Wednesday, August 6, 2014

A Libertarian View of Nationalism, Secession, and Ethnic Enclaves

Situación_etnolinguística_de_UcraniaBy Murray Rothbard

[Editor’s Note: This is a Selection from “Nations by Consent:Decomposing the Nation-State”]
The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic  group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.

The modern European nation-state, the typical “major power,” began  not as a nation at all, but as an “imperial” conquest of one nationality-  usually at the “center” of the resulting country, and based in the capital  city-over other nationalities at the periphery. Since a “nation” is a complex of subjective feelings of nationality based on objective realities, the  imperial central states have had varying degrees of success in forging among  their subject nationalities at the periphery a sense of national unity incorporating submission to the imperial center. In Great Britain, the English  have never truly eradicated national aspirations among the submerged  Celtic nationalities, the Scots and the Welsh, although Cornish nationalism seems to have been mostly stamped out. In Spain, the conquering  Castilians, based in Madrid, have never managed-as the world saw at  the Barcelona Olympics-to erase nationalism among the Catalans, the  Basques, or even the Galicians or Andalusians. The French, moving out from their base in Paris, have never totally tamed the Bretons, the Basques, or the people of the Languedoc.

It is now well known that the collapse of the centralizing and imperial Russian Soviet Union has lifted the lid on the dozens of previously suppressed nationalisms within the former U.S.S.R., and it is now becoming clear that Russia itself, or rather “the Russian Federated Republic,” is simply a slightly older imperial formation in which the Russians, moving out from their Moscow center, forcibly incorporated many nationalities including the Tartars, the Yakuts, the Chechens, and many others. Much of the U.S.S.R. stemmed from imperial Russian conquest in the nineteenth century, during which the clashing Russians and British managed to carve up much of central Asia.

The “nation” cannot be precisely defined; it is a complex and varying constellation of different forms of communities, languages, ethnic groups, or religions. Some nations or nationalities, such as the Slovenes, are both a separate ethnic group and a language; others, such as the warring groups in Bosnia, are the same ethnic group whose language is the same but who differ in the form of alphabet, and who clash fiercely on religion  (the Eastern Orthodox Serbs, the Catholic Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims, who, to make matters more complicated, were originally champions of the Manichaean Bogomil heresy). The question of nationality is made more complex by the interplay of objectively existing reality and subjective perceptions. In some cases, such as Eastern European nationalities under the Habsburgs or the Irish under the British, nationalisms, including submerged and sometimes dying languages, had to be consciously preserved, generated, and expanded. In the nineteenth century this was done by a determined intellectual elite, struggling to revive peripheries living under, and partially absorbed by, the imperial center.

First, we can conclude that nor all state boundaries are just. One goal for libertarians should be to transform existing nation-states into national entities whose boundaries could be called just, in the same sense that private property boundaries are just; that is, to decompose existing coercive nation- states into genuine nations, or nations by consent.

In the case, for example, of the eastern Fredonians, the inhabitants should be able to secede voluntarily from Fredonia and join their comrades in Ruritania. Again, classical liberals should resist the impulse to say that national boundaries “don’t make any difference.” It’s true, of course, as classical liberals have long proclaimed, that the less the degree of government intervention in either Fredonia or Ruritania, the less difference such a boundary will make. But even under a minimal state, national boundaries would still make a difference, often a big one to the inhabitants of the area. For in what language-Ruritanian or Fredonian or both?-will be the street signs, telephone books, court proceedings, or school classes of the area?

In short, every group, every nationality, should be allowed to secede from any nation-state and to join any other nation-state that agrees to have it. That simple reform would go a long way toward establishing nations by consent. The Scots, if they want to, should be allowed by the English to leave the United Kingdom, and to become independent, and even to join a Gaelic Confederation, if the constituents so desire.

A common response to a world of proliferating nations is to worry about the multitude of trade barriers that might be erected. But, other things being equal, the greater the number of new nations, and the smaller the size of each, the better. For it would be far more difficult to sow the illusion of self-sufficiency if the slogan were “Buy North Dakotan” or even “Buy 56th Street” than it now is to convince the public to “Buy American.” Similarly, “Down with South Dakota,” or a fortiori, “Down with 55th Street,” would be a more difficult sell than spreading fear or hatred of the Japanese. Similarly, the absurdities and the unfortunate consequences of fiat paper money would be far more evident if each province or each neighborhood or street block were to print its own currency. A more decentralized world would be far more likely to turn to sound market commodities, such as gold or silver, for its money.

One obvious problem with the secession of nationalities from centralized states concerns mixed areas, or enclaves and exclaves. Decomposing the swollen central nation-state of Yugoslavia into constituent parts has solved many conflicts by providing independent nationhood for Slovenes, Serbs, and Croats, but what about Bosnia, where many towns and villages are mixed? One solution is to encourage more of the same, through still more decentralization. If, for example, eastern Sarajevo is Serb and western Sarajevo is Muslim, then they become parts of their respective separate nations. But this of course will result in a large number of enclaves, parts of nations surrounded by other nations. How can this be solved? In the first place, the enclave/exclave problem exists right now. One of the most vicious existing conflicts, in which the US has not yet meddled because
it has not yet been shown on CNN, is the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian exclave totally surrounded by, and therefore formally within, Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh should clearly be part of Armenia. But, how then, will Armenians of Karabakh avoid their present fate of blockade by Azeris, and how will they avoid military battles in trying to keep open a land corridor to Armenia?
Under total privatization, of course, these problems would disappear. Nowadays, no one in the U.S. buys land without making sure that his title to the land is clear; in the same way, in a fully privatized world, access rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership. In such a world, then, Karabakh property owners would make sure that they had purchased access rights through an Azeri land corridor.

Decentralization also provides a workable solution for the seemingly insoluble permanent conflict in Northern Ireland. When the British partitioned Ireland in the early 1920s, they agreed to perform a second, a more micro-managed, partition. They never carried through on this promise. If the British would permit a detailed, parish by parish, partition vote in Northern Ireland, however, most of the land area, which is majority Catholic, would probably hive off and join the Republic: such counties as Tyrone and Fermanagh, southern Down, and southern Armagh, for example. The Protestants would probably be left with Belfast, county Antrim, and other areas north of Belfast. The major remaining problem would be the Catholic enclave within the city of Belfast, but again, an approach to the anarcho-capitalist model could be attained by permitting the purchase of access rights to the enclave.

Pending total privatization, it is clear that our model could be approached, and conflicts minimized, by permitting secessions and local control, down to the micro-neighborhood level, and by developing contractual access rights for enclaves and exclaves. In the U.S., it becomes important, in moving toward such radical decentralization, for libertarians
and classical liberals-indeed, for many other minority or dissident groups-to begin to lay the greatest stress on the forgotten Tenth Amend- ment and to try to decompose the role and power of the centralizing Supreme Court. Rather than trying to get people of one’s own ideological persuasion on the Supreme Court, its power should be rolled back and minimized as far as possible, and its power decomposed into state, or even local, judicial bodies.
[Image credit.]

Friday, August 1, 2014

Most “Pacifists” are Really Just Afraid of Violence

 VIA: The Enigma of Steel

  I notice that a lot of people like to refer to themselves as “pacifists.”  If I were a betting man, I‘d say that about 10% of them are what they claim to be, and 90% are full of shit. 

First off, pacifism as a belief system, of going forth and doing no harm, is a good thing when chosen freely and voluntarily.  I would like to think that we, as a society, would want to encourage people to ‘go forth and do no harm.’  I am not an anti-pacifist, or a warmonger.  I am generally skeptical when the political and social war drums start beating, but I understand that there is a time and a place...and a very important set of protocols to be mastered when violence becomes an option.

There is a (I’m sad to say) large population of self-described “pacifists” who are simply afraid of and unskilled in the use of violence: a population who hides behind the title as if it were some sort of moral armor. 

I prefer a different term for these people: victims in waiting.  I have more bad news: such victimhood never makes for good armor when armor is most needed. 

You see, there is a stark difference between being a pacifist and simply being someone who is afraid of violence.  If you are on social media, or even hanging out with friends (I like to think that some people still hang out with their friends in real life, and don’t just sit behind keyboards,) and are attacking other peoples’ belief systems, their way of life, their ideas, or their identities; if you like acting superior and being snarky, I have news for you: you probably aren’t a real pacifist.  If you find yourself referring to others as “libtards,” “rednecks” or whatever the vitriolic political insult of the day are basically exercising what is the opposite of pacifism, and are simply choosing to perform these exercises from a physically safe vantage point.   Reducing your ideological adversaries to monosyllabic sound bytes is not a trait of a real pacifist.  This is simply being aggressive in an artificial environment where there is no fear of physical harm.

This is what a real pacifist looks like:
I have a buddy who served on a SWAT team for years, where he was involved in many high risk operations.  He left the PD and basically turned his back on all aspects of violence.    This person consistently scored perfectly on firearms qualifications courses including when under physical stress.  This person threw grenades into dangerous folks' houses and kicked their doors down.  Today, this person won't even touch meat because it was procured by violence.  When a person like that decides to not harm others, and to live peacefully in a life of harmony rather than conflict, he is a true pacifist, because he makes a choice to do so. 

Just because you choose not to train in martial arts, to not acquaint yourself with the tools and tactics of personal security; and instead, rely on persons better than yourself to maintain your physical safety, you do not become a pacifist.  You simply become unprepared.  In order to truly be a pacifist, you must choose to be a pacifist.  In order to choose to abstain from violence, you must be able to inflict it in the first place.  Similarly, you must be trained in the art of diffusing violence, which, in my opinion, is JUST as important as being able to inflict it, if not more.

Otherwise, you’re basically just proud of something that you have no control over - similar to the self-interested pride that many racists and ultra-nationalists espouse.  I understand and recognize tribe as important, but if your belonging to the tribe is your ONLY source of pride, then you are dead weight.  You must be a functional member ---> if you are a nationalist - serve your nation; if you are proud of your race or heritage, serve your race or heritage (provide jobs and opportunity for persons in your ethnic/ racial/ minority group - give them leadership and guidance because you understand your culture and will be able to connect with members of it in a way that outsiders never will.)  I am of the opinion that one’s own deeds and one's own ability should be the primary source of one’s pride, not necessarily one’s heritage or lineage...but that is for another day.

 “Only a warrior chooses pacifism, others are condemned to it.” Is a quote I encountered often in my martial arts training, and it is absolutely true.

If you’re unable to do something, then there is no “choosing” not to perform that something.  If you're still calling yourself a pacifist, that may be you trying to fill the gaping hole in your personal security plan with ego.  And when the glass break, when the bullets fly, and when the rapist/ robber/ drunk guy pulls out his knife, ego counts for shit.

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
-  Robert E. Howard

Disclaimer (this should not be a surprise:) I make no claim to being a pacifist.  I had a job for many years where I had to inflict violence in order to protect life, property, and myself.  I sleep just fine at night too.  
I’m not over here on the internet trying to say I’m the toughest guy since Simo Häyhä either.  (I don't care if you disagree - I think he is the baddest bad ass of the entire history of western civilization's bad asses).  I’m not – there are way more tough, smart and dangerous mofos out there – there are people who are stronger, faster and more cunning than I am.  I am okay with that.  I have another good friend...let’s call him “Tripp” who put 2 rifle rounds through the same quarter at 500 yards.  I don’t think I’ll ever be able to do that, so don’t take this as patting-myself-on-the-back.  I'm glad he's on my side.
However, I did learn a few things about the nature of violence in my decades of martial arts training and years of police service. Feel free to agree...or to disagree with any of this – I am all ears.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

A New Look at Human Nature

By Pasquale Pulella

Many times in the past we anarchists have heard the argument that human nature is what’s stopping humanity from being free, is this true? Could it be that maybe were asking the wrong question? Could it be that the statist are right in some sense? Could it be that our human nature is our strong point? Could we evolve past our human nature? Should we? Have we already?

Human Nature?
                Human Nature is defined as the psychological physical and behavioral characteristics of humankind. Let’s examine what psychological characteristics are prevalent to mankind. What psychological condition that the “human nature” argument is addressing is the capacity for violence that each individual has. The common ground is that all humans are capable of violence; it is a basic survival characteristic to be able to use violence. This capacity for violence is necessary even today. The human capacity for violence is necessary not just for protection against other humans trying to govern them but also against other more violent species. So is the capacity for violence keeping us from achieving a free society? No. humans’ capacity for violence is what is needed to free humankind because when the state uses violence to govern others it is necessary for humans to defend themselves from such violence with other violence. But if we tried to evolve past violence what would happen is the ones who evolve more slowly will work for the government. Then their capacity for violence would become a dominant trait and then humanity would become even more enslaved. So is human nature keeping us from being free? Maybe it is true. Another factor in Human nature is the fact that the majority of humans allow themselves to be enslaved. In July of 1961 an experiment was done concerning the psychological condition of obedience to authority, the experiment was called the Milgram experiment. During the Milgram experiment an authority figure (the scientist) was present in the room. The volunteer would go into the room and be instructed to administer shocks to a person at the other side of the wall who pretended to be suffering extremely to the point of death. (For further information see The conclusion of the experiment was that most of the subjects would continue to administer the shocks. This concluded that the majority of humankind subjects itself to the will of authority without question. This is a sad truth about the human condition; the psychology of most humans is what makes people follow orders. The presence of an authority figure drives the human to do what he says because he has learned to obey the authority figure not necessarily to agree with him. I believe that this is due to the way us humans go through childhood. During childhood the human is taught right from wrong, good from bad, safe from not safe through violent force. The human child in today’s era is then taught to adapt to its surroundings by avoiding being punished by their parents, this is done by obeying the parents in some respect and hiding their activity in others. If we are to change the collective human psyche into a more disobedient one then we need to start raising our children with respect, NO PUNSHMENT, NO PROPAGANDA only reason with them. (For more information on peaceful parenting see However peaceful parenting teaches respect it does not teach violence, this may be a problem. In order to adapt we must teach victimless violence, meaning we must teach the future generation to be peaceful unless in self-defense (even against the state). This can be done through martial arts which is a physical art form designed to train a practitioner for combat. Martial arts also train the person to activate what is known to some as killer instinct, or the activation of the urge to use violence. It is important if many people learn to control their Killer instinct (to turn it on or off).

                Human evolution is the one way we as humans are subject to nature. While you can destroy the product of nature you cannot destroy nature itself. Evolution is Nature itself, all microscopic living organisms have evolved from another species, always taking on characteristics that improve the spices survival. Mankind is no different from any other spices its intelligence is a survival characteristic. The gorilla has strength and size, the chimpanzee has agility, the buffalo has its strength in numbers. For all these characteristics none of them are like the human, the human has intelligence and the human is not dying off like the previous species. But like all living things it is subject to evolution. During the age when the eastern planes of Africa where going through constant geological changes a certain ape species began to develop an enlarged forehead which made room for an enlarged Neo-Cortex. The word Neo-Cortex means “New Brain” this is the part of the brain that is responsible for the reasoning, which is what makes the human so unique. This early ape was far from human but it certainly had many characteristics, such characteristics are walking upright, enlarged forehead, the use of tools, and a family structure. In this family structure is known as a tribe and it is believed that until man discovered fire the man who could pick up the biggest rock would be tribe leader.  This is not government however it has implanted a certain psyche of authority in the early human because it will mean that future humans would learn to respond obediently to force. This is only a theory not necessarily fact however it provides a good framework for how human obedience to authority came to be. The first Homo Sapiens was also organized into tribes however these primates are the same species as us they have developed language, tools, hunting strategy, a human sized Neo cortex and a social structure; they are human.  Since the Homo sapiens, we have developed government, money, and large organized religion in some ways we have evolved and in others we have devolved. The institutions that early civilizations developed were a survival mechanism to increase population and allow large amounts of humans to coexist. These were brutal dictatorships but there were also population growths. These were known as the five civilizations and they were similar in many ways. They all were located near a large river which allowed large agricultural development; they had a God king, a priest class, a political hierarchy, and a military. During the time of these five civilizations the God king was believed to be a god sent to earth to govern the people and everyone knows you can’t disobey the word of god so obedience was demanded and expected of you. Later in life during the rise and fall of empires and the death of god kings the lie of the god king was broken. Then the rise of the God Sent kings, the ruler who was human but was given the mandate from heaven and therefore had the divine right to rule. Further the mandate of heaven is broken so the lie of the king being a flawed sinful but necessary takes its place and the Magna Charta was written to limit the power of the king. Later it was discovered that mankind ought to be free so the roman style republic was installed in the US, France, and later other places as well. The great lie there is that a government is a necessary evil and everyone should get the chance to exercise ownership of each other in order to maintain a “stable society”. And this is where we are now we are still ruling by force however we have come a long way in seeing through the lie. And the final lie has begun to break. Since the French revolution and the writings of Proudhon more and more people are realizing that there is NO justification for the state and all religions and financial institutions who support the state are STEALING from and enslaving us. What will come next anarchy? Hopefully. It definitely seems that the direction humankind is heading in IS in fact anarchy. It may be 100 years it may be 1000 years but surely enough anarchy must take place. The only question is how soon? How many people will have to die at the hands of the state before we can evolve past this barbaric system we call government.

Psychology of the state

The state is made up of people and if those people decide that the state should not exist it will not exist. The state is not a physical tangible entity it is a system in which everyone has a functional job to feed the tyranny. Once the idea is broken people will resist the government workers will go on strike, and the police will take off their badges. But will the idea ever break in that manner? Yes it happened that way during the Spanish civil war. If enough people in the right places decide to resist both inside the government and outside the government the state CANNOT exist. Without the police to force taxation the politicians, their secretary’s, the tax collectors, will find other employment. If the state continues to print money all that is needed is to not accept it as money, if money is not acknowledged as money than it immediately loses value. All power structures are psychological in nature weather that is an organized religion, a state, a monarchy, a bank, a money system, a school, or a prison. Once they psychology changes the power structure changes with it. And in this regard human nature determines the freedom of human kind the question posed is human nature stopping us from being free. The short answer is YES!!!

Psychology of freedom

                Since the state is a power structure and all power structures are psychological in nature, it is the job of the propaganda to enslave the mind and it is the job of counter propaganda to free the mind. Human Psychology is human nature, ideas are what drive humans; the state is an idea therefore human nature IS what is stopping us from being free. However Human nature is NOT constant and the psyche of each human are determined by the ideas they are exposed to, and so is the behavior. If a thief from a bad neighborhood puts a knife against someone to steal their money it is the place they grew up in that showed him a different survival characteristic than anyone from a peaceful neighborhood it is his violent upbringing that taught him violence a violent past usually leads to a violent future. However nobody can become who they do not choose to be. Should you take a thief and teach him to sell drugs instead of steal would he not serve the world instead of act as a parasite? Who loses? One man sells a drug that another man wants, is there a victim? No. if you teach someone to change the philosophy they live by or the ideas the hold close to their hearts they will likely not respond kindly. However people can convince others of changing their behavior and it is done constantly. Sending someone to jail does the opposite of improve society, it only leads to more violence. The psychology of freedom is simple many people must go through some behavioral training to question authority, this behavioral training does not have to come in the form of forceful indoctrination but should begin with the youth in free schooling. Free schooling is an idea that the teacher of the class is not an authority to be trusted but a guide in one’s ability to seek the truth. In short it does not teach people what to think but how to think. Once a large enough portion of the human population is successfully trained in questioning authority then the idea of the state is weakened. This was one of the many successes we can learn from in the Spanish civil war.
Counter Propaganda
                Counter propaganda is propaganda designed to break the paradigm of the establishment in any power structure. It is designed to show the lies of the state and its propaganda arm specifically. Here in the US there are many people who engage in counter propaganda, not necessarily anarchists but they do ok. These people are Alex Jones of Infowars; Com Democracy Now; Matt Drugde of the Drudgereport; Adam Kokesh (Anarcho-Capitalist); Keith Preston of (Pan-Anarchist); these were just a few. These people’s jobs are to weaken the propaganda of the particular power structure or to break the idea of Statism altogether. And thus the big lie of the state being necessary will be broken. During the Catalonia revolution of the 30’s there were many such counter propagandists who printed newsletters promoting anarchy and they began printing long before the revolution even started, eventually the paradigm changed and Catalonia was liberated if only for a short time.

                My conclusion is that human nature is stopping us from being free. We must change human nature to break the idea of Authority, it has been done before and it can be done again. Through free schooling, Counter propaganda, and peaceful parenting the world will learn to be free.  And the psychology of the state will be erased, a revolution will begin and It will be up to the people of that time to decide how the state will be overthrown. 

Monday, June 9, 2014

Anarchy Global Revolution and the Purpose of NAM

By Pasquale Pulella 

Anarchy’s greatest feature is also its greatest weakness. Anarchy is a world without rulers which means no organized hierarchical violence. This lack of violence is not necessarily a weakness but it has been in the past. Just look at the past examples of anarchy and how quickly they were overcome by the state. One example was the Barcelona Revolution in the 1930’s after the anarchists had liberated Barcelona it had no state no police and a faction who was their ally; the communist backed Republic of Spain had attacked the city, funds were cut off from the Anarchists. The new republic eventually took Barcelona and later Francisco Franco won the Civil war. If there was no government globally than Anarchy would stand a better chance at lasting because no outside government could threaten anyone’s freedom. Is this possible? No.
  The Idea that we could globally end all governments at once is impossible for any number of Anarchists. Let alone the fact that we Anarchists have been and still are a minority worldwide, also we are heavily divided and many groups prefer to fight each other rather than the state. Also simple armed revolt is not enough because the chaos created by armed revolt is enough to cause a power vacuum that will be filled. Furthermore we anarchists have no financial backing compared to ALL other revolutions, because no Aristocrat is dumb enough to back a revolution witch would threaten their state defined property. Also people who have not a clue who or what anarchists are will wake up to one day hear that there is an anarchist uprising and that they are terrorists, if this takes place in Europe or north America the public will hate the revolutionary’s and side with the government.
So now we can see why there is no state-less societies today. Anarchy is the hardest thing to accomplish, is it impossible? No. if there is anything we humans can learn from our own creation is that NOTHING is impossible. Scientists are currently working on plasma rockets as a means of propulsion through space; they were successful but are working on a means to make it more efficient. Years ago the words “plasma Rocket” were confined strictly to science fiction novels, they were laughed at as a fantasy but it has become a reality. How than can we say that ANY political or economic system is impossible if we know that nothing is impossible. How then can we achieve a long lasting stateless society? The 17th century pirates of Nassau had to worry about the British Empire, the Spanish had to worry about the outside governments backing their enemies, and the Native Americans had to worry about white westward expansion. If there was a way for the Anarchists to have their cake and eat it too it would be great.
 So what’s the answer how do we achieve a long lasting stateless society? The answer is global anarchist revolution through the NAM movement. In order to overcome the differences that Ideological Anarchists have with each other we need a system where Anarchists of different Ideology’s work toward common goal of overthrowing the state and will agree to disagree. This first part is already taking place in the National Anarchist Movement. Next we need other cells of NAM to establish relations with each other and get to know each other just enough to want to help each other. Then we need to focus our resources where it is needed most. For example areas where government is failing and anarchist uprisings are occurring such as Greece. Or we need to start movements in other areas where government is failing but there is no Anarchist movement to speak of such as Somalia.  Another good placement of resources would also be the US, Russia, and China because of their global military influence. Also we need a concrete strategy for the creation of a stateless society that focuses on the maintenance of a stable society when the state completely fails. Another vitally important area is education. The Anarchists of the Barcelona revolution have showed us that setting up free schools and local Anarchist publications can go a long way in creating a free society. Public education of anarchy is essential to the movement it is especially important in places where a power paradigm is about to shift such as a civil war area, a failing government, or an area of economic instability. Some places where public education is necessary are South America, USA, Italy, France, Spain, and Somalia. The reason for these places is that the current power structure is extremely fragile for example the Italian government just collapsed again and the taxes are unpayable in many regions.

For Increased connectivity between NAM and other Anarchist organizations a platform for communication must be established outside the mainstream and a platform for currency exchange. Actually the currency change already exists. What we need is a Website where Anarchist Factions worldwide can communicate freely and openly. Such a platform would need to be open source, with no servers only a program to download and install. Furthermore when the dark market comes online it will need to be integrated with that as well as all the criptocurrencys currently available including and not limited to Bitcoin and Darkcoin. Together all the anarchists can benefit from increased connectivity. The benefit of global connectivity is that if one anarchist group is in need of allies and they can’t find any locally, International allies may be helpful; we learned this lesson form the Barcelona revolution.