the speedy deletion, "no amount of content changes the fact that this article needs to be deleted" is a valid opinion. However, it is not a justification for speedy deleting the article. If this is a different article, which it almost certainly is, then it needs a separate vote for deletion. - Nat Krause 08:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a different article, but the content is basically the same and the reasons for deleting the last one apply to this one as well. Kev 09:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That was my logic. --Tothebarricades 18:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Shunned
Given that so-called national anarchism is shunned by the anarchist movement, should it have the anarchist template banner thingy down the side of the article. On the banner there is no link to anarcho-capitalism as a school of thought, nor a link for this article. If "national anarchism" is linked to anything it is to the radical right. See "The Radical Right In Britain: Social Imperialism to the BNP" by the historian Alan Sykes for information on the development of right-wing anarchistic thought. -- James

Right. I've been thinking about all of this. Since there is no real tradition of "national anarchism" beyond what a few people have invented in the last decade -- is it possible that the NA "movement" is a ruse by the intelligence services? This website has a curious mixture of articles (apparently written by one person) and a few pages on Troy Southgate, self-styled NA theorist, claiming that he is (possibly) a state stooge. Now, I am something of an anarchist-communist at heart, so I am ready to take this theory seriously (yes, I like the idea that national anarchism is mostly a put-on, it makes things easier -- simpler). Perhaps it is worth mentioning the accusations of espionage alongside the usual "NA is racist" criticism. To reiterate: it makes sense for the state blur the lines 'twixt "right" and "left" because then there then exists, for mediation purposes, a unified field of "subversives" who pose a threat to the status quo. Does this sound at all reasonable, or have I frazzled my brain by taking this stuff seriously? -- James

Regardless of the sincerity of their claims, it is clear they (or rather, he) is not a significant phenomena. This article should be up for VfD on those grounds.

I don't understand what you are saying: sincerity of whose claims? Are you saying the talk page should be deleted, or what? If you are refering to the NA article then I don't think this article should be deleted -- I know that so-called national anarchism is something of a contradiction, but since people claim to adhere to it, and other people criticise it... well, i thought that would make it noteworthy. I admit, I am biased against nationalism and national anarchism, but even so, I think that there should be a wikipedia entry for them. -- James


 * The article should not be removed on grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. It should be removed on grounds of being an insignificant phenomena, it is wiki policy that only significant issues need be covered.  All of the links presented to back this phenomena devolve down to one individual, and a single individual, or even a handful, are not enough to merit putting this thing alongside any of the anarchist traditions in an encyclopedia.  Kev 29 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)


 * The above sounds like a rather transparent attempt to censor articles not considered 'politically correct' to anarcho-socialists. This article should stay. I request an article on Black Anarchism. Hogeye 30 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)


 * If you don't agree with wikipedia's policy for not including pages which merely act as soapboxes for insignificant social phenomena, then your beef is with wiki policy, not me. Kev 30 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is an "insignifican social phenomena." Googling on "national anarchism" I get many pages in several different languages, with many serious discussions.  Can you define "insignificant social phenomena" and show that national anarchism doesn't qualify, but e.g. anarcho-communism does? Hogeye 30 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)


 * How about a political movement that can be attributed to more than 3 actual people? As for anarcho-communism, does the spanish civil war mean anything to you?  Kev 1 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

NA similarily to Kropotkin's Mir, Bookchin's municipalism
Since national anarchism promotes more or less self-sufficient municipalities, we should point out the similarity to historical anarchist luminaries, in particular Kropotkin and Bookchin. Also, a note about Bakunin's racial "Pan-Slavism" may be appropriate. Hogeye 30 June 2005 14:14 (UTC)


 * Kropotkin and Bookchin did not propose to separate communities based on race. Community autonomy is not the same issue as "voluntary" ethnic cleansing.  Nor did they have any connections whatsoever to third positionism, pointing out "similarities" here is ridiculous when both individuals would have been digusted with national anarchist claims and completely oppose the group.  As for Bakunin, that matter is debatable, so I wouldn't remove such an edit for the time being.  Kev 30 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kev that the Kropotkin and Bookchin thing is ridiculous. But although I think that this phenomena (NA) has little significance, it should not be deleted. -- James, 30.6.05


 * Kev>"Kropotkin and Bookchin did not propose to separate communities based on race."
 * Right, but Kropotkin and Bookchin did propose community autonomy, just as the NAs do. Please desist from oxymoronic emotional appeals.  If it's voluntary, then it is not ethnic cleansing.  NA is little more than Bookchin's municipalism plus the prediction that people will mostly want to live among others of like race. Hogeye 30 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)
 * Except that national anarchists believe in capitalism, and that Bookchin would be disgusted by their attempts to even call themselves anarchists, did you forget that? Kev 1 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken that NAs are pro-capitalist. From the FAQ you yourself cited:
 * "International Capitalism depends on the constant acquisition of resources to maintain and perpetuate its own survival. In years to come, however, it will slowly disintegrate in the same way that the Roman Empire - which also specialised in expansionism and control of the periphery - finally collapsed under the weight of its own unbridled greed and ruthless ambition. Therefore we must hasten its demise by encouraging revolution on the periphery and, thus, depriving the urban centres of their valuable resources. Once we help empower the exploited peoples in the so-called Third World, we can finally slice off the tentacles of Capitalism one by one until the very core of political and economic power is completely eradicated. Destroy from within and create from without, that is the very essence of National-Anarchism."
 * National anarchism is clearly a school of anarcho-socialism. Hogeye 1 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
 * No it is NOT. For it to be a school of "anarcho-socialism", it would have to be at least be anarchist, which it clearly is not, as it proposes certain coercive measures, and in particular ethnic cleansing. DuckMonster

I removed some misleading attributions. In particular:
 * Supporters have sometimes claimed...
 * However, opponents criticize this on the grounds...

The attributions are gratuitous and wrong. E.g. I am an opponent of NA who makes the former claim but not the latter claim. Furthermore, it is not contentious that municipalism is part of both Bookchin and NA theory. The similarity is non-controversial to anyone with a passing familiarity with the subjects. It may be politically incorrect (to some) to make the assertion, but the claim itself is not controversial. Hogeye 30 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with emotionalism, it has to do with trying desperately to give the appearance of links between traditional anarchism and nationalist anarchism when no such actual links exist. And I will agree that the claim is not of any significant controversy, but that is because the idea of national anarchism is not of any significance in itself.  Kev 1 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)
 * But links do exist. Everything the NAs know about anarchism is derived from traditional anarcho-socialists.  The statement in the article is: "National anarchism is similar to Kropotkin's free associations and Bookchin's municipalism in the sense that it supports voluntary autonomous communities."  Do you dispute this? Hogeye 1 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

Well done, Dtobias! I think we've got it. Hogeye 1 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

Platform
The article says> "The national anarchist platform claims that "racial miscegenation" is a terrible phenomena that "endangers mankind".

Is this true? I'd like to see a link to the alleged platform with this plank, just to make sure. All I have found is a national anarchist asserting, "Racial miscegenation, for example, is viewed by National-Anarchists as something which runs contrary to nature." But this is of course an individual opinion, not a part of any official platform. Hogeye 30 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)


 * In theory you could try researching this stuff yourself before you begin making sweeping changes to articles. The evidence is on the "faqv2" at the link provided by this very page http://www.national-anarchist.org/  Kev 1 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see. It's not part of any particular platform - just the opinion of one guy.  So I've revised the "platform" claim in the article. Hogeye 1 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)


 * Well, when this movement consists only of one guy I think it's pretty significant. --Tothebarricades 19:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * You've got NA in a nutshell there Duckmonster

Bey & D'Annunzio
The article Peter Lamborn Wilson identifies Gabrielle D'Annunzio as a "proto-nationalist anarchist", linking here. Whether or not Hakim Bey's interpretations of D'Annunizio are accurate, D'Annunzio as presented by Bey is indeed a kind of "proto-nationalist anarchist", adopting an intermediate position between anarchism and Italian proto-fascism. However, in Bey's account (and I must say I believe in real life as well), his views are not primarily racist. What I mean is this. The real D'Annunzio, and/or the Wilsonian D'Annunzio, may or may not have been racists, but racism was not the focus of their philosophy. They were nationalists, yes, but they did not view nationalism in such a biological sense as more explicitly racist philosophies (Nazism, white supremacy) do. And indeed, this article from its very beginning identifies "nationalist anarchism" with 'white nationalism', i.e. white supremacy. I have never ever heard of anarchist white supremacists. But some of the work of Hakim Bey, explores (without adopting) some ideas of "nationalist anarchism", without being racist (although Bey at other places certaintly seems to endorse "racialism", i.e. blacks are superior; white people are all inferior; but any white person we like isn't really a "white" person, they're actually a celt or persian, which makes them a "black" person, and hence superior... go figure...) In any case, I think the article should be maintained, but its contents modified to remove (or at least de-emphasise) the white supremacy, but discuss Wilson's interpretations of D'Annunzio. -- SamuelKatinsky

Traditional anarchists don't associate with state socialists?
I found this quote in the article to be one-sided: "However, the leaders of national anarchism are often comrades of the current white power and neo-nazi movements who seek involuntary racial separatism." because traditional anarchists are often comrades of "involuntary" (state) socialists. User:Kevehs referred to this claim as BS (a little rude I might add) because I backed up this claim by reference to Chomsky. Now I have to admit I'm a little confused. Is User:Kevehs claiming that traditional anarchists don't associate with Chomsky? I hope not! Is he claiming Chomsky doesn't call himself an anarcho-syndicalist? I hope he can find a quote to back that up!
 * I don't have to. As the individual asserting that Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist, the burden of proof is on you to find evidence that he is.  You will find a lot of evidence that other people call Chomsky an anarchist, and you will even find evidence of him saying that he has a "future vision" of anarchism.  However, he does not call himself an anarchist, and for a very good reason, he does not believe he is one.  Kev 09:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm. Good point.  Maybe I should include a link or something.  Oops, I already did!  Now, if you want to claim he's not an anarchist, that's great: since actual anarchists do associate with him, that would prove my point.  Thanks.

Even if the discription of Chomsky is inaccurate, is User:Kevehs claiming that "no true anarchist" associates with state socialists? I happen to know a very adamant communist anarchist, Bill Anderson, who has joined state socialists in rally for a minimum wage, a state socialist policy. Sure, one person doesn't prove anything, but given the traditional anarchists' tendency to label pretty much any labor union as part of the labor movement and therefore anarchist, and most of these labor unions advocate state socialist policies, the claim that traditional anarchists don't want anything to do with state socialism is pretty absurd. I ask that User:Kevehs justify his position, else I will continue to reinsert balance into the passage. 24.162.140.213 21:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Justify my position? Sure.  Anarchists were killed in large numbers by the Bolsheviks that took power in Russia.  Now I guess you can claim that they really liked being killed, but I doubt you will find evidence of it.  Anarchists of the CNT were also suppressed and killed by state communists in the Spainish Revolution.  Anarchists have fought against and criticised various ISO policies and tactics in recent globalization protests.


 * How does occasional antagonism disprove that much of the time they do associate with each other. By the way, please stop attributing bizarre positions to people you disagree with.  College professors won't like that.


 * Now I suppose that you could claim that they are "associated" because sometimes they attend the same protests, but in such protests each group almost inevitably criticises the presence of the other, and if those are your standards for association then almost every organization in the world is "associated" given that there is always one or another protest of some size that draws otherwise disparate groups to fight for the same cause. I mean, are we now to say that anarcho-capitalists are associated with the Bush presidency, because many of them support the libertarian policies of the Cato institute and Cato is wild about the latest tax cuts and the attempt to privatize social security?  This would seem to be your standard, that anytime any groups share any goals this constitutes "association".  "National anarchists" are associated with neo-nazis because they are all former or current members of such groups, not because they happen to bump into each other on occasion.  Kev 09:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The claim isn't that many goals match up. It's that socialist anarchist support non-anarchist goals, like minimum wages and union demands.  I don't know where you're going with this bit about ancaps, except to prove my point.  Yes, a lot of capitalist anarchist associate with state capitalists.  A lot of socialist anarchists associate with state socialists.  A lot of nationalist anarchists associate with state nationalists.  All the more reason to balance the smear in the article with a reference to both ancaps and ansocs!  How would you like: "In all fairness, though, traditional anarchists often associate with state socialists and anarcho-capitalists often associate with state capitalists."  That to me sounds like a great compromise.  The only reason I didn't put that originally was because the article was contrasting national and traditional anarchism, not national, traditional, and capitalist anarchism.  What I reject is this holier than thou attitude that says "national anarchists aren't true anarchists because they associate with the statist versions of themselves" when traditional anarchists do the exact same thing!  Such a smear is clearly POV. 24.162.140.213 23:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly anarchists not only link up with state socialists but have also joined the government, as with members of the CNT/FAI in Spain in November 1936. Secondly Southgate has linked up with people like Richard Hunt of Alternative Green and formerly of Green Anarchist through the Anarchist Heretics Fair. I note that Alternative Green is included in the list of Anarchist publications - or should this also be purged. What about Green Anarchist itself. . . I think it is necessary to note the distatse which many anarchists have for national anarchists, which is far different from accepting the dictum that they are not anarchists. This is related to the notion of the existence of an "anarchist movement" which embraces all anarchists, from the right and left which perhaps could be understood in the light of Georges Sorel's notions of organising myth. Harrypotter 17:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comrade Thüringer was perhaps overhasty in deleting the link to the German national anarchismus :National anarchismus. Of course, we should expect to find that national anarchism is nonsense - but not necessarily pure. It is clear from looking at the web-presence that this is composed of something. However as this whole area of politics often consists of regurgitating similiar material in different forms - i.e. looking at the way the Freedom Party has now joined the Third Way to form the English Lobby, this is connected to how these groups - like groups in other sub cultures promote themselves through the pretense of being much larger trhan they are - e.g. see the Peoples Global Action claim to be everywhere! Our entry must enable people to discover this. . . I feel Harrypotter
 * I'm a "traditional" anarchist (not really traditional since I'm more post-left) but I associate and work with state socialists on occasion (I have resevations about it though). I do think that logically, the claim that national anarchists aren't anarchists because they occasionally associate with state-supporting nationalists is unfair, but I do think national anarchism is a huge corruption of actual anarchist thought, especially considering the borderline (and perhaps outright) racism inherent in such an ideology.

Edits
I have added a series of edits to clarify certain issues. Firstly it claims "most" anarchists disagree with "National anarchism". This is incorrect. ALL anarchists reject it as an absurdity. The concept of Nationalism + Anarchism is logically incoherent, thus there the unanimous consent within the anarchist community that this bogus movement is an imposter. Furthermore I have added references to "Ethnic Cleansing", clarified that "White Nationalism" is a euphimism for "Neo Naziism", and made other minor fixes. I have made gramatical fixes for instance I've removed the "saying that", and replaced it with "As", as it is not an opinion that NA is not legitimately part of the Anarchist movement, it is an objective fact. I have corrected a "belief" to a "misconception", and added a "incorrectly" in the final paragraph, as it suggests an absurdity.

Redgardless, the article is embarassment and ought be delted.


 * I am not sure how useful those edits are. The aim of wikipedia is to be from a neutrapl point of view, rather than an anarchist point of view, which is incoherent anyway - ie.e the notion of legitimacy. However I did wonder whether it might not be better to rework the page as Anacrho-nationalism as mentioned on the Alternative Green link. What do you think? (p.s it might be better to be less anonymous, comrade.Harrypotter
 * You're wrong that "there is unanimous consent within the anarchist community" that's it's not anarchism. See the Keith Preston articles. He's an anarchist and not a national anarchist. RJII 02:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Anarchists collectively are just as incoherent as any other group. So there is no unanimous view on the role of national culture and "the nation", just as there is no unanimous view on violence. I hope that people will think carefully before editing this article & try to be calm. --james


 * The only references I have found to kieth preston are in regards to "Libertarianism", which has nothing to do with anarchism. So I reiterate my claim. The anarchist community does not include morally bankrupt imposters such as 'national anarchists' or 'market anarchists', so including the opinions of these people is not a valid way to claim that anarchists might accept "National anarchism". Remember, if you accept nationalism or capitalism (such as with the so called nat anarchists, or market anarchists), then *BY DEFINITION* you can not be an anarchist. Duck Monster
 * Keith Preston is an anti-capitalist anarchist. Besides, there is no such definition that excludes national anarchism from being anarchism. RJII 14:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Duck Monster, I think you should read some of Preston's stuff. I can't say I agree with everything he says but he's not pro-capitalist or pro-nationalist (i.e. nation-statism or racism). His attackthesystem.com website has lots of interesting articles from many different viewpoints. Plus, perhaps someone could write a bit about Landauer's views on the nation: he saw it as a community of communities & tried to combine anarchism w/ nationalism in a non-xenophobic way. --james

Circular Logic
This is a pretty poorly written and extremely biased article. As someone who does not know a great deal about historical anarchisms, especially national anarchism, I found it only to obfuscate the matter. It is clearly written with the aim of dissuading anyone from taking on the idealogy. As a result, the naive reader such as myself is left with no solid grasp of why a person would find it an appealing viewpoint. A major, specific flaw in this article is in its discussion of the links to anarchists, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon and Stirner. Before explicating the claims by national anarchists of having been influenced by these writers, the author states that "most anarchists believe that these claims are transparent attempts by national anarchists to decieve others into believing that national anarchism has historical ties to anarchism itself." This is not only a clear bias of the author, but it is a weak criticism of the national anarchists' claims. If their claims are illigitimate, it would be better to engage their claims and point out the problems with them. By merely questioning their intentions in making such claims, the author removes logic from the discourse and replaces it with a decontextualized indictment of the group as a whole.

Furthermore, in this same paragraph, the author uses the anti-semitism of these same anarchist writers to implicate national anarchists as anti-semitic. This is utterly absurd. To claim that the link between national anarchists and Bakunin and Proudhon is invalid in one sentence, and then three sentences later, in the same paragraph, to use their claims of a theoretical link as evidence that national anarchists are anti-semitic is crassly contradictory. More importantly, neither statement belongs in an article whose purpose is to explain and contextualize the thought and claims of an actual group of people

I highly suggest the author of this article eat a piece of humble pie and stay away from wikipedia until he or she can reflect a LOT better on his or her own biases, and the logic he or she is using to make whatever statements he or she is trying to make.


 * I think I fixed your main objections. The article is now more NPOV, for sure!

black national anarchism
How about we make this article more inclusive of other kinds of national anarchism, like black anarchism? Right now it comes off as all national anarchists are white nationalists. RJII 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a bit of a confusion (or potential for confusion) here - there is a specific current of Third-Positionists (and those who came out of the Third Position) called National Anarchists, people like Southgate and Limonov. Then there maybe a more general phenomenon of combinations of anarchism and nationalism (though I'm not sure how widespread it is - for instance, I don't think black nationalism is a significant current in black anarchism). I don't think it's helpful to have them both on the same page, at least, not unless there is much clearer separation. I suggest returning this page to being about the National Anarchist tendency grouped around the Third position and (if there's enough content to warrant it) starting a new page on Anarcho-nationalism. -- VoluntarySlave 07:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the main difference between nationalist anarchism and black anarchism is that the former seeks to create nation, while the latter starts with nation as a starting point, but seems to have little issue with seeing that nation erode to a state of anarchism without nations. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the black anarchists i've read seem to welcome the idea of mixing cultures, nations, races. Their point is that they are black, from the black political traditions, seek to liberate black people, and are anarchists and using anarchist organizing strategies, with the goal of creating an anarchist society. That anarchist society is created with other anarchist society. They have the same goal of a anarchist-communist society, basically "free" of class, race, etc. Today, and for the forseeable future, however, the black culture is the basis of their anarchism. 66.245.214.251 08:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
It doesn't really seem necessary to have two seperate pages since the concepts are pretty closely related. I would say merge one to the other and redirect. Fightindaman 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's notable enough to have its own article. Would you want black anarchism merged as well? I don't think so. They need their own articles. RJII 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * National/Nationalist Anarchism are both listed as seperatist. Black anarchism (from my experience with it) is not sepearatist.  What do you think the two articles contribue that one could not?


 * Black anarchism is included in that anarcho-nationalism article. I don't know if Black anarchism is separatist or not, but they are nationalist. If black anarchism can have a separate article, why couldn't national anarchism? Why are you singling them out? The criteria for an article is not what it can "contribute" but whether it's "notable" or not. RJII 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to remove the National Anarchism article, I just don't think that we need it and one on "nationalist anarchism" in general. The "nationalist anarchism" article was only created 5 days ago (previously it was a redirect to this page).  It seems to make sense that one just merge the general info on nationalist anarchism into this article, since this is stated as the most prominent example of it. Fightindaman 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the separate Nationalist anarchism article because I thought this article was confusing, in that it started off being about the general concept of mixing anarchism with nationalism, but then the main content is just details about the specifc fascist-linked National Anarchist groups. I don't know if there's actually enough content to justify the separate Nationalist anarchism article - apart from the National Anarchists, the only example of nationalist anarchism I think anyone has presented is one article which represents a minority position within Black anarchism. If there really is a notable current of anarcho-nationalism which includes more than just the National Anarchists, I would be in favour of it having an article separate from this one; but I'm not convinced there actually is, so maybe Nationalist anarchism (and Anarcho-nationalism and cognates) should just be deleted (I think a redirect to here would be misleading, though). VoluntarySlave 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should be merged into a possible eventual Anarchism and nationalism. - FrancisTyers 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've renamed the Nationalist Anarchism page to Nationalism and anarchism and done my best to bring in text from other relevant articles and to improve the existing text there to transform that page into a discussion of the relationships and intersections between anarchism and nationalism along the same lines as the discussion on the Anarchism and Marxism page. Given that change, a merger between that page and this no longer seems appropriate since the two pages now address largely different subjects. Anarchocelt 08:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposals
This article has been proposed for deletion now three times in the space of less than a year. The last two proposals clearly came out to no consensus for deletion, and in terms of sheer numbers the split was about 50/50. Considering that Wikipedia articles are not deleted unless there's a very strong consensus to do so, and considering that its highly unlikely that there will ever be such a consensus to delete this article, not to mention that there's a strong argument that National Anarchism is a relevant enough movement to warrant a Wikipedia article, I would like to request those who have been proposing these AfDs to cease in desist their continuous renominations of this article for deletion. This is really starting to come across as petty harassment. If there is another AfD, at least follow the guidelines given in Guide_to_deletion:


 * If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.

The last AfD gave no indication that the proposer even bothered reviewing the previous AfD and totally failed to propose any meaningful counterargument to prior arguments for keeping this article.

Perhaps, however, energy is better spent improving the quality of this article. If this article has failed to address the highly marginal nature of National Anarchism within the broader anarchist milieu, then that's an improvement that could be made to this article, not a reason for its deletion. Peter G Werner 07:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If only one page is kept, nationalist anarchism deals with the broad set of positions of which National Anarchism is one very specific (and marginal and obscure) variant. Nationalist anarchism is the one that should stay if one were removed. But I don't see why there is a problem with having both, as they are both legitimate subjects of articles and they are not the same thing as each other. --BobFromBrockley 11:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Futurism ≠ National Anarchism
Firstly Anarcho-Fascism is not purely nationalistic, you've got the idea all wrong, and I don't even think National Anarchism even truly exists. For real information regarding the Anarcho-Fascists please check out: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0422/is_4_82/ai_69411772/pg_7 - the idea was first breathed into the world by F.T. Marinetti the founder of Futurism. I also originally wrote one of the first thesis relating to Anarcho-Fascism, which has not been publically accepted until recently. I am an Anarcho-Fascist and nothing on this article is at all correct in its assumptions regarding my ideology/philosophy. Piecraft 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be adding two articles relating to the individual paths of philosophical ideologies for Anarcho-Fascism and Fascio-Anarchism. Piecraft 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias
It is quite sad what this article has become, it has almost been deleted out of existence because anarchists so refuse to be associated with it. I understand, I would hate to have to have my ideas associated with those of people with racial supremicist tendencies. But anarchists have been so insistent upon distancing this movement from theirs that there is alost no information about it on the page.

Relationship with the Anarchist Movement
I am getting rid of these statements about what the website Green Anarchy thinks about National Anarchism. This is not a page about Green Anarchy, about their website, or about their opinions of National Anarchism. As a concession, I'm keeping the link as a source for what I have written to replace this biased material. I think I've made a pretty decents statement about the "relationship with the Anarchist Movement" stating that there both is a connection to anarchist ideas (like it or not, there is) and that "most anarchists" (a hard claim to substantiate, but I'll leave it there) reject their notion of racial segregation and hope to distance themselves from National anarchism. I will try to see if I can figure out how to site this page as evidence that anarchists want to distance themselves from NA. Dwinetsk 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist anarchism (again)
See the nationalist anarchism Talk page: the additions to the latter article should put any further merger proposals into a different perspective. Those who think that anarcho-nationalism has scarcely an existence or history apart from National Anarchism had better think again. 172.141.198.21 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

POV clean up
I am removing the following pieces of text:

1) Other Viewpoints

Please note that there are so-called "Anarcho-Fascist" groups who believe in the principles of governmentless state, and feel the best way to spread such and ideal is through war. Fascism, the term, is derived from the name "Fasci di Combattimento" which translates, roughly, to the league of combat. These groups tend to be more radical and violent, though their hate and focus is upon the government, not other people.

However, it is important to understand that the term "Anarcho-fascist" and its supposed ideology is fiercely rejected by anarchists and many scholars across the political spectrum as an obvious oxymoron.

This is highly POV, uses persuasive rather than descriptive language and is not relevant to a description of National Anarchism. Besides that, I don't think it makes any sense.

2)
 * "The claim by National-Anarchists to find influence in these thinkers is controversial."

How can a claim to find influence in a thinker be controversial? It cannot: the controversy is whether the views of National Anarchists follow logically from the thinkers they have found influential. If national anarchists found inpiration in those thinkers than they found inspiration in those thinkers. I think those who say that this claim is controversial would have a hard time establishing that no National Anarchists have read these thinkers and found inspiration from their writing.

I wish to emphasize that an article on Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to discuss these questions. If you wish to argue that National Anarchists are racists and draw funny conclusions from classical anarchist thinkers, please find a different forum and let this philosophy be accurately described on Wikipedia for those who don't know about it. Wikipedia users can then form their own opinions and maybe join you in whatever forum you find to debate idealogy. This is an encyclopedia!!

3)
 * "Third-positionism is a strand of neo-Fascist thought that evolved from Mussolini's view of Fascism as a 'Third Position' between Capitalism and Socialism."

This is not an article on third-positionism, but on national anarchism. Readers can click the hypertext link.

4)
 * "The N.R.F. has since been dismantled in favour of leaderless resistance cells and community building."

It is also not an article on the National Resistance Front, so I'm removing this sentence. Again, readers can follow the hypertext link.

I'm going to move the following sentence (and neutralize the language a bit) to a new section I'm creating called, "National Anarchism and Fascism." Someone who believes that National Anarchists are somehow fascist can fill it in with more substantive critique (seems kind of ridiculous to me because Fascism is so dependent on state organs which NA don't seem to believe in).


 * "National-Anarchists completely reject Fascism as being Statist, but sometimes the term post-Fascist has been used to describe their own and related ideologies."

I'm also adding text to actually describe the beliefs of National Anarchists at the beginning, where it belongs. Hope this is all relatively straight forward and helps this article to better explain its subject. I believe it is still very biased against National Anarchism, but I'll let some National Anarchists defend it. I'm just trying to get it to at least explain what the movement is.

Dwinetsk 11:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the sentence, "Many National-Anarchists are thusly influenced by Medieval economic models and advocate a position sometimes known as neo-feudalism," because it is sooo POV. If you look at the wikipedia article on neo-feudalism, the first line describes it as a pejorative term. Plus, the purported reasoning for National Anarchism being "neo-feudalist" -- that they advocate distributism, which was devised in medieval times -- is absurd. If I really like the liberal thought of the thirties does that make me a neo-depressionist (one who advocates a revival of the depression)? I know it's a silly comparison... --Dwinetsk 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Ram and anarcho-nationalism
Note to VoluntarySlave: citation coming right up! By the way, I notice that you removed one of my insertions in the opening sentence :-) I was having second thoughts about that myself, because it is useful to have a term that's wider than 'Southgatean' National-Anarchism. But in Black Ram, terms referring to anarchist/nationalist synthesis are used indiscriminately or interchangeably, and this is the earliest occurrence of 'anarcho-nationalism' that I know of. That's why I wrote that the terms National Anarchism and anarcho-nationalism were coined as equivalents. But I'm no historian; do you have evidence of an earlier usage than 1982 which would refute me on this point? :-) 172.203.51.176 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded on the Black Ram citation (but forgot to add the edit summary). The sense of 'National Anarchist' is evident from the context, which demands that 'National' means something more than 'country-wide'. But I don't know if I can actually say that in the article without veering into original research. Looking back, I wonder if (or how far) this whole subject of Black Ram might be original research, although that wasn't my intention. But I've based my contribution on primary sources and I'll leave it in for others to evaluate whether I've added interpretation to the sources or not. 172.142.20.92 17:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has been very much focussed on Troy Southgate's version of National Anarchism. The quotations in 'Core positions' have until now derived from Southgate. I've added a Black Ram quote to provide a bit more breadth & historical depth, even if (as seems likely) the two groups had independent origins and are not directly connected. Someone should also add something on NA movements outside the UK, in Germany for instance: I think they got going at about the same time as Southgate's. Maybe they also arrived at the idea independently, does anybody know? 172.214.4.98 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-swastika & the recent vandalism to this article
Thought it would add an impressive graphic touch if I could insert the anarcho-swastika symbol from Black Ram. It would look even more impressive on a red background with the inner circle white, but unfortunately this is how it appears in Black-and-white Ram and I suppose I mustn't "interpret". I have tidied up the scan a little, though (basically, straightening a few edges). It's in PNG format and really should be recreated as SVG but I'll leave that to anybody who's interested, as my graphics package is rather basic. Gnostrat 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Black Ram were anti-racist and anti-fascist as the article suggests, why would they use a swastika as a logo? I undertand that the swastika is not soley the symbol of Nazism, but within post-WWII Western society it is used almost exclusively by racists and/or fascists (or idiots like the early punks who wore it for shock value). So why would a British group from the 80s, who claim to not support racism or fascism use it?  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But haven't anarchists always challenged our perceptions? I think the footnote essentially covers it. The agenda was not to be a passive consumer of culturally based assumptions but to actively change the culture, and also appeal to people who might otherwise drift into fascism.


 * Don't forget that "Post-WWII Western society" includes Asians for whom the swastika has been a sacred image for millennia, not to mention neo-pagans for whom it is an indigenous Western symbol of 'green' spirituality and who want it rehabilitated - as well as the punks you mention - all of whom were open to being enticed over into the anarchist camp by linking swastikas with anarchy. No less importantly, people who were being lured into fascism by groups who exploited the power of the symbol might well have felt that anarchists also understood some of their concerns.


 * But let the paper speak for itself: "Many of the causes which the Nazis latched on to (and betrayed) - neo-pagan religiosity, 'folkish' preoccupation with culture and ethnic identity, 'strength through joy', de-urbanisation, back to nature etc. - are still relevant today. The rescue of the swastika from Nazi usage can become a powerful symbol for the recovery of these associated vital areas of concern." The same article explicitly points out that, as a worldwide symbol, the swastika fitly represents "that unity-in-diversity which respects and brings harmony between people of all races and cultures". You can't get clearer than that!


 * Sure, this was one individual writing. But as a group they endorsed the anarcho-swastika symbol and therefore the strategy behind it. I notice that on your user-page you say you are "upset that Nazis stole one of the world's oldest and most universal spiritual symbols" - well, so were Black Ram, and they were trying to do something to change it. They failed, of course, disappearing without making any noticeable impact (and leaving the field clear for Troy Southgate to 'reinvent' National Anarchism in a somewhat different mould). But I can't stress enough that the group was as 'mainstream' anarchist as you get, with ideological roots partly in Alternative Socialism (70s anarcha-feminists/anarcho-pacifists) and fairly chummy connections with punk artists Frank Strident and Crass. (That's a piece of personal knowledge, not something you'd deduce from the paper, though they reprinted a Crass leaflet.) While they promoted völkisch-anarchism/anarcho-nationalism, it was as one option among many, and in a non-sectarian spirit they didn't close off the paper to other interpretations of anarchy. And not everyone was happy about the swastika: reactions from friends and allies were mixed, and one well-known anarchist paper somehow repeatedly "neglected" to carry their ads.


 * How you evaluate the group will depend partly on your definition of racism. I'm inclined to take Troy Southgate's NAs at face value when they say they're not racists; nevertheless they are separatist in a doctrinaire way and, I think, Black Ram wasn't. But I'm just old enough to remember that back in the 70s, anarcha-feminists and anarcho-pacifists and all sorts of leftist radicals were defending separatism (at least by women or oppressed ethnic groups) on purely libertarian grounds as "anybody's valid lifestyle choice". I think Black Ram would have supported that, without insisting on it as a central or necessary plank of their ideology.


 * You could counter that, in the 80s, the National Front had jumped on board the left's bandwagon of minority separatism, and was even selling anarchist literature! Which just goes to show that the line between 'left' and 'right' radicalism is indefinable and can be crossed and re-crossed from either direction, perhaps unknowingly. I'm aware that such complexities muddy the waters and that's not much help to dualists who are ever on the lookout for a Big Threatening Enemy to confront in rent-a-mob street brawls. Gnostrat 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you aren't implying that I'm a "dualist who [is] ever on the lookout for a Big Threatening Enemy to confront in rent-a-mob street brawls." Hard to tell if that was directed towards me or not, but I can assure you that I am well aware of the problems with a left-right dichotomy. Anyways, I can also understand the idea behind reappropriating the swastika, but it just doesn't sound that smart. Unlike the sun cross, it has yet to become ingrained in the minds of everyone in our society as a symbol of fascism and racism--most people don't even know that it's a neo-Nazi symbol, which is why neo-Nazis use it. It's obscure enough that they can get away with it most of the time without drawing attention from enemies. Trying to reclaim the swastika, especially this soon after the Nazi regime (I mean, there are still thousands if not millions of people alive today who lived through that) seems doomed to fail and will only bring about confusion and negativity towards the anarchist movement. I mean, I could understand having occasional articles on the issue to try and build up the eventual reclamation of such a symbol, but I would never go so far as to make it the symbol of an anti-racist anarchist group. As for Asians and neo-pagans living in our society, I did almost mention that but I didn't feel like taking the time to work it into my comment. Oh well. Still, if I were an Asian and I saw a group of people who were using a right-facing swastika that was clearly not meant to be a religious-based swastika I would be pretty freaked out. Thanks for explaing it though.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "rent-a-mob" remark wasn't directed at you - personal attacks aren't my style - and I apologise if it came across that way. I was making a general observation about people on both left and right and their inability to assume good faith when ideas cross-fertilise.


 * I didn't say the anarcho-swastika idea was necessarily smart, just that it happened. You've raised some interesting points which I might take up with you on your userpage or mine - but right now it looks like the article has been vandalised and the Black Ram/anarcho-swastika material removed, apparently by somebody sympathetic to Southgate's NAs who says there is no evidence for Black Ram having existed and that my inclusion of the material is an "obvious attempt to discredit the real NA founders". Strange that, as I have a copy in front of my nose and I am considering how to deposit other copies where they can be accessed by researchers. Black Ram was advertised in an issue of Pipes of PAN, the journal of Pagans Against Nukes, early in '83 - I'm going to see if I can dig out the exact reference. That's a fairly mainstream neo-pagan paper so it shouldn't be all that difficult to check. I am considering what response might be appropriate, given that the vandalism is complicated by Spylab having made further edits to the vandalised version, I think in good faith. Up until this point I was prepared to give Southgate's movement the benefit of the doubt but even if this article is partly or even largely about them, it isn't their personal property. I take a dim view of removing stuff for which I had provided primary sources, and I give notice that I WILL be reincluding the Black Ram material, one way or another, in the interest of historical objectivity. Gnostrat 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion about the Black Ram issue one way or the other, since I'm not familiar with the topic. I was merely copy editing what content remained in the article. There is information about Black Ram in the Nationalist anarchism article, which I suggested should be merged with this article because they seem to be about the same topic. To answer your question about footnotes that you left on my talk page, footnotes are supposed to be references (book, article, website), not explanatory text. That's why I moved the text from the footnote into the article itself. Spylab 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this is what I found in the Manual of Style: "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document to comment on a part of the main text, or to provide a reference for it, or both." In the case of that particular note, both. It doesn't matter much as I was going to merge it in the text anyway, only I'd wanted to slip it in at a more appropriate place after I'd reorganised it chronologically.


 * Yes, I looked at Footnotes and I stand corrected. Sorry about that.Spylab 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted :) Gnostrat 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting back to this article, I'm afraid that reverting the damage done by the anonymous guy will inevitably undo at least some of your later copy editing, but I'll see what elements of it I can put back afterwards.


 * I will just confirm here that Black Ram was indeed advertised in Pipes of PAN issue 10 (Imbolc 1983), p.3. There it is: INDEPENDENT testimony to Black Ram's existence, which even reproduces an illustration from the paper and describes it as a "militantly libertarian and anti-nuclear journal with 'volkisch' leanings, in the current of Pagan Anarchism."


 * The anonymous edit was plainly malicious: it removed material for which I had provided primary sources, and it did so on no firmer ground than an assumption of bad faith on my part (clearly stated as such). And it justified this course by wrongly stating that there is no evidence for Black Ram having existed. There is; I have now provided it; anybody can check it out for themselves with a little outlay of time and resources; and I will be reverting the article accordingly. Gnostrat 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the restoration work more or less finished, with edits from after the deletion re-included where I think they help the article. I also hope it's a less ambiguous article now because I've used lower case for the general movement/idea (as Wikipedia policy recommends) and spelled the more specific "National-Anarchist" label in the way that those organisations/networks that use it evidently want it to be spelled. Gnostrat 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
I have moved most of Southgate stuff to National-Anarchism, capitalised as it is not a "movement" but a specifc position. The Black Ram stuff has been preserved on the nationalist anarchist page, which can then serve as the general page. This reflects the direction of discussion.Harrypotter 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)