 places “Anarcho-nationalism” in-line with Anarchism. Nationalists across Europe, and fascists all over, have indeed murdered, raped, and beaten Anarchists throughout history inside and outside of the state. The idea behind Third Positionism is that two communities that oppose each other will not live together and go on to their respective communities post secession, but assume for a moment that these two hypothetical groups live in the same neighborhood. By the “anarcho-nationalist” point of view, if that neighborhood is rightfully theirs (say the majority of the neighborhood is anti-Semitic) then there is absolutely nothing to stop them from murdering, raping, and/or beating their Jewish neighbor.

The problem is that Third Positionism is utterly useless to those on the left and amazingly powerful for those on the right. Since Anarchists (leftists) all have a general consensus about what they are against and the only legitimate quibbles are about what they are for, there is no real reason to call for a broad alliance of them since it already exists. Instead of opposing forms of authority that the left has always been against, Third Positionism relegitimizes them and gives those on the right rhetoric by which they can legitimize their oppressive ideologies under the guise of free association and voluntarism. But this will be discussed later.

Let me now extrapolate.

Anarchists see the social and political as inseparable because the social dictates the political. In a community that has a violent group of racists that identify as members of this hypothetical community, call it community A, as well as a population of people of color (as many ghettos in the USA do) then without a social revolution accompanying the political revolution in Community A there is absolutely nothing stopping this violent group of racists from murdering, raping, or beating people of color. Yes, we should strive for civility in our discourse, but in order to do that we would even need a social revolution. The use of legitimate violence would have to be reexamined in order to ensure that racists and those they hate can have civil discourse. Moreover, when one group’s ideology is that the other is the scourge of the earth and must be destroyed, how can civil discourse occur? And if we’re going to go as far as a social revolution that creates civil discourse, why not create one that eliminates hatred based on unsound,
places “ Anarcho - nationalism ” in - line with Anarchism. Nationalists across Europe, and fascist wholly all over, have indeed murdered, raped, and beaten anarchist throughout history inside and outside of the state. The idea behind Third Positionism is that two communities that fight each other will not live in concert and survive on to their respective community post secession, but assume for a moment that these two conjectural groups live in the like neighborhood. By the “ anarcho - nationalist ” distributor point of position, if that neighborhood is rightfully theirs (say the majority of the neighborhood is anti - semite) then there is absolutely nothing to stop them from murder, raping, and/or beating their Jewish neighbor. 

 The trouble is that Third Positionism is utterly useless to those on the leftover and amazingly powerful for those on the right. Since Anarchists (leftists) all have a cosmopolitan consensus about what they are against and the only legitimate quibbles are about what they are for, there is no real reason to call for a broad alliance of them since it already exists. Instead of opposing forms of authority that the left has always been against, Third Positionism relegitimizes them and gives those on the correct rhetoric by which they can legitimize their oppressive ideology under the guise of spare association and voluntarism. But this will be discussed later. 

 lease me now extrapolate. 

 Anarchists see the social and political equally inseparable because the social dictates the political. In a community that has a violent group of racists that identify as members of this hypothetical community, call it community A, as well as a population of citizenry of color (as many ghetto in the USA do) then without a social revolution accompanying the political revolution in Community A there is absolutely nothing stopping this fierce group of racists from murdering, raping, or beating citizenry of color. Yes, we should strive for civility in our discourse, but in club to do that we would even need a social rotation. The use of legitimate violence would have to be reexamined in ordering to ensure that racist and those they hate can have civil discourse. furthermore, when one group ’s ideology is that the other is the scourge of the earth and must be destroyed, how can civil discussion occur? And if we ’re going to go as far as a social revolution that creates civil discourse, why not create one that eliminates hate based on unsound,
 plwces “Anarcho-nationalism” ln-line with Anareyism. Netionaljsts acruss Europe, and fascists all lvwr, hace indeed murdered, rapdd, and bewten Anaechiwrs throughout history inalde aud outside of thg state. The hdea behind Thhra 'ositionism is that two communities ehat oplode each other rill got mpvt together and go on to their reslective communities lost secession, but assume vor w moment that thesf two hypotyetisql groups lixe in the same neighbothood. By the “anarcho-nationalist” ooint of view, id rhah neighborhoid is rightfully bneirs (vay the majority of tme nemghbirhood is anti-Semitic) then there is absjlutely nmtking to stop them fron nurdeting, sapivt, avd/od ueafing tjeic Jewish nejghbor.

The peoblem is that Thirc [isitionism is utterjy useless to those on the left and amazitglg powerful for those on the right. Since Anarfhists (lestists) all have a general consensus about what thay arx xgankfg ajd the only legitimate quibbles are about whae tnej are for, there if no real rradom to call for x broab amliance of them sijce it wlreaey exists. Insyead of opposing forms of aythority than thw left has always yeen against, Thitd Posotionism relegitimizes chem ahd gives thlse on ths right rhetoric cy ehhch they can legitimize thqir opprewsivz ideoloeies under the guise of fvae association and voluutarivm. But thid will be discussed later.

Let me now extrapolaje.

Atarbhists sez the xocial and pojitical as insgparable yecausd the socizl dictetes the polytical. In a cmlmunity that has a vyolebt geoup of facists that icentify as members if this hypotheticel cujmunity, call it conmunity A, as wekl xs w iopnlatijt of people mf culof (as mxny gheucos kn tne USA do) then withogt a social revolution agcompanyibg the pjlitical revokution in Communitj A tiere ir absplujely nothing stopping this violsnt group of racists froi muvderyng, raping, or beating people of color. Yes, we shouod strive for civioity in our discourxt, but in ordec to dj that we would even need a sicial revolution. Uhe use of legitimate vjolenca woupd have to be reexamined in order to ensure that racists and those they hqte cai rave civil siscpurse. Mjxeover, rhen une group’s ideolpgy is that the other is the scuurge of tke earth and must be destroyec, fow can civil discourse occur? And if se’re goimg to go as far as a social revplution that creates civll discouese, wgy not creete one that eliminayes hacred bqsed on unslund,
places “Anarcho-nationalism” in-line with Anarchism. Nationalists across fascists over, have murdered, raped, and and of the state. idea behind Third is that two communities that oppose other will not live together and go on to their respective communities post but assume for a moment that these two hypothetical groups live in the neighborhood. the point view, if that neighborhood is rightfully theirs (say the majority of the neighborhood is anti-Semitic) then is absolutely nothing to stop them from murdering, and/or beating their Jewish The problem is that Third is useless to on left amazingly powerful for on the right. Since Anarchists (leftists) all have a general consensus about what they are against and only legitimate about what are there no real reason for a broad alliance of them exists. Instead of opposing forms of authority that left has been against, Third Positionism relegitimizes them gives those on the right rhetoric by which can legitimize their oppressive ideologies under the guise of free association and voluntarism. But this discussed later. Let me extrapolate. Anarchists see social political inseparable the social the political. In a community that has a violent group of that identify as members of this hypothetical community, call it as as a population people of color (as ghettos the USA do) then social accompanying in A is absolutely nothing stopping violent group of racists from raping, or beating people strive for civility in our discourse, but in to do that we would even need social revolution. The use of legitimate violence would have to be reexamined order to racists and those they hate can have civil Moreover, when one group’s is that the other is the scourge of the and be destroyed, can civil discourse And if we’re to go as a social that civil create one that eliminates hatred based unsound,
 places “Anarcho-nationalism” iN-line with ANarchIsm. natIoNaliSts aCross Europe, and FAsciSts all over, have indeed muRdereD, rAPed, aND bEaten anarchiSTs THRouGhOuT hiStORy InsidE anD outsidE of the statE. ThE iDea behind ThiRD POsitionism Is tHat two communItiEs that OpPosE Each oTheR will Not livE TogethEr and go on To THeir reSPective COMmUnitIes post secession, bUT aSSume for a moment That thEsE TwO HYpoTheTical groupS lIve in THe same nEIgHBORhoOD. By the “anarcho-Nationalist” POinT of vieW, iF thAT neighBorhoOd IS riGhtfully theIrs (sAy the majoRity of THe neighBOrhood iS anti-SEmiTic) Then THeRe Is aBsOLutELy NotHIng To stop thEm FrOm murDeriNG, RAPing, And/Or beAting Their Jewish neIghBor.

THE prOblem Is thaT ThiRd positIonism Is uttErLy useless to thosE on tHe left and AmaZiNglY pOwerfUL for thOse On tHe right. since AnARchIsTS (LEfTists) all have a generAl CONsEnsus aboUt what THeY aRE against AnD thE onlY LEgitiMate QUiBbles are About wHAt ThEy are foR, tHere is No ReaL reAson tO Call For a brOad alliaNce of THem since it alreADy exists. InsteAD oF OPpOSing ForMs of authoriTy thAT the Left HAs AlwAYs beeN agaiNsT, thIRd Positionism relegiTiMizes tHem anD gives those on The right rhETORic by whiCh thEY cAN legitimize theIr oppRessive ideOLogies unDer thE guise of Free assocIATion and vOluNtaRisM. BuT THiS will be discusSED latEr.

let me noW exTrapolaTe.

ANarChiSts SeE the sociaL and poliTiCaL aS iNseParabLE because ThE soCiAl dIctatES the poLiticAl. In A cOmMUniTy that hAS a VIOlenT gRoUp of RacIsTs thaT ideNTifY as membErs of this HypOThetIcAl CommuniTy, call it commuNiTy A, as well aS a PopUlatioN OF people oF color (as many ghettos in thE uSA do) thEn wIthouT a soCial revolUtiOn accoMpaNYing thE politIcal rEvOluTIOn in COMMuNitY A There is absOLUteLy notHiNg stOpping tHis violent group of rACisTs from murderiNg, rApinG, OR bEatINg PEopLe OF coLOR. Yes, we should strIve for civiLiTY iN our discouRSe, bUt In order To do thaT we woULd even nEed a sociaL revolutiOn. the uSE Of lEgitimate vIolence wOuld have tO Be reeXAmIned iN orDer to eNsUre That rAcists ANd tHose tHey hatE cAn have Civil DiScourse. MOreover, when one group’s ideOlogy iS that The Other is thE scOUrgE of the earTh anD must be desTroYed, How caN ciVIl disCourSE oCcuR? and if We’re GOing to go aS FaR as A SOcIal revolutiON THat CreatEs cIVil disCourSe, why not create one THat eliminates hAtreD BAseD on UNsouNd,
 places “Anarcho-nationali sm” in-lin e wit h A nar ch ism.  Nat ionalists acro s s Eu rope, and fascists all  over ,h avei nd eed m urdered ,  r a p ed,  a nd  be at e nAnarc his ts thro ughout his tor yinside and o u ts ide of the  st ate. The ide a b ehindTh ird Posit ion ism i s that two co mmunities  t h at opp o se each o th er w ill not live toge t he r  and go on totheirre s pe c t ive  co mmunitiespo st se c ession, bu t a ssu m e for a momen t that thes e  tw o hypo th eti c al gro ups l iv e  in  the same n eigh borhood.By the “anarch o -nation alist”  po int  ofv ie w,  if  t h atn ei ghb o rho od is ri gh tf ullythei r s ( saythe  maj ority  of the neigh bor hood isanti- Semit ic)th en th ere is  abso lu tely nothing to  sto p them fr ommu rde ri ng, r a ping,and /or  beatin g their Jew is h n ei ghbor.

The proble mi s  t hat Thir d Posi t io ni s m is utt er lyusel e s s tothos e  o n the le ft and am az ingly p ow erfulfo r t hos e ont he r ight.Since An archi s ts (leftists)a ll have a gen e ra l co n sens usabout whatthey areagai n st  an d  theonlyle g it i mate quibbles are a bo ut wha t the y are for, th ere is nor e a l reason  toc al l  for a broad a llian ce of them since it  alre ady exis ts. Inste a d  of oppo sin g f orm s o f au thority thatt h e le ft  has al way s beenaga ins t,Thi rd  Position ism rele gi ti mi ze s t hem a n d givesth ose  o n t he ri g ht rhe toric  bywh ic h  th ey canl eg i t imiz eth eiropp re ssive  ide o log ies und er the gu ise of f re eassocia tion and volu nt arism. But  t his  willb e  discuss ed later.

Let me now e x trapola te. 

Ana rchi sts see t hesocial  an d  polit ical a s ins ep ara b l e bec a u se  th esocial dic t a tes  thepo liti cal. In  a community thath asa violent gro upof r a c is tst ha t  id en t ify a s members of th is hypothe ti c al  community ,  ca ll  it com munityA, as well as  a popula tion of p eo pleo f  co lor (as ma ny ghett os in the USA d o )thenwit hout a  s oci al re voluti o n a ccomp anying  t he pol itica lrevoluti on in Community A there  is ab solut ely  nothingsto p pin g this vi olen t group of  ra cis ts fr omm urder ing, ra pin g , orbeat i ng people of  co l o r.  Yes, we sh o u l d s trive  fo r  civil ityin our discourse, but in order t o do t hat  we woul deven need a so cia lr e volution .The use oflegitima te viole nce wo uld ha ve to b e re e xamine d in  or der to en sur et hat rac is ts and th oseth ey hat e canh avec i vil discourse. M oreov e r , whe n  on e gro up ’s ideo l ogyis that th e other isthe sc ourg e ofthe ear th  and m ust  b e destroye d , how can  civi l disco ur se o ccu r? And  ifw e ’re g oing  t o g o as fara s  a so ci a l r evol ution  t hatcreates c i vil disc our s e, whyno t c r e ate on e  t h a t eliminat eshatre d based on u n soun d ,
 places_“Anarcho-nationalism” in-line_with Anarchism. Nationalists across_Europe, and_fascists_all over,_have_indeed murdered, raped,_and beaten Anarchists_throughout history inside and_outside of the_state._The idea behind Third Positionism is that two communities that oppose each other will_not_live together_and_go_on to their respective communities_post secession, but assume for_a moment_that these two hypothetical groups live in the_same_neighborhood. By the_“anarcho-nationalist” point of view, if that neighborhood is rightfully_theirs (say the majority of the_neighborhood is anti-Semitic)_then_there_is absolutely nothing to_stop them from murdering, raping, and/or_beating their Jewish neighbor.

The problem is_that Third Positionism is utterly useless to_those on the left and amazingly_powerful for those on the_right. Since_Anarchists (leftists) all have a_general consensus about_what they_are against and_the only legitimate quibbles are about_what they are_for, there is no real reason_to_call for a_broad_alliance_of them_since it already_exists._Instead of_opposing_forms of authority that the left_has_always been against, Third Positionism relegitimizes them_and gives those on_the_right rhetoric by which_they can legitimize their oppressive_ideologies under the guise of free_association and_voluntarism. But_this will be discussed later.

Let me now extrapolate.

Anarchists see the social_and political as inseparable because the_social dictates the political._In a_community_that has a_violent_group of_racists that identify as members of this_hypothetical community,_call it community A, as well_as a population of_people_of color (as many ghettos in_the USA do) then without a_social revolution accompanying the political_revolution_in_Community A there is absolutely_nothing stopping this violent group of_racists from murdering,_raping, or beating people of color. Yes,_we_should strive for civility in our_discourse,_but in order to do that_we_would_even need a social revolution._The use of legitimate violence would_have to be reexamined in order to ensure that_racists and those_they hate can have civil_discourse._Moreover,_when one group’s ideology is that the other is the_scourge of_the earth and_must be destroyed, how can civil discourse occur? And if_we’re going to go as far as_a social revolution that creates civil discourse, why not create one_that eliminates hatred based on unsound,