The Anarchist Myth

  • Posted on: 14 July 2017
  • By: thecollective

via Maldición Eco-extremista, where you can also find the original Spanish as well as a translation into Italian

I) Dismantling the myth
“Anything based on the masses, the herd, carries within itself the seeds of slavery. That crowd, which does not self-determine its values, is unable to define its own life.”
Everyone has roots, a past from which through different lived experiences you learn, analyze facts and evolve if you have the capacity for it, or else you are stuck in a loop of mediocrity and pathos. Thus, a portion of the individuals (not everyone!) who today form the nihilist and eco-extremist terrorist groups, including those who write this text, come from the “anti-authoritarian” environments of anarchism or radical leftism.
Having spent in some cases several years within this milieu that is plagued by misery and the miserable, by cowardly hypocrites and moral priests, we know what we are talking about. This is why we think it opportune to present this analysis to clarify why we distance ourselves from the anarchists and their old and obsolete theories. We consider it also important to make clear that NOT ALL people who call themselves anarchists follow the same line of thinking/acting or fit the description that we present. In fact, small circles of anarchists still find affinity with our attitudes, though we know that these are a minority of a minority.
To begin, some of us began to have contact and approach anarchist ideas precisely because we saw in them an antagonistic alternative to the values of society, values to which we have complete hostility. We believed that within the so-called “anarchist movement” we could form that “free” community to confront a world that we hate. But after years of wandering through the ruins of mediocrity, squats, concerts, parties and countercultural nonsense, participating in “mass struggles”, actions and attacks (in most cases symbolic as well as useless), where we risked a lot to get very little, we have finally realized many things, especially the fraud that is the myth of anarchism, in all of its variations.
Because we have seen how this “free community” of anarchists reproduces exactly the same values of society or of the system that it claims to fight against, because we have seen the hierarchies of the anarcho-leaders and their followers, the marked roles, the power struggles between different factions or groups, those who speak and those who listen, the attitude of “if you do not agree with my dogma, you are less anarcho or I will just split in your face” and a thousand and one childish idiocies that are not worth mentioning. Anyone who has been in contact with this milieu knows very well of what we speak. Because we have seen that the “movement”, the squats and everything else are just a product of consumerism, of an ideology for sale, a “radical” or countercultural fashion or a degenerate form of leisure for drug addicts that is far from being the real threat to the System that it claims to be and that it is simply a lifestyle totally assimilated and controlled by the system.
Because we have understood the unrealizable nature of anarchist and leftist programs, the utopian fantasy of a world in harmony is ridiculous to us. We are not interested because, really, who knows how the world will be like in a few years, so why even pretend to have a magic solution and a determined program for the post-revolutionary anarchist world? We had enough of flushing our life down the toilet for nonsense that seems drawn out of teenage dreams. We have developed a more complex analysis of the reality that surrounds us, free of the veils that blind us and the chains of romantic idealism has put us in our place. We got tired of waiting for a “revolution” that will never arrive, and that if it did, we look back at the history and at the behavior of the anarchists (which is a further sample of human nature), perhaps it would be even worse than the world we know today. Because we are tired of putting hopes in popular uprisings but also in the “minority conscience” of the “insurrectionary”, because many times we have heard incendiary and bellicose speeches that were left at mere quackery. Maybe it can be said that we are crazy or lunatics, that our “program” is “kill for the sake of killing until they kill us” … you can say this and a thousand other things but at least we are realistic and above all, honest. Anarchists, regardless of the type (red, red-black, black, eco-anarchist … etc) have one thing very clearly in common: their programs are based on illusions and hopes, and they deform the existing reality to make it fit into their ideological fantasies.
The basic values ​​and pillars on which anarchy is built do not represent us anymore if they ever did. The humanistic and Christian nature of these values ​​disgust and repel us. Concepts such as mutual support (universal and among strangers), promiscuous and indiscriminate solidarity towards people who we know nothing about, simply because they belong to a particular social stratum such as prisoners, migrants or workers, without stopping to analyze each person for his individual decisions / actions and not simply by the forced category in which he has been placed. The belief that the human being has a “good” nature under certain conditions and is “evil” under others … and best not to speak of the horrendous collectivist vision of life that many (not all) anarchists have and many other things which are, as we have already said, the intrinsic values ​​of anarchism and which irreconcilably separate us from the world of the anarchists.
If we go deeper into the concepts of “authority,” “hierarchy,” “power,” “domination,” and other concepts that the anarchists claim to fight against, we first find a tremendously hypocritical stance when they themselves have power struggles. In that case, they are in fact, authoritarians and they try to subdue and dominate others who are not like them.
When anarchists (or anyone else) exercise violence against their enemies, they are imposing their authority over them by the use of force or other means. Even a simple dialectical debate between two opposing positions basically consists of trying to dominate your opponent and impose your way of seeing things.
On the other hand, it seems to us tremendously hypocritical and utopian to deny the reality of human behavior. Although our position as individualists makes it clear that we do not bow our heads to anyone or need to be told what to do, think or need anyone to make decisions for us, we understand that authority and hierarchical organization are neither “good” nor “bad” but is something that just exists and, regardless if you like it or not, it’s something very natural in the human behavior since time immemorial. Therefore we can lie to ourselves and fall into the hypocrisy of anarchists and “anti-authoritarians” or we can accept the reality and use it in what is convenient for us.
We understand that at certain moments and situations, a figure of authority or “guides” may be necessary and beneficial. For example, when carrying out actions, robberies, armed assaults or whatever, there are those who have a capacity for self-control and cold blood in times of great tension and danger, as well as experience in similar situations, or they know the area, or have in general one or more abilities that make them more skilled than the rest of the team. Of course, this person will be the most suitable to give the indications of when to strike or retreat. Because in a robbery that lasts 30 seconds, there is no time to convene an assembly in case of an unforeseen event (which often occurs). Not only must there be great coordination and prior preparation of all members to know what role each one plays, but there must be some chain of command in the group under a figure who by his experience and skills managing these delicate situations can react, make difficult decisions quickly, and guide group members with less experience, in order to save himself and the rest of the group and thus succeed in the task at hand.
Apart from this there must be very well defined roles based on the experience and personal skills of each component of the unit, and yes, again, we clash with anarchist idealism that stands against specialization and roles. We can even agree concerning a sharing of the division of labor in the sense that we see the utility of all members of the group learning a little bit of everything (making explosives, target shooting, driving, vehicle theft, computer file encryption, hand-to-hand combat, disguises … etc) What we cannot ignore is that there are people with specific skills, for example some are better shooters than others, likewise, there will be other individuals who are better able to drive in extreme situations and others who are more familiar with other practices. That is why in actions there must be roles based on the specialization and experience of each individual. This increases the probability of success in action.
Authority exists in various forms, some are coercive and others not, but obviously the concept of authority within civilization is not something that we can understand as something “positive”.
For example, the police and other means of artificial regulation of the techno-moral civilization are alien and hostile concepts to us because, on the one hand, the wild already has its own cycles and means of regulation and does not need other means, and on the other hand because these means are made with the purpose of perpetuating the civilized order. The question is how each one of us faces the reality of authority and hierarchy in its various forms, and how these are internalized within the human being. Individualistic extremists do not pay any respect to civilized authority or anyone who stands in their way, only they choose their own path, only they decide what to do outside of the anarchist hypocrisy that pretends to be “horizontal”, “free” and “without god or master”. The individualistic extremist builds their daily reality and their relationships, like everyone else, in a series of defined constructions and roles, including through very natural authoritarian and hierarchical attitudes. The extremist individualist who follows his wild and egoist instinct, using authority when it is necessary for his benefit (for example when taking the lives of his enemies or using force to ensure his survival) and thus not being locked inside the moral cages of ideologies, religions, progressivism and humanism and taking reality as it is, without sugarcoating it to make it easier to swallow. In the end this is more “free”, even more “anarchic” in the purely chaotic sense, than all those “anti-authoritarians” drenched in romantic idealism, prisoners of the mental chains of the stereotype of the politically correct.
On the other hand, most people (if not everyone) have completely assimilated the present everyday life and do not know, or want, to live another life than this established one, the comfortable one, the easy way. Who is going to convince all those millions who wander the world to establish anarchy? In the eventual case of the disappearance of the state and institutions that regulate the common life, how do you agree with everyone or just avoid killing each other? With pedagogy? Doing assemblies? That blind trust in humanity and in the “good faith” of the people that the anarchists have makes us laugh. In addition to the tremendous arrogance of those who present themselves as a kind of “messiah,” a divine being touched by the grace of “God” who has seen the light, believe themselves to be the absolute truth and have been selected for the important task of “liberating” and teaching the true path of light and truth to the rest of the mortals of that massive entity called “the people”. But the “people” are mere blind slaves and idiots who have been and are deceived and manipulated by evil beings (Capital-state, “power”, the rich … etc) and are not able to make decisions or think for themselves or understand what surrounds them, and of course, they have no responsibility for the functioning of today’s world.
It is only necessary to observe how the attitudes of domination, the lust for power, the internal fights for being the one who is right or wants to be the boss. Here the authoritarian attitudes or the rotten social values ​​reproduce themselves and move freely within the “anti -authoritarian” movement. For even in history, in the few cases where anarchy was imposed (and we say imposed because it was never consented to without the use of force) within that anarchist program or government there were authorities, bosses, leaders (Durruti, Nestor Makhno … etc.) people whose voice was heard over others and whose opinion was worth more than others, a few who made important decisions and a few who followed and obeyed, so in these experience of history we see that there were organs responsible for “keeping order” etc etc. We see that authority emanates from an assembly, a “revolutionary” committee, a workers’ council, or one or other “horizontal” organizational structure, which does not make it different from that one emanating from a government institution or from the barrel of a gun.
We have understood that human nature is conflictive, that hierarchy and authority in their variants are concepts deeply rooted in the human being and that there were and there will always be people who have become leaders by skill or by force. And there were and there will always be those who are willing to follow these leaders. There were and there will always be people with a desire for power, a desire to command, to be someone respected or feared and even more people are going to opt for the path of least resistance, which is to bow your head, obey and not get into trouble, rather than complicate your life thinking for yourself. Many don’t mind if there is someone around who makes the decisions for them. And this happens even in anarchic circles, so it is not a charge we level specifically against rotten anarchism, but rather we level the charge against the rottenness of humanity as a whole of which the humanist anarchists and leftists form a part. Ideologies sell the image of prefabricated enemies and that we must fight and sacrifice ourselves for a “superior” alien cause, but we have come to the conclusion that man’s true enemy is man himself.
Because although there was a time when we thought that the root of all evil was the State / Capital, we later understood that it was more complicated than that, and that the origin of the problem was the complex network of relations of power that is society. After this, we understood that society is the product of Civilization and this in turn of human progress, which is responsible for this regrettable reality. And whether we like it or not, the human being naturally tends toward progress, and the modern human being to the worst kind of progress that exists, that of an anthropocentric vision where everything on earth, from the water, the mountains, the trees, animals, people … everything is reduced to resources or products, benefits, land to conquer or bodies / minds to dominate or domesticate.
And in this situation, many anarchists (but not all!) not only remain tremendously deficient in making the simple analysis of “State / Capital source of all evil in the world” but they do not even raise a criticism of civilization and Progress, or worse, are tremendously pro-civilization, thinking that changing the form of government, directing resources and means of production, and modifying social / economic organization are enough.
Finally having arrived at these conclusions based on what has been lived, what “new” world do you expect us to build with this rabble? What new experiences and liberating moments can arise from such rottenness? Nothing can be expected of anarchists, because their faith in humanity blinds them. They are victims of their own idealism and have a romanticized and unrealistic view of the world and the nature of people. Just keep hoping that, especially in the mass society in which we live, the “awakening of consciousness” comes and people “learn” to live in anarchy, even if those in charge of bringing anarchy to the people are these characters. For us, they can waste their entire lives pursuing their utopia.
Because to conceive of a real experience of authentic, wild, and free life, one would have to look at forms of life or social organization on a very small scale, with few members, tribal or “primitive” forms already lost or almost lost; those far from civilization. Yet not even these were perfect, nor do we consider them as examples to follow, since we do not idealize anything or anyone and we prefer that each seeks and makes his or her own way.
II) “Black anarchy” and the “new” anarchist urban guerrillas
“The idols only exist because of Me. It is enough that I stop creating them, so that they disappear: there are no higher powers if I do not raise them and put myself under them”
While we have generally spoken of anarchy as a movement, we want to dwell more deeply on one of its “variants” which may seem to have certain similarities with individualist extremist tendencies and nihilistic terrorists. We speak of the so-called “anarcho-nihilist” tendencies, “antisocial” anarchism and “black anarchy” and the experiment of the “new” urban anarchist guerrillas.
To begin, reading the texts and claims of actions of this tendency, we see only the repetition of the same discourse over and over again, a purely identifying discourse based largely on criticizing what other tendencies of anarchy do or do not do, or why anarchos don’t do what I do or laugh at my jokes (this whole business of I being more anarcho than thou because thou dost not follow my dogma, something very common among anarchists as we saw earlier).
At the same time they need to write a text for everything, often too exaggerated and with words and terminology that get too grandiose compared to the ridiculous “actions” carried out in most cases (sealing a padlock, putting up banners or graffiti tags…)
The need to convince, to win followers for “their cause” (although some won’t admit it) leads them to make public statements which places them obviously in the focus of attention of snitches and investigations. Just as the communists and social anarchists have their hopes placed on the absolute revolutionary subject (“the people”, “the working class”, etc.), black anarchy hopes that its texts and actions will compel the awakening of consciousness in individuals who are already part of the “movement” or at least their youngest and most energetic part, pushing them into action. Basically, some rely on the masses and others on the “minorities of rebels”, but in the end everything is the same, putting hopes in others to follow you and do the same things as you do, following the anarchist tradition of this kind of “faith” that they deposit in other people. Beyond that, the “black” proposal offers nothing more than to wait for the “contagion” from one day to the next, and it is total nonsense.
Moreover, the incendiary and warlike discourse of black anarchy does not correspond to reality, where most of these people live within the comfort of the aesthetic pose of the “insurrectional” movement.
Then we have that famous concept of the “multiformity” of actions, so that according to the theory of “polymorphic action” the anarchist “praxis” can (and should!) combine putting up posters with bombings (as if it is the same thing), doing guerrilla attacks while participating in public and propagandistic movements and actions, speaking, defending and advocating anarchist violence in debates, assemblies and public talks… and so on… but what a bunch of nonsense! This concept of “polymorphic action” seems like something that comes out of the mind of an unconscious or mentally unstable person!
Anyway, boasting, pretending, spreading rumors and gossiping, being a loudmouth and showing off by telling stories of “battles” even in phone conversations or on social networks such as Facebook (long live the coherence!) are very common things in the circles of “black anarchists”, and just imagine the “reputation” they acquire at having been arrested or imprisoned…
If we address the concept of actions of the “new” anarchist urban guerrillas, we arrive at the worst part of all.
First, the strategy, planning and execution of actions are disastrous; the lack of measures,or rather the lack of a security culture and self-preservation instinct is one of the many failures of these groups. The examples to be followed by many of these “revolutionary anarcho-nihilists” are the disastrous guerrilla experiences (leftists or communists in their majority) of the past or present and their historical failures (RAF etc), examples that are not based on a strategic criteria or on the improvement of the effectiveness of armed action, but simply on the basis of a moralistic criterion, of ideological rigidity or of fetishistic admiration. Because in spite of being called “new”, these guerrillas only copy the schemes of the “old” guerrillas in many aspects, perhaps with only theoretical differences.
Ineptitude, inattentiveness, and irresponsibility are the words that best define these “guerrillas”,, which put them and anyone around them in unnecessary danger. Imprisoned “guerrillas” of the past and present are a disastrous example for a new generation of idiots who fetishistically adore them without stopping to think or make the slightest criticism, or question why guerrilla anarchist groups had a fleeting existence and most of their members ended up imprisoned, dead, on the run, or denying that they ever were guerillas. The example given by these “guerrillas”, their experiences, their words and texts encouraging others to follow in their footsteps and make the same mistakes, leave a new generation of followers ready for prison. On the other hand, the “demand” for “solidarity”, such as attending trials or maintaining contact or direct relationship with the prisoners (visits, mail, phone calls, social networks…), does nothing more than fill in the files of anti-terrorist police investigations. Not to mention the lack of responsibility, on both sides, of those who have direct and continued contact with prisoners when they are carrying out actions or have in mind to do so.
Martyrdom and self-sacrifice are some of their other “virtues,” claiming responsibility when they are captured, even though there is no evidence to directly incriminate them. This is yet more proof of the stupidity of these “guerrillas”, confusing pride with idiocy. As if they had to face or had any responsibility to “the movement” or to claim some political responsibility for their actions to people who do not even know them, who will not follow their steps and probably in a few years won’t even remember them. Because, besides, even though it seems to us a tremendous absurdity to give our enemies our lives on a silver platter in court, we believe that we must be consistent with the decisions made and face their final consequences. Because one cannot declare oneself against the law, refuse to participate in legal proceedings, refuse to recognize the authority of any judge or prosecutor, or announce that the escape, riot and rebellion are the only options of the “urban guerrilla” prisoner and then expect to gain something from prison privileges, to participate in trials (even if it is pretending), participate in the process, legal defense etc, and even after “refusing to participate in the farce that are trials” and “not expect anything from a system of which we are declared irreconcilable enemies” and then complain because they were left without their prison privileges, or that they were given long sentences or because things did not go as expected. Because it’s only when you are between a rock and a hard place that you show what your convictions are made of, because we know that it is very easy to speak or write texts and be very brave in theory, but in the end, the practical example is what counts. Because we have already seen how when some have been isolated and left alone, with those who in the past supported them turning their backs on them or changing their beliefs, then very quickly they toned-down their discourse; and the initial radicality and aggressiveness disappeared.
And when we go to the practical example of the “guerrilla” actions of these anarchs, we see many ill-conceived actions, badly executed, with lousy results: lots of risk with little to show for it.
Attacks that in many cases only resulted in a black spot on some wall. In addition, these actions were rarely intended to directly attack the lives of some of their enemies but only property and almost always the same objectives over and over (banks and ATMs), usually on specific symbolic dates for the “movement” (anniversaries of some police murder, of some revolt of the past, from calls of “solidarity” with this or that cause or prisoner … etc). If someone was injured, texts and communiqués were quickly published asking for forgiveness and implying that it was not their intention to hurt “innocents”. Because despite declaring themselves antisocial, terrorists, eternal enemies of society and other big words, these “terrorists” and “antisocial anarchists” have lots of consideration for society and their fellow citizens.
In closing, we can say that the “experiment” of the “new” urban guerrillas has only left a lot of prisoners, another still larger group of people under investigation and probably another bunch of future prisoners. All of this is the high price paid for this short-term activity and a ridiculously small amount of damage (in the vast majority of cases), which in economic terms is being recovered in the levied fines. This is the high price paid for bad planning, loose lips, being carried away by emotions and nonsense, and especially for thinking that this is a game. In strategic terms and by doing a cold and common sense analysis, the experiment of the urban guerrillas and the anarchist action groups has been and is an absolute disaster, and there are the facts that prove it.
We have always been aware that those who immerse themselves in this life, those who choose the path of illegality, of the attack with all its final consequences, have no guarantees of anything, even less of “success” or “victory” but there are many guarantees of ending up dead or imprisoned. But it is one thing to know this reality and assume it acting accordingly, that whatever happens always be cautious, PATIENT and act carefully to keep out of jail or the morgue, to continue attacking more frequently and better; and it is another very different thing is to be a suicidal by sticking one’s head in the mouth of the lion. In this sense we reject and deeply despise that mythological garbage that “prison is a stop in the life of the revolutionary / anarchist / whatever” that has led the imagination of many idiots to believe that incarceration is not “that bad”. Prison, especially with a decades-long sentence for terrorism, is the end, full stop. We no longer live in the Middle Ages, nor are we in the 80’s, modern prisons are practically impossible to escape from. A long or life sentence is not a “stop”, it means that you have screwed up your life, in most cases by making the wrong decisions, and instead of believing these stupid arguments and all that anarcho-nonsense about jail, they should look in the mirror and assume that they screwed up. In our case, we prefer a quick death to a “life” of martyrdom behind bars that in the best of scenarios you end up being released after spending half your life in prison, as human waste, sick and old, that is if they do not kill you while behind bars. We insist, it is one thing to take risks and quite another thing to be suicidal.
The growing scarcity of both quality and quantity of offensive activity, even in places with a long history of anarchist activity, shows a declining movement, consumed by disputes and internal fights, of what could have been and but wasn’t, or rather an “I want to but I can´t”. Bombings, arson and punctual attacks are nothing more than the last vestiges of something already outdated.
Those who made of anarchism something more than useless chatter and a pacified and reformist attempt to make social politics, those who gave a chaotic and threatening aspect to anarchy that at certain moments came to represent a headache for governments, are dead or in jail (mostly due to stupidity and childish mistakes). Others changed their positions when they panicked, thinking that they could end up just like their “compas”, or when they perceived that adhering to the “anarcho-social activist” position is less dangerous. Many others continue to adhere to the anarcho-insurrectionary-antisocial-blackblock position that only remains in speech and posturing but nothing or almost nothing to put into practice.
Who knows, maybe new generations of anarchists will know how to turn this decadence around and take other paths, more dangerous for the existent. We don’t know one way or the other and, contrary to what many people think, we would be glad if this happened since more tension, more attacks, more bombings and fires, assassinations and alterations of normality of any kind; in short, extremist and destructive criminal activity ( of whatever kind) adds chaos and destabilization to a declining civilization.
We are going to give a clear example of effectiveness in practice: the tendency of eco-extremist terrorism has been active since 2011, when the first ITS began their activities in Mexico. During their 6 years of life, they have expanded to several countries ( Argentina, Brazil and Chile, at the moment, although it has “sympathizers” in various parts of the world) and operates in several Mexican states with a history of dozens of attacks that they have taken responsibility for (from sending parcel-bombs, arson, attacks with guns and knives, placing and detonating explosive devices, assassinations …) plus an unspecified number of attacks that they have not taken responsibility for that have left not only material damages, terror and stupefaction in citizens and authorities alike, but several wounded, mutilated and dead. In the same way, groups and individuals of the nihilistic terrorist tendency have been operating and expanding in various parts of Europe, with a special presence in Italy, and these have have left a trail of incendiary and explosive attacks, spreading their poison to the bowels of the rotten society, and all this without counting acts that they have not taken responsibility for and without taking into account that some of the people who act today encompassed under these trends already carried out attacks years ago for other reasons (similar or not). Until today and as far as we know, not one single person has been arrested or imprisoned under the accusation of being part of any of these groups or of being the author of any of these attacks, in spite of the great notoriety that these tendencies have acquired (and taking into account the systematic cover-up, denial and manipulation of their activities by the media, governments, and the means of anarchic “counter-information”), and having the police and intelligence agencies from several countries trying to find them.
Meanwhile, “the urban anarchist guerrillas”, the anarchist nihilists of black anarchy and the insurrectionaries of the FAI (or rather of what remains of it, a shadow of what it was) what have they achieved in these years? Nothing but actions of decreasing quality and quantity in a predictably clear decline, as well as a lot of people being imprisoned in long sentences. And in their “history”, not a single death. This is the price paid for following the theoretical / practical line of anarchist armed action as we know it, the mixture of wanting to be a political activist and terrorist guerrilla at the same time, which is clearly suicidal. Again so much lost for so little gained.
That is why, instead of seeking acceptance or complacency from everyone, growing in numbers or expanding, the priority should be to keep our tendencies incorruptible at any cost, in order to avoid imitators, followers / admirers or to become a circus or a fashion, as has happened with the anarchists. This is not an activity for all audiences, it is only for the best, the most qualified, those who have no qualms about spilling blood (especially other people’s blood) if necessary, it must be closely-knit and distrust everything outside of its immediate circle. The essence that characterizes the tendency must be kept “pure” without degradations, although this implies being few and that few (if anyone) will sympathize with it.
 

category: 

Comments

Ya'll are fucking idiots. Go to hell. You are fucking Daesh. You are CIA. You are COINTELPRO. I fucking hate you. You are fucking liars, puritans, and agents of bullshit. This shit article has no place here. It is state propaganda, even if it wasn't written by feds.

"This is not an activity for all audiences, it is only for the best, the most qualified, those who have no qualms about spilling blood (especially other people’s blood), if necessary, it must be closed tightly and distrust of everything strange."

Fuck you, fascist. We will win.

"we will win" - people who don't win

Fascist idiots don't win.

Why does he have to be an idiot? Why insult someone's intelligence? I think it shows immaturity and I just wish, wish you and people like you could get a grip and stop thinking that just because one of your rivals makes you a little upset you need to go the low route and call people names. Any fights you can do with words and fists you can instead put towards paying it forward and living life together. How many uncles do you have that are kind of stupid fascists? How many cousins have turned towards dumb white supremacy? You see, this is just another trend, like Black Lives Matter, Occupy, TEA party, Black Bloc Alt Right or what ever all you fascists like to call yourselves at any time. We don't need to insult each other in our praise for Mussolini.

Put simply... because fascism is one big dogmatic political tendency/ideology that is highly impervious to things like reason and a rich intellectual culture.

ITS is threatening anarchists and anarchist spaces in Mexico. Sad to see this website reprint stuff that is connected to destroying the very thing that brings pelple here.

It's not funny anymore. ITS is Richard Spencer in a badly tanned goat hide.

"The essence that characterizes the tendency must be kept “pure” "

Hahaha... Presenting the Mexican Al Qaeda.

67% edgier.

-17% deadlier.

0% as fanatically retarded.

Can't beat the competition? Assassinate them!

Sorry what? It's hard to understand you because you won't stop blowing ITS writers? Must be awkward when you kiss your mother, mid-blowjob on some homicidal egoist. Don't they blow themselves enough without your help?

Which is both post anarchist and post leftist. It also accepts that existence including civilization simply is and adjusts accordingly. It can be everything from Bartleby to Novatore to numerous things in between from violently into the night to silently into the night. What matters in any event is anarchic thinking and activity.

Good to see primitivism finally breaking free from anarchism. I remember I got involved in radicalism because of an interest in anti- modernity. Somewhere along the way I was sucked into anarchism instead. You could say my primitivism was captured by anarchism. It was derailed and I found myself talking about blacks and queers and not telling people what to do. I was suffocated under the ideology of freedom. I found myself around people I didn't respect; the "your like... telling me what to do, bro" crowd and obnoxious opinionated feminists. I did things sexually that I am now ashamed of. I thought I was rebelling against my father but in truth I was embodying the worst of him and his generation; I was his vicarious fantasy. I failed to live up to my responsibilities of those who depended on me, because I didn't want to be a vanguard, I didn't want to dominate them.

Good to see primitivism finally breaking free from anarchism.

True... all those decades of anarchists holding back primitivists in high-security prisons (that are a spook!). Never again! Now it's time for primitivists to shoot their way through the local gay anarchist crowd who're holding Teddy K in a cell.

For the Ancestors and stuff!

The gay anarchist scene, as you call them, is poison - and cultural libertarian thoughts processes recuperate and contain what could be good and noble impulses of anti modernity. The state is not the issue to the humble folk like us (beyond avoiding anything beyond a town, village level.) It is what is good in us and what is bad. Sepate the wheat from the chaff.

"At the same time they need to write a text for everything, often too exaggerated and with words and terminology that get too grandiose compared to the ridiculous “actions” carried out in most cases" Sounds like ITS and its ilk to me.

Yeah … there's a lot of pot said to kettle going on here, by definition. These are supposedly disillusioned former anarchists and I don't disagree with a lot of the critique.

I'm reading Hunter Thompson's book about the hell's angels right now and the parallels are spooky! It took me several years to strip away all the hyperbolic nonsense from the media spectacle about the evil anarchist movement and realize it was largely the same thing. A lot of hype and hangers-on, a lot of empty posturing and a loose sort of tribalism circling around a nucleus of abject poverty, which is the primary separation between the poseurs and the genuine articles.

That's all that it really is: a bunch of broke-ass misfits, lazily attempting to hustle the ones who buy in to the hype created by the media. Occasionally, the real anarchists pull together some pretty impressive alternatives to wage slavery or form a very poorly equipped and untrained group of fighters who usually get their asses kicked if they hold still for more than a few minutes. I say all this with firsthand experience! I'm one of them!

Where this critique and I part ways, is that my end goal was never that of an aspiring warlord (?!?!) measuring success in body counts and bombings. I was a broke-ass misfit and what drew me to anarchism was finding common cause with others like me, viewed as "surplus population" by the capitalists, among other things. Our projects were always about helping each other out with food and housing and sometimes about resentment based on class tension, the rich seemed to be encouraging us to kill ourselves because they had no use for us.

We're lumpenproles, trying to find shortcuts around the daily grind and spitting at the yuppies because we know all too well that they hate us dispassionately. This is a realistic assessment of the vast majority of the anarchist movement and I'm not as .. disappointed by that objectivity as whoever wrote this communique because I had much lower expectations going in hahahah

War is peace etc and Eco-Extremism is actually the consumerist industrial polluting lifestyle of today. Death of the biosphere for the sake of consumerism, for the sake of convenience. Death for convenience.

Childish in thought. Doesn't offer anything new or insightful. Anarchism is tough, you burnt out and rather than getting a job and going to work for the man as most do, you rebel against what you once were because it was too difficult for you to make work. Go cry in some other corner.

Is it "childish" or is it more of a horseshoe theory thing? If you start off believing the more melodramatic stuff about imminent revolution and the class war as a pitched battle, then you realize with dismay that most of your fellow anarchists are desperately poor, often mentally ill and mostly just trying to survive in the margins of an intrinsically hostile society.

Their capacity to fight and organize isn't limited by ideology so much as fundamentally derailed by not having their shit together. Serious fighters need to be self-sufficient and confident, mentally sharp and skilled. The majority of anarchists I've met don't meet this criteria but I never really expected them to, unlike this ITS writer.

Therefore, a profound disappointment with the absence of serious militants and a dramatic shift in thinking, towards more authoritarian methods of organizing and inflicting terror on your perceived enemies. That said, I agree with the part where they talk about temporary tactical hierarchies based on special skills or knowledge. That shit is undeniably true.

authority and hierarchical organisation are rational concepts that influence the behaviour of 'believers'.

self-appointing 'authorities' and hierarchical 'higher-ups' expect subservience from the rank and file, and if the rank and file don't believe in their 'authority' or 'superior position' then the aforesaid will 'try to make believers out of them'. these rational concepts came to us through the semantics of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar

there's nothing "natural" about rational concepts that stand or fall on the basis of people believing in them, something that this article fails to address in trying to portray authority and hierarchical organisation as naturally inborn traits of humans;

On the other hand, it seems to us tremendously hypocritical and utopian to deny the reality of human behavior. Although our position as individualists makes it clear that we do not bow our heads to anyone or need to be told what to do, think or need anyone to make decisions for us, we understand that authority and hierarchical organization are neither “good” nor “bad” but is something that just exists and, regardless if you like it or not, it’s something very natural in the human behavior since time immemorial. Therefore we can lie to ourselves and fall into the hypocrisy of anarchists and “anti-authoritarians” or we can accept the reality and use it in what is convenient for us.

'authority' in indigenous aboriginal (anarchist) communities is the influence that comes to individuals through direct action that inspires, it is not a socio-political agreement wherein 'that person is the authority' or 'he/she who everyone in the group must obey', and if not, the rest of the group will beat you to make a believer out of you. hierarchical organisation, similarly, does not over-ride the tradition of cultivating harmony of the entire group. i.e. there is no sense of a hierarchical ladder of superior/inferior authority.

there is thus no hard-wired concept of authority and hierarchical organisation in 'natural born man', and thus, there is no reason for 'anarchists' NOT to aspire to non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical social relational organising

elsewhere the article makes use of varying definitions of 'authority' and observes;

". We have understood that human nature is conflictive, that hierarchy and authority in their variants are concepts deeply rooted in the human being and that there were and there will always be people who have become leaders by skill or by force.

becoming a leader by natural skills that inspire others differs radically from becoming a leader/authority by Machiavellian skills that secures one's 'appointment' or 'election' to a 'position of authority' where the individual's 'authority' is then 'imposed', ... as is the common usage in Western society. leadership 'emerges' spontaneously in anarchist groups and such naturally arising-'authority' is not a compulsory authority that generates an obedient herd, but one which inductively orchestrates organisation.

the authors' redefining of 'authority' and 'hierarchical organisation' may be a psychologically useful ploy to help 'legitimize' their overall argument and modus operandi, but it is an unrealistic distortion of natural human behaviour; i.e. it is a 'myth'.

self-appointing 'authorities' and hierarchical 'higher-ups' expect subservience from the rank and file, and if the rank and file don't believe in their 'authority' or 'superior position' then the aforesaid will 'try to make believers out of them'. these rational concepts came to us through the semantics of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar

authority and hierarchical organisation are rational concepts that influence the behaviour of 'believers'.

On the other hand, it seems to us tremendously hypocritical and utopian to deny the reality of human behavior. Although our position as individualists makes it clear that we do not bow our heads to anyone or need to be told what to do, think or need anyone to make decisions for us, we understand that authority and hierarchical organization are neither “good” nor “bad” but is something that just exists and, regardless if you like it or not, it’s something very natural in the human behavior since time immemorial. Therefore we can lie to ourselves and fall into the hypocrisy of anarchists and “anti-authoritarians” or we can accept the reality and use it in what is convenient for us.

there's nothing "natural" about rational concepts that stand or fall on the basis of people believing in them, something that this article fails to address in trying to portray authority and hierarchical organisation as naturally inborn traits of humans;

there is thus no hard-wired concept of authority and hierarchical organisation in 'natural born man', and thus, there is no reason for 'anarchists' NOT to aspire to non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical social relational organising

'authority' in indigenous aboriginal (anarchist) communities is the influence that comes to individuals through direct action that inspires, it is not a socio-political agreement wherein 'that person is the authority' or 'he/she who everyone in the group must obey', and if not, the rest of the group will beat you to make a believer out of you. hierarchical organisation, similarly, does not over-ride the tradition of cultivating harmony of the entire group. i.e. there is no sense of a hierarchical ladder of superior/inferior authority.

". We have understood that human nature is conflictive, that hierarchy and authority in their variants are concepts deeply rooted in the human being and that there were and there will always be people who have become leaders by skill or by force.

elsewhere the article makes use of varying definitions of 'authority' and observes;

the authors' redefining of 'authority' and 'hierarchical organisation' may be a psychologically useful ploy to help 'legitimize' their overall argument and modus operandi, but it is an unrealistic distortion of natural human behaviour; i.e. it is a 'myth'.

becoming a leader by natural skills that inspire others differs radically from becoming a leader/authority by Machiavellian skills that secures one's 'appointment' or 'election' to a 'position of authority' where the individual's 'authority' is then 'imposed', ... as is the common usage in Western society. leadership 'emerges' spontaneously in anarchist groups and such naturally arising-'authority' is not a compulsory authority that generates an obedient herd, but one which inductively orchestrates organisation.

It is sad to see "them" resorting to such incoherent, deluded, and even ahistorical if not factual analysis of contemporary anarchism and its various movements, su cces,and failures. It is even more sadder that the Critique were poorly written If the FAI never accompalished anything as the critiqued said, it is because FAI ideas were and are always to be put on trial of practice and its diverse variants. There are no monopoly of narrow individualism in the FAI as far as I comprehend it, as it is just an idea to encourage anarchists to attack with informal and antiorganisationalist (even this also are always within a context), because "it" doesnt believe in binary logic that this critique does. While the critique seemed, at first, tried to dismiss binary vision of the world but it falls on the same mistakes when it doesnt even know nor understand how they or their moralistic-triumphant over others methodes originated and empowered. While I was in full support of ITS in attacking technocrats, ngos, and its effort in deconstructing western anarchist moralistic-christian tendency, they too fall to the same logic to their so "ideological enemies of gringo" anarchism. This world doesnt revolved around your ancestor, dear friend, and of course you cannot speak nor can understand anything about other gods and ancestors from different parts of the world. You dont have any ideas or even understand the languanges of Gong Solok Dayak of Borneo and their constant struggle against mining. You'll also never understand my other part of ancestry of proud Northerb Minahasan tribes, who, in the Tondano wars beheaded hundreds of dutch colonials and also the spanish in the island my great ancestors have lived. It is precisely because of this reason I consider myself as egoist-communist, why? Egoist in Stirnerist empowered me to understand myself and to stripped myself on any kind of values of subjugation and domination..the context of communism is to put the understanding of individuals and others concerning to common interests and needs: such as water and land. But you will never understand this because you already wins and every other things are lost. You have achieved your absolute moral values. Congratulations, you have make your "movement" reached its end and ultimate goals. Is that your ancestor teach you about life and living? I am very doubtful, really. I Yayat U Santi.

We will reply to you with a gun, cabron! Random murder has the last word! (contrived villainous laughter)

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
r
t
x
E
n
V
T
Enter the code without spaces.