The Anarcho-Liberationists

Posted by on September 17, 2012

by The Heretic

There is a lot of confusion, even among self-proclaimed ‘Anarchists’, about the differences between Anarchism and authoritarianism. At first glance, one would think it impossible to confuse the two. They are polar opposites, right? One is absolute freedom while the other is no freedom at all, right? But upon closer examination, these two opposite philosophies are oftentimes mistaken for one another.
 
I think everyone can agree that Anarchism is all about freedom from oppression and hierarchy, while the fullest extent of authoritarianism is absolute fascism and oppression to the fullest extent possible. However, not everyone holds the same values. Not everyone obeys the same moral code. With clashing values comes disagreement on how others should act, and how others should be permitted to act, even within Anarchist circles and within the Anarchist movement as a whole.
 
Most self-proclaimed Anarchists would readily agree that everyone should be free to do as they choose, but many leave it at that. That is where the confusion and clashing values come in. If everyone is free to do as they choose, then surely even the government agents, bankers, and tyrants of all types are, like everyone else, free to do as they choose. Following this logic, the most oppressive dictators in the history of humanity are perhaps the truest Anarchists to ever exist: They do as they choose. They do not let others prevent them from pursuing their goals.
 
Despite claiming that others should be free to do as they choose, Anarchists condemn dictators and bankers without hesitation, claiming that these evil oppressors do not have the right to do the things which they do, that their actions should not be tolerated, and that they must be stopped by any means necessary. By taking this stance, Anarchists are hypocrites when faced with their own claim that everyone should be free to do as they choose. ‘The fascist scum prevent others from living freely’, they proclaim, refusing to see the innate hypocrisy, the paradoxical nature, of the concept of allowing all to do as they choose.
 
Of course the fascist oppressors should be stopped! They should be stopped by any means necessary! But that goes against the concept of allowing all to do as they choose. Therefore, all true Anarchists who do not wish to live as hypocrites are left with only one option: Redefine Anarchism. Redefine what Anarchism means to them. Anarchism must be redefined, or clarified, as meaning the following: ‘All are free to do as they choose insofar as their actions do not infringe on the freedom of anyone else’. Freedom is not just a one-way street! People have got no right to choose when it gets in the way of others’ wellbeing!
 
Taking it a step further, all who call themselves Anarchists should take a step back and objectively reevaluate their own lives and lifestyles. Most self-proclaimed Anarchists live very hypocritical lives. They will put on balaclavas and yell ‘fuck the police’ at marches, they will smash the windows of banks, and some will even throw Molotovs at fascist oppressors. Then they will go home and greedily indulge in personal pleasures. They will eat meat which oppresses all nonhuman life on the sole grounds that those animals are inferior just because they have a different type of physical body (all while petting the cat or dog sitting beside them). They will use products tested on animals, which again victimizes innocent beings just because they are different. They will buy and use products of corporatism that significantly contribute to the destruction of Earth and all life upon it. Some will even smoke cash crops farmed and harvested by slaves in other countries.
 
Ultimately, most self-proclaimed Anarchists are simply another type of fascist scum: People who will fight those who oppress them personally, but who will not hesitate to partake in those self-indulgences which harm all those who they view as ‘inferior’. They live with the same corrupt, self-righteous mentality as that of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and patriarchs. There is no difference.
 
Naturally, Anarchism leads to Veganism, Animal Liberation, and Earth Liberation, as only a Vegan truly lives in accordance with Anarchist values to not oppress others simply because they are weaker or physically different. But Veganism is not enough. Those who sincerely hold Anarchism close to their hearts will stop at nothing in the face of oppression. There are already many ‘Anarchists’ actively revolting against fascist governments and banks, but many of these people are the same ones who oppress others in their daily life, and there is a lot of uncertainty and undecided values within the Anarchist movement.
 
Some ‘Anarchists’ are pacifists who think that we should do nothing more than hold up signs and shout at our enemies. Of course these people fail to look at the state of things objectively, decrying violence even when that violence is directed at those who directly destroy life, while at the same time saving innocent lives. Of course the lives of innocents are more important than those of their oppressors. Without question pacifism is a fallacy! But what does that leave? Even militant Anarchists have conflicting values. Some live by the philosophy of ‘any means necessary’, while others take a more moderate, if not entirely pacifistic, stance. However, any stance short of any means necessary is putting the concepts of peace and pacifism, and the lives of genocidal tyrants, above all innocent life. And that cannot be tolerated! That is hypocrisy to the fullest extent! This is fucking war! All is justified against those who are guilty of destroying innocent life! If you infringe on the freedom of someone else, you have forfeited your own freedom and must be dealt with accordingly.
 
Do I sound like a fascist yet? Is it oppressive to force others to accept my Liberationist views? Of course not! It is quite the opposite! As I explained before, Anarchism is allowing all to do as they choose insofar as their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others. No true Anarchist would argue with me if I said that I would be justified in putting a bullet through someone who threatens my life without provocation. Nor would any true Anarchist argue with me if I said that I would be justified in putting a bullet through someone who threatens my mom’s life without provocation. This is no different than going out and stopping the fascist scum, be they bankers or government agents or meat farmers, by any means necessary. It is a matter of extensional self defense, and it is a matter of upholding the Anarchist values of allowing others to do as they choose if and only if their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others.
 
What does this lead to? Insurrection, of course! The warriors of the Justice Department, Animal Rights Militia, Hunt Retribution Squad, Revolutionary Cells, Animal Liberation Brigade, Earth Liberation Army, Hardline, Black Panther Party, and all other militant, uncompromising liberation movements who fight against oppression by any means necessary are the truest Anarchists there are! Abdul Haqq, the ALF Lone Wolf, a man who I very much admire, once wrote that he no longer identifies himself as an Anarchist because he holds very authoritarian views against oppression. My brother, of course you are an Anarchist! Your values and beliefs are those which every true Anarchist warrior should hold: that of the Vegan Hardline!
 
Anarchism is allowing all to do as they choose insofar as their actions do not infringe on the freedom of other life. As Anarchists, we have the right to do whatever we want in our personal lives. We also have the moral obligation to prevent others from infringing on the freedom of innocent life. Forcing our beliefs on others is very much in accordance with Anarchism when those beliefs are ones of Liberation and the ones being forced to submit to our beliefs are fascist scum who would take a life for a penny! Now is the time for war! All who call themselves Anarchists, Animal Liberationists, Earth Liberationists, or Human Liberationists must join forces and realize that WE ARE ONE. We are simply approaching the same philosophy, Liberation, from different starting points. Ultimately, we are the same. We are the Anarcho-Liberationists! Let us go forward and crush hierarchy, put an end to oppression, prevent all authority, and liberate all innocent life by any means necessary!

To submit an article for publication, send a note to [email protected].

Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only. There is no intent, express or implied, to promote illegal activities. We assume no liability for the potential actions of any third party. All data

Share Button

Last modified on September 17, 2012

Categories: ALF/ELF, Animal Liberation, Justifiable Homicide, Tactics & Strategies, Veganism
4 Comments »

« | Home | »

4 Responses to “The Anarcho-Liberationists”

  1. Beatrice Smith Says:

    excellent article. Thanks for reminding me I am not alone in this war. ALF will never die

  2. J. Bonnot Says:

    >> “Anarchism is allowing all to do as they choose insofar as their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others.”

    This definition actually sounds closer to radical liberalism than anarchism. As far as I understand it, anarchism is a forceful opposition to institutions of hierarchy and authoritarianism.

    >> “Ultimately, most self-proclaimed Anarchists are simply another type of fascist scum: People who will fight those who oppress them personally, but who will not hesitate to partake in those self-indulgences which harm all those who they view as ‘inferior’.”

    If you’re talking about animals, I don’t know that “most anarchists” regard them as inferior – for me personally, I can’t see how it’s not contradictory to defend animals’ ability to maintain a certain food chain (which will inevitably involve a carnivore at some point) while denouncing humans who do the same thing. Maybe the grand, industrial institution of animal domestication and slaughter is a horrifying thing, but “killing and eating an animal” as an act in itself?

    Who even gets to define morals and ethics? Why would anyone submit themselves to a morality that necessitates that they sacrifice themselves in defense of some helpless creatures? I don’t inherently gain anything from engaging in a vegan lifestyle or attempting to create a vegan society. Society, or even the world as a whole, doesn’t inherently gain anything from becoming vegan. So why should we? Unlike hierarchical social dynamics that actually have negative effects on every tier of the pyramid (although much greater negative effects the lower you go), nothing would change in the relationship between humans and animals by refraining from killing them or extracting other food sources from them.

    I don’t really have an interest in “liberating innocent life”. I’m interested in achieving liberation for myself and my friends, but I recognize that that will come most likely from destroying hierarchical relationships between human beings everywhere and anywhere. Relationships between human beings and animals, on the other hand, really don’t affect me – except to the extent that ecosystems are being disrupted and endangered by environmental destruction, but that’s another story altogether.

    p.s. I wonder how many people on that Vegan 2012 Tour in Israel are nationalist as fuck and don’t particularly care about the militaristic domination of Arabs and the ethnic cleansing/deportation of African immigrants.

  3. sweet tea Says:

    In the town i lived in years ago, i had an older friend who worked on a local alternative, left wing paper. After she would leave the editors room we would sometimes chat at a local bar. She was about ten years older than me, had been involved with an earlier wave of squatting in europe before coming back to the state extremely jaded.

    I remember in political conversations with her she would always come back to the same point with regards to anarchism: that no one could really be an “anarchist” in this society, and therefore they were all hypocrites. Obviously her definition was a moral or at best ethical one, that an anarchist is someone who lives and relates to other only in nonhierarchical and non coercive ways.

    Her argument produces a tautology all too familiar among right wing message boards, liberal green consumer advocates, and animal rights activists attempting to engage with a radical milieu: That anyone who claims to want freedom or equality or whatever, but lives in this culture, is a hypocrite.

    Like most tautologies, the problem is in the original premise: anarchism has to first and foremost be understood as a position of negation towards the current order, an orientation toward revolt rather than a moral identity. THis is not to say that we dont have ethics, or that we dont have ideas about kinds of revolt we d like to avoid or what kinds of a society we d rather live in – but first and foremost our task is social revolution. That revolution has to be horizontal not just because of the society we want to come out of it, but primarily because that is the only way that term has any real substantive meaning to us.

    You dont have to be an insurrectionary or a nihilist to agree with this. Really its just the only way not to be caught in an unending tautology of supposed and claimed hypcorisy : “Youre not a real anarchist, you just bought ice cream. You re not a real anarchist, you just drove a car. You re not a real anarchist, you just paid sales tax. etc. etc.”

    The vegan version of this is no different, only more batty: they want to consume their way out of industrial capitalism – small wonder capitalism is all to happy to produce a wide range of morally righteous products for their convenience. Theyre wrong on just about every account, from personal nutrition to ecology to economy – but really their most damning problem is a tautological understanding towards revolt and liberationist ideas that is ultimately theological and moral in scope. They are the nagging christians on the streetcorner of rebellion. They will occassionally join in, but they come off as confused at best, driven by moral obligation and guilt rather than a personally invested (and ultimately collective) desire for liberty or vengeance.

  4. pleb Says:

    Political liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, from conscience, or that I am rid of them. It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave.”
    -Max Stirner

    In most forms of compulsory morality this other around whose interests values are oriented is an abstract idea rather than a person or persons: God, Science, Nature, one’s Country (or Nation-State), the Economy or Ecology, etc. (Although there are always real people, social groups and organizations just waiting to exploit the victims of morality by acting as mediators between them and their abstract ideals.) Even in those cases in which values are explicitly oriented towards people or groups of people (for example, the class-struggle morality that puts the Working Class at the center of value), these values usually remain oriented much more towards the abstract idea of the person or the group than towards any actual, concrete, living persons: the fetishized idea of the Proletariat or the Party (rather than actual living and breathing workers or the individual members who make up the party), Humanity (in the abstract rather than in the form of an aggregate of concrete individuals in all their interrelationships), the State, etc. People whose compulsory moralities are organized around these abstract ideas attempt to force themselves to follow their demands because they have displaced (projected or alienated) their own subjectivity onto them, usually through the influence of years and years of alienating and demoralizing socialization and indoctrination. Rather than understanding and acting for themselves the victims of morality attempt to make themselves the puppets of the abstract ideas they fetishize.
    The radical alternative to morality involves the creation of critical self-theory. The formation of any coherent and effective anarchist perspective and practice requires that people develop (through interaction with their natural and social environments) a relatively sophisticated understanding of themselves and their places in their social and natural worlds. Without a consciously understood subjective locus of understanding, without a clear focus on one’s own personal and social interests, it is impossible to develop a critical social theory that can comprehend social alienation and the possibilities for its supersession. Critical self-theory and critical social theory are two essential poles of one comprehensive project.
    Only by developing and maintaining a self-critical understanding of oneself and one’s world can people make comprehensively rational decisions about what their most genuine interests are and how to pursue them (rather than making narrowly or partially rationalized decisions which won’t accurately reflect themselves or their overall context). In the 19th century language of Max Stirner, this kind of critical self-understanding was termed “self-conscious egoism,” but today it makes more sense to jettison this outdated, pre-Freudian term in favor of “self-theory.”
    Critical self-understanding involves the simultaneous development of a finite ethics, a set of values consistent with what are considered and felt to be one’s most important interests, that are expressed in everyday life activities. These values are organic expressions of one’s radical subjectivity, of one’s self-possession, self-understanding and self-activity. They don’t originate outside of one’s life, demanding one’s subjection, because they originate from one’s own direct life-experiences and serve one’s own interests.

    -Jason McQuinn

Leave a Reply