Talk:National-anarchism

message: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to the National-Anarchism-related articles, categories, templates, and talk page discussions. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be:
# Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a  neutral point of view. You might wish to start a National-Anarchist blog or visit a political Internet forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite National-Anarchist views.
# Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics, especially those that advance or hinder the goals of the National-Anarchist movement, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
# Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or National-Anarchist projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
# Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an  objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting National-Anarchist causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
=== On the use of primary sources ===
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Therefore, extensive use of primary sources such as blog posts, articles and interviews of National-Anarchists by National-Anarchists should be avoided. As much as possible, we should use independent sources (journalists and scholars) when making a point such as stating that the use of the term 'right-wing' is, according to you, unfair and inaccurate. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors 

message: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Therefore, extensive use of primary sources such as blog posts, articles and interviews of National-Anarchists by National-Anarchists should be avoided. As much as possible, we should use independent sources (journalists and scholars) when making a point such as stating that the use of the term 'right-wing' is, according to you, unfair and inaccurate. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the use of primary sources 

message: Being a political movement, this term should be downcased per WP:DOCTCAPS. The article should also be moved. Primergrey (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've downcased the term. However, I strongly disagree that the article should be moved or integrated into an another article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caps 

message: "The few scholars who have studied national-anarchism conclude that it represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension" According to the lede, National Anarchism is not a branch of Anarchims, rather it has evolved from elsewhere. So may I pose the question, why is the article "Part of the Politics series on Anarchism"? Cinadon36 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't; it just not included in template for this moment, because it was deleted in past and admins do not restore it yet. But is obviously about political sub-philosophy of anarchism, so how it can't be part of series on anarchism? --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted for a valid reason in 2016. Maybe we should ping  who was the editor that removed it. And no, it is not a sub-philosophy of anarchism, it is rather a sub philosophy of fascism, as the article implies. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

text: This is problem of this article, not of N-A ideology. Troy Southgate didn't invented national-anarchism and it shouldn't be interpreted as neofascism only because one fraction have such connections. It should be improved due to Wikipedia:WEIGHT. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from article's problems, no RS is listing NA as a subcategory/branch/form of anarchism. There is no reason for us to do so. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Troy Southgate did not invent national-anarchism, there is no denying that he is a major (re)thinker of nationalism-anarchism and that a select few academics have deemed that his theories and activities as an influential national-anarchist ideologue and militant are worthy of note. As for the actual activites of currently-existing national-anarchist groups, the History section of the article mentions a few but it can only reflect activities reported by reliable, published secondary sources. If such sources cannot be found or do not exist, we should avoid mentioning these activities since it might make those we choose to mention seem more important than they truly are. --Loremaster (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  it is important that the material added in the article is well sourced. This is the only safety net we have to prevent tones of rubbish from WWW to enter the article. I have had a look at your recent edits and they are certainly in the right direction. Thanks for improving the article.  Cinadon36 17:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Cinadon36! :) --Loremaster (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of series 

message: As I see it this article mostly deals with the idea of a single writer Troy Southgate who mostly belongs to the fascist/far right circles in his country. Besides that this article doesn´t point out to actual activity of self called "national anarchist" groups existing today. As such it can even be nominated for deletion according to wikipedia notability standards.--Eduen (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is problem of this article, not of N-A ideology. Troy Southgate didn't invented national-anarchism and it shouldn't be interpreted as neofascism only because one fraction have such connections. It should be improved due to Wikipedia:WEIGHT. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from article's problems, no RS is listing NA as a subcategory/branch/form of anarchism. There is no reason for us to do so. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Troy Southgate did not invent national-anarchism, there is no denying that he is a major (re)thinker of nationalism-anarchism and that a select few academics have deemed that his theories and activities as an influential national-anarchist ideologue and militant are worthy of note. As for the actual activites of currently-existing national-anarchist groups, the History section of the article mentions a few but it can only reflect activities reported by reliable, published secondary sources. If such sources cannot be found or do not exist, we should avoid mentioning these activities since it might make those we choose to mention seem more important than they truly are. --Loremaster (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  it is important that the material added in the article is well sourced. This is the only safety net we have to prevent tones of rubbish from WWW to enter the article. I have had a look at your recent edits and they are certainly in the right direction. Thanks for improving the article.  Cinadon36 17:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Cinadon36! :) --Loremaster (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southgatism? 

message: , where does it say that national-anarchists are economically mutualists? I could find no mention in either Macklin or Sanchez. Sources such as Macklin seems to be referring more to Southgatism and the National Revolutionary Faction than national-anarchism. Some statements such as anti-capitalism or post-capitalism are taken at face value. Macklin actually states that "Southgate's vision of western culture is saturated with a profound pessimism tempered by the optimistic belief that only by 'complete and utter defeat' can tepid materialism be expunged and replaced by the 'golden age' of Evolian Tradition: a return of the Ghibbelines of the Middle Ages or the 'medieval imperium' of the Holy Roman Empire before it collapsed into the 'internecine struggle' and 'imperialistic shenanigans' of the nation-state". In other words, more of pre-capitalism than anti-capitalism or post-capitalism, more of a return to a neo-feudalism and it is more of a traditional conservative criticism of capitalism. So what they mean by capitalism? Do they mean the capitalist mode of production? Do they mean merely neoliberal capitalism? Or simply "American global capitalism" ("spiritual reinvigoration of western society ready for an essentially Evolian revolt against the culturally and racially enervating forces of American global capitalism")?Fascists also claimed to be anti-capitalists. We and reliable sources do not say that fascism is anti-capitalist. Sanchez clearly states that "it's really just another white nationalist project" which advocates "racial separatism and white racial purity. They're also fiercely anti-gay and anti-Israel", so why do we take their anarchist and anti-capitalist claims at face value? Macklin concludes that "[a]lthough Southgate's impact on left-wing counter-cultural concerns has been completely negligible, this case study of the NRF's wanton intellectual cannibalism shows that groupuscular fascism poses a clear danger, particularly for ecological subcultures whose values are profoundly different from the ecological agenda mooted by the far right. [...] If this article is anything to go by, then anarchist, ecological and global justice movements need to remain on their guard in order to ensure that the revolution will not be national-Bolshevized". Why do we treat this as something legitimate rather than a far-right entryist strategy?Nor is there any mention of its antisemitism ("Even his assimilation of Noam Chomsky's scathing analysis of social control and hypocrisy at the amoral heart of American-led liberal democracy was refracted through the conspiratorial ideological lens provided by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion") and racism ("Like their late hero Julius Evola, an esoteric Italian writer and 'spiritual racist' lionized by modern-day fascists, BANA members believe themselves to be in revolt against the modern world. The group's website carries notes of high praise for neo-Confederate secessionist groups like the League of the South and the Republic of South Carolina. Some of the site's content is unintentionally comical. For example, BANA exalts the lily-white town of Mayberry in the 1960s TV sitcom The Andy Griffith Show as 'a realized anarchist society'").— Davide King (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For several years now, I've tried to improve and maintain a neutral, concise and stable version of the Wikipedia article on National-anarchism that both proponents and critics of National-Anarchism would agree is fair and balanced, in part, to end and/or prevent never-ending edit wars between those two factions. However, since I have other interests and priorities now, I will no longer watch over this article even it means its previous qualities will be lost. --Loremaster (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I do not see how highlighting its alleged anarchism, anti-capitalism and anti-statism is neutral over its antisemitism, ethno-nationalism, 'racialism' and white nationalism that is highlighted by scholars, who see it as either a further evolution of the radical right, if not an outright rebranding of fascism and white nationalism. It is not just "left-wing critics" who say so, it is given scholars and reliable sources themselves. NPOV is about reliable sources, not bothsideism. What scholars and reliable sources say triumph the ideology's self-description which are nonetheless presented and which I expanded a bit. So unless I have missed something, I reported what given scholars and reliable sources say about national-anarchism. Davide King (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do sources actually say? 

message: Bottom text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ah yes, Anarcho Fascism 

message: I think it would be good to have a paragraph on this article about the related "ideology" of "Anarcho-Fascism," or create a separate article for that. Apparently, Anarcho-Fascists and National Anarchists consider themselves to be separate ideologies. There is this person named Jonas Nilsson who wrote a book about "Anarcho-Fascism": https://www.amazon.com/Anarcho-Fascism-Nature-Reborn-Jonas-Nilsson/dp/9188667200 JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds related, why don't you try drafting a paragraph and putting it in ? --StellarNerd (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate paragraph or article on "Anarcho-Fascism"