Will the real Anarchist please stand up?

On June 12, 2017, the State of New Jersey, Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, published an article titled, “Anarchist Extremists: Antifa”. The very first statement you see in bold

Anti-fascist groups, or “Antifa,” are a subset of the anarchist movement and focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices.

I contend this definition is wrong and is being perpetuated not to cause fear of hearing or seeing the word Antifa, but rather, to desensitize the general public to the word Anarchist and give an automatic negative response whenever the word Anarchist is used.
Admittedly, I’m not so familiar with all the Antifa either stands for or against and what they are truly trying to accomplish. What I do know though, an individual who follows the true tenets of anarchism would not be out parading and destroying the way this group is reported to do.

“So what is anarchy then if it doesn’t mean to rebel?” That’s a great question with not any one definition. What the government and media would have you believe is anarchy as defined by the Merriam-Webster: Absence of government, a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to absence of governmental authority, absence or denial of any authority or established order and absence of order. It could then be implied that anarchy should be synonymous with chaos and because of that any group that is chaotic should be called anarchist or subsets of anarchist because that’s what the media and government would have you believe.

The Merriam-Webster also includes, “a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.” Automatically because of the media, when you see in print, or hear the word utopian, the images of flower power comes to mind from the 1960s and early 70s. Because of the thought police, it has made this idea almost laughable in modern times.

Why then are the government and media so bent on redefining anarchism to the negative? What are they afraid of? Is it riots in the street? Contrary to popular belief, no they are not. Honestly, if the powers to be wanted to, don’t you feel that any riot could be stopped within a few hours?

They are frightened by the possibility that the true nature and philosophy of anarchism will get out and be spread. It would be a philosophy once adopted into the hearts and minds of the people that would find government limiting and obsolete. Power would be taken from whomever the world puppet masters are given back to the individuals and true freedom could be experienced. THAT, is what scares them into the publicity-smear campaign.

What does it mean to follow the philosophies of anarchism? First let me give this author’s disclaimer: I’m still learning and certainly do not know all there is to the idea. But I do know the basics and am willing to share. Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is key and would almost contend is first most important philosophy. It is a guiding principle to ethics, which in turn is an order of things, very unlike the chaos definition that we see every day. Does this mean to say that the other cheek is always turned? Absolutely not! For instance, I would not go down the street looking to get into an altercation with someone. But should someone enter my home uninvited, there of course would be consequences. Can I (vote) on an idea that would legally allow another to be aggressive towards another if they do not comply with that idea? For example, as an individual, is ok to vote in a law that allows enforcement of that law by others up to include death if it is not enforced? Is it ok to vote in a tax? What is a tax? It is a willful theft of your earnings that if refused to pay what is demanded by law, you could have enforcement agents take and refusing could be shot in the process. It could then be surmised, if anarchist holds to the Non-Aggression Principle, they would not be wearing masks and destroying property or hurting individual for their ideas. This conclusion alone should set a group apart from being labeled as a subset.

Merriam-Webster would define Anarchism as a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. Does this sound like chaos and disorder? What does it mean to be in voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups? Could it be barter and free trade for food, products, labor and goods? Fiat or tangible currency can also be used, but all done without the outside involvement of government or some other oversight entity.

Why does it seem, every chaotic, looting, damaging, destroying, maiming, killing, jacked-up group, bastardize and screw up a name and concept of something good?
I tell folks I'm an anarchist and the eye brows go up and they start to back away slowly...
It takes several minutes to explain what a true anarchist is and not these hate groups the media keeps showing. It takes several more minutes to explain the NAP and that if they were true anarchist, they would be displaying the NAP, not this "tear up the town" nonsense that is happening. Perhaps with more self control, the voices of these groups could be truly heard instead of just seeing the visual on the media of the damage and destruction that have been left in the path.

Non-Aggression Principle, Agorism, laissez faire, Adam Smith, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon are all terms and names to start researching to discover what true anarchism is all about. There have been books and books written on all these subjects and my goal is just to acquaint you, the reader, with some of the terms, not define them to the absolute. If more people stood up for what is right as individuals, and enter into voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups, there would be an order of things, and there would not be the need for more laws, enforcers of those laws and government. People could be people and I would imagine all the hatred we are seeing being facilitated and highlighted would go away as people just got along in cooperation regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or boundary. Does this sound like a utopian society? Perhaps. Is possible? Absolutely! Will the real anarchist please stand up?