Funny responses to the term National Anarchism

I talk to people on a regular basis about political subjects and when the question invariably comes around to my beliefs the response I get is always completely unpredictable.  When self described as a "National Anarchist" people generally only hear one word or the other, not both together, and they usually hear the word they are opposed to.

The Left winger will hear "nationalist," the Right winger "anarchist." 

The Rightist will respond in a number of typical ways (listed in order):

- Sympathetic: that they are sympathetic with the ideas of classical anarchism, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin.

- Unwise: they may say that although they are in basic agreement with it's libertarian premise but perhaps it "takes a legitimate idea too far."

- Terror: the reactionary is always quick to dismiss any (media induced image of horror) to mean "chaos," lack of government, or lack of law and order.  This is usually followed by a dismissal of National Anarchism because  "they never heard of it before therefore it can't exist."

- Oppositional: outright hostility towards the cherished Constitution, government, or ruling class they feel a part of and compelled to defend those interests on the spot, even if they don't know exactly what they are defending. (These are by far the funniest responses because they take on the most irrational character.)

- Apathy: indifference (this has been rare!)

The Leftist will state (in order of frequency)

- Ignorance: "Huh? What does that mean, man?"

- Apathy: "Oh thats cool, you don't like Republicans right?"

- Hostility: "Why don't you Die Nazi scum!" (The most reactionary of them all, this is a personal favorite of the author)

- Heretical/Oxymoron: "National Anarchy?  That's impossible! You are corrupting the purity of Anarchism!"  or "You have perverted Anarchism for evil!  The dharma of Emma Goldman is beyond reproach and she said...!" (you get the drift)

Rarely, an insightful person will realize that although they may not agree with all that a National Anarchist advocates, they agree that the methodology of going beyond normal political discourse when conventional methods of politicizing issues has run out of momentum is effective.  How does National Anarchism do that? 

Because National Anarchy is flexible in it's approach to political problems, it can closely work with apparently divergent interests outside of the political mainstream.  National Anarchists are able to tip the balance in favor of unpopular causes (like the liberation of Tibet, rescinding government tyranny, free speech, anti-illegal immigration)  who become disfavored by the plutocracy when it suits their interests and do more than what would be possible for a typical Political Action Committee. 

Since we disavow using government to achieve our aims, that means that we must be stronger locally and make alliances with others to outflank the ubiquitous Center (Left/Right party politics) that has defined America since the induction of the Federal Reserve in 1914.  Through influencing the public conversation on issues of importance Government may be influenced to repeal it's invasive control into citizens lives and limit it's powers.

We openly promote working with organizations and groups (political and non political) in a hidden way using the tactic of entryism. Unseen from public view, our activists move like a river without water and a castle without walls, it promotes change from within and changes the tone of political conversation to one that is more conductive to achieving our goals in various areas.

As such the normal qualitative questions of political issues are answered by a National Anarchist in a much more personalized fashion and is often devoid of knee-jerk stereotypes on important issues.  Examples of this are positions beyond mere bipolar categories that "gay" is good (or bad), "racism" is evil (or natural), "workers" are the messiah (or stupid), or "illegal immigrant" is de facto a good recruit  (or a mere job thief).

All of these points of views may or may be true depending on the bias of the person on question.  I believe that all people are biased to behave in certain ways, most of whom have no idea why they are so motivated, and even more of whom are convinced of the righteousness of their ideal.  Based on my background and experiences of life, in matters of serious inquiry I adopt the attitude of the New Right in seeking unconventional solutions to the problems that are way beyond the critical tipping point in our world. 

It doesn't matter if these solutions are right or wrong.  It's a common sense view that flaws in ideology will reveal themselves when the ideal is executed in practice.  These flaws usually reveal themselves with a recourse to violence*.  It's our view that violence is less important then why it results.  If people believe in National Anarchism- or actively oppose it- it's the power of the myths people believe that propels them towards their truth of the moment that has always brought the results of political forces all throughout history. 

In this project we advocate what a writer has described in the following words:

"Open source insurgencies and resilient communities are both decentralized networks... Critical to the success of both are people that serve as catalysts... What do catalysts do? They accelerate growth and effectiveness by increasing the trust and connectivity of the networks they inhabit. You can find a surprising good examination of the personality attributes and characteristics of catalysts in the book, "The Starfish and the Spider" by Brafman and Beckstrom. Unlike traditional leaders, catalysts don't organize structure, aggregate power, and give direction. Instead, the serve as

• Connectors. Able to map, mine and connect loose networks of people with similar needs/interests.
  
• Onsite helpers and Trust builders. Willing to work with people on the ground in the role of helper. Forges emotional bonds and encourages trust.
  
• Supporters. They let the network navigate itself forward by walking away from leadership responsibilities/roles. They trust the network and embrace its ambiguity."*

This will result in National Anarchism as always being subversive in character, apostate and antimonian in motivation, we act as a disruptive catalyst in practice- being a National Anarchist is a sure fire way to frequently gets some humorous, if sometimes predictable and understandable, responses.

* As Communism is the most infamous and yet extremely rarely so cited as such by scholars in public discourse.  With over 100 million directly or indirectly killed by supporters of it's ideology with little or no success in it's implementation.  Source.
** http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/05/the-guerrilla-c.html