A general statist culture pervades Iraq. The main factions see possession of the central government or state as an institution that can protect them from the dominance of the others. Anarchism would strike at the root of this problem and do much to alleviate it. It wouldn’t be enough though. There are other destructive cultural trends at work in Iraq. One is clearly fundamentalist Islam, and its basic anti-liberty premises. These premises are the absolute reliance on divine authority, and the aggressive violence required by its particular brand of Islamic law. An uprooting of this element is also necessary in a struggle for individual freedom in Iraq. This is only my particular left-libertarian market anarchist view though.

The practical means of uprooting statist and fundamentalist Islamic culture are bound to be peaceful ones. The firepower possessed by a U.S. backed regime is too immense to do armed battle with. The ISIS forces probably also possess considerable arms. They would not otherwise have made the progress they did. It would be advisable for freedom loving individuals in Iraq to begin a campaign of informing people of the possibilities of civil or peaceful criminal disobedience. The word criminal here pertains to violations of unjust laws and not criminality in the sense of violating the non-aggression principle. This civil or criminal disobedience is preferably aimed at both the rule of the Iraqi regime and ISIS militants. Both are authoritarian forces bent on the imposition of laws requiring the aggressive use of force.

A movement for the rights of all Iraqis could begin with peaceful disobedience, but it may involve instances of individual or collective self-defense too. This is especially true with respect to the emergence of a liberated territory under statist assault. Violence is preferably not a first resort and is best avoided as much as possible though. Its defensive potential is only magnified by the participation of a sufficient number of others. This is why isolated acts of violence are likely to be ineffectual and potentially immoral due to this lack of effectiveness.

We left-libertarian market anarchists in the U.S. can do all we can to support Iraqi comrades in creating a free society.

Get on it! Liberty lovers.

Noi siamo stati portati a pensare che “attivismo” consista nel volere che qualcun altro faccia qualcosa. Imploriamo i politici eletti, i burocrati, spronandoli all’azione. Ma l’attivismo migliore, il più efficace, è quando prendiamo in mano la situazione e risolviamo i nostri problemi – o colpiamo i nostri nemici – da soli. Nello stato messicano di Michoacán, la popolazione si è ribellata contro il cartello del narcotraffico dei Cavalieri Templari, cacciandoli via con una forza tale che il governo messicano dispera di sopprimere i vigilantes e ora spera di corromperli, trasformandoli da una manifestazione spontanea della rabbia popolare in un altro braccio armato dello stato criminale. Speriamo che resistano.

E ora la popolazione si sta sollevando in Nigeria. Mentre il resto del mondo ha risposto ai crimini odiosi di Boko Haram con hashtag e selfie, la popolazione di Kala/Balge ha risposto con proiettili e machete, prendendo in mano la propria vita e le proprie famiglie. Difendere se stessi significa imparare a confidare in se stessi; i corsi di autodifesa, oltre alle tecniche per sconfiggere l’assalitore, insegnano anche ad avere fiducia nella propria forza e nel proprio potere. Boko Haram ha reagito come da sempre reagiscono i bulli davanti ad una vittima che improvvisamente prende coraggio: hanno fatto dietrofront e sono scappati, lasciandosi alle spalle morti e feriti da quei codardi che sono sempre stati.

Anche in America, il centro dell’impero, dobbiamo imparare ad agire direttamente contro i bulli tra noi, contro le forze dell’impero. Non occorre che l’azione sia frontale e violenta, anche se chi decide di affrontare direttamente gli oppressori merita il nostro rispetto. All’interno del movimento contro la guerra di questi ultimi quattordici anni ci sono stati molti eventi buonisti diretti a risvegliare le coscienze e raccogliere fondi. Ma l’attivismo più efficace ha preso due forme: scoraggiare l’arruolamento nelle forze armate, e incoraggiare chi è arruolato ad uscirne. Entrambe rappresentano una sfida più efficace degli striscioni, allungano una mano verso i soldati ed offrono loro una buona alternativa alla vita militare, uno degli ultimi luoghi della nostra società in cui giovani capaci possono ottenere un lavoro sicuro con una buona paga e benefici. È importante il risultato ottenuto: togliere acqua dal mulino imperialista, obbligando i suoi padroni a impiegare più denaro e tempo a cercare di trattenere i soldati e meno ad uccidere e menomare.

Parlare di alternative all’arruolamento in un istituto superiore di borgata non ha la stessa drammaticità di un’imboscata ad un convoglio di Boko Haram nella giungla nigeriana nel cuore della notte, ma le due cose condividono un aspetto chiave: non devi implorare per ottenere pietà e pace. In entrambi i casi, prendi il nemico frontalmente, e affronti personalmente il meccanismo che causa oppressione e dolore. Se vogliamo salvarci, dobbiamo seguire l’esempio coraggioso della popolazione di Kala/Balge, e salvarci da soli.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

We are conditioned to think of “activism” as getting someone else to do something. We plead with elected officials and bureaucrats, prodding them to take action. But the best and most effective activism is when we take matters into our own hands and solve our problems — or strike at our enemies — ourselves. In Mexico’s Michoacan province, the people rose against the Knights Templar cartel, driving them off with such alacrity that the Mexican government has given up attempts to suppress the vigilantes and now hopes to suborn them, turning them from a natural manifestation of the people’s wrath into another arm of the criminal state. We pray they resist the attempt.

And now in Nigeria, the people are rising. While the rest of the world responded to Boko Haram’s vicious crimes with hashtags and selfies, the people of Kalabalge responded with bullets and machetes, taking their lives and their families into their own hands. To defend oneself is to learn to rely on oneself; in self-defense courses, we learn confidence in our own strength and power as much as we learn specific techniques for defeating assailants. Boko Haram reacted the way bullies have reacted from time immemorial to suddenly emboldened victims — they turned tail and ran, leaving their dead and wounded behind like the cowards they always were.

In America, the imperial center, we too must learn to act directly against the bullies in our midst, against the forces of the empire. These actions need not be direct, violent confrontation — although those who do choose to engage their oppressors directly deserve our respect. In the anti-war movement over the last fourteen years, many consciousness-raising, fund-raising and feel-good events have been held, but the most effective activism I’ve seen has taken two forms — discouraging enlistment, known as “counter-recruiting,” and encouraging soldiers currently in the military to get out. Both are much more challenging than holding a sign at a rally, requiring us to get to know the people we are trying to reach and to offer them a good alternative to the military, which is one of the last places left in our society where any able-bodied young person can get a secure job with good pay and benefits. But both get results that matter, denying grist to the imperial mill, forcing the managers of the imperial state to spend more time and money on finding and retaining soldiers and less on killing and maiming others.

Talking to a classroom in an inner city high school about alternatives to the military is not as dramatic as ambushing a Boko Haram convoy in Nigerian jungle in the middle of the night, but both actions share one key aspect — neither involves begging power for mercy and comfort. Rather, both take on the enemy directly, confronting personally the mechanisms of oppression and violence. If we are going to be saved, we must follow the bold example of the people of Kalabalge, and save ourselves.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, I Frutti dell’Azione Diretta.

L’offerta di sicurezza è una delle giustificazioni più basilari dell’esistenza dello stato. Si immagina che lo stato protegga la popolazione dai predatori, sia interni che esterni. Ma in Nigeria lo stato non ha la capacità di adempiere questa funzione. E forti dubbi esistono anche riguardo la volontà: secondo notizie poi confermate da Amnesty International l’esercito nigeriano era venuto a conoscenza con quattro ore di anticipo del fatto che una colonna armata di militanti di Boko Haram si stava dirigendo verso Chibok: quattro ore durante le quali l’esercito non ha fatto assolutamente nulla.

Ora, visto che il governo nigeriano non può o non vuole proteggere i nigeriani, forse questi potrebbero prendere esempio dai messicani, che si sono armati per difendere se stessi dall’aggressività sia dei cartelli della droga che dello stato. Ovviamente il governo nigeriano cerca di favorire la dipendenza della popolazione dallo stato vietando il possesso di armi semiautomatiche e fucili di qualunque genere; divieto che, pateticamente, non riesce ad applicare ai gruppi di Boko Haram ma che i custodi del collegio di Chibok disgraziatamente rispettano fin troppo.

L’autodifesa armata contro il terrorismo è uno di quei territori che nel corso del secolo appena iniziato sono stati esplorati ampiamente. Il punto di svolta dell’occupazione americana in Iraq non è stato, come si crede comunemente, un prodotto delle tattiche americane, ma piuttosto il risultato degli sforzi di gruppi armati di autodifesa, organizzati dagli stessi iracheni in barba al loro governo fantoccio. Anche se questi gruppi venivano finanziati dai militari americani, la decisione di agire è nata all’interno delle comunità tribali irachene. L’esempio iracheno, così come quello fornito dalla popolazione dello stato messicano di Michoacán, può costituire un modello efficace di difesa da Boko Haram per il popolo nigeriano.

Cosa possiamo fare noi occidentali per aiutare il popolo nigeriano? La cosa più ovvia è ovviamente illegale: se un americano dona armi ai nigeriani o va a combattere contro Boko Haram finisce in galera per molti anni. Un caso che illustra l’assurdità di queste leggi è quello di Eric Harroun, un veterano americano che è andato in Siria a combattere il governo di Assad. Harroun rischia il carcere per aver aiutato gli stessi ribelli siriani che l’amministrazione Obama sta cercando di aiutare. Date queste leggi, c’è poco che l’occidente possa fare legalmente, se non fare donazioni alle istituzioni di carità nigeriane e fare pressione sul governo nigeriano.

Un consiglio al popolo della Nigeria: Il vostro governo non ha né il potere né la volontà di proteggervi. Gli aiuti da parte dei governi occidentali potrebbero risolvere questa dolorosa crisi nel breve, ma non sono una soluzione di lungo termine. Invece di aspettare che i burocrati di Abuja vengano a salvarvi, prendete misure adesso per proteggere voi stessi e i vostri figli. Armatevi, se potete. Organizzate servizi di vigilanza. E se il vostro governo vi chiede di fermarvi, chiedetegli dove era il quattordici aprile, quando le vostre figlie sono state rapite.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Provision of security is the most basic justification given for the existence of the state. The state is supposed to protect the population from predators, both foreign and domestic. However, in Nigeria, the state is clearly incapable of fulfilling this function. Indeed, serious questions exist as to whether or not it even wants to; reports confirmed by Amnesty International indicate that the Nigerian army had four hours’ notice that an armed column of Boko Haram militants was en route to Chibok — four hours during which the army did absolutely nothing.

Since the Nigerian government is either unwilling or unable to protect the Nigerian people, perhaps Nigerians should look to the example of the Mexican people, who have armed themselves in self-defense against both predatory cartels and predatory government forces. Of course, the Nigerian government strives to foster dependence on itself among the people, forbidding them to own semi-automatic rifles or handguns of any type — a prohibition it is pathetically unable to enforce on Boko Haram, but one which the guardians of the schoolgirls of Chibok sadly obeyed all too well.

Armed self-defense against terrorism is well-trodden territory this century. The turning point of the American occupation of Iraq was not, as is commonly believed, a product of American tactics, but rather the result of the efforts of armed self-defense groups established by the Iraqis themselves, outside the American-backed government. While these groups were funded by the American military, the initiative to act arose within the traditional tribal groups of the Iraqi people. This model, as well as the example of the people of Mexico’s Michoacan province, can serve as a template for successful self-defense against Boko Haram by the Nigerian people.

What can we do in the West to aid the Nigerian people? The most obvious way to help is of course completely illegal — any Americans who donate weapons to the Nigerians or who go to fight Boko Haram themselves face stiff prison sentences. The recent case of Eric Harroun, a U.S. Army veteran who traveled to Syria to fight against the Assad government, illustrates the absurdity of these laws. Mr. Harroun may go to prison for aiding the same Syrian rebels the Obama administration is trying to aid. Given the laws as they are, there is little within those laws we can do in the West, aside from donating to Nigerian charities and helping bring more pressure on the Nigerian government.

To the people of Nigeria: Your government cannot and will not protect you. Aid from Western governments might address this immediate and painful crisis, but will not be a long-term solution. Rather than waiting for the bureaucrats in Abuja to save you, take steps now to protect yourselves and your children.  Arm yourselves, if you can. Organize watches. And when your government asks you to stop, ask them where they were on 14 April, when your daughters were stolen.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Boko Haram e l’Imperativo dell’Autodifesa.
• Spanish, Boko Haram y el imperativo de la autodefensa

Burleson County prosecutor Julie Renken vindictively sought to cage marijuana farmer Henry Goedrich Magee for murder after the fatal shooting of  Adam Sowders, who invaded Magee’s home in the middle of the night to steal his crops and his firearms. Because Sowders was a deputy sheriff, Renken sought to make an example of Magee for anyone who might dare resist the agents of the state. But in a stunning development, the long-moribund grand jury, originally intended as a check on state power but in recent years increasingly a rubber stamp, stirred and declined to indict Mr. Magee. The grand jury determined that not enough evidence existed to try him for murder.

The right to defend one’s self is in many ways the most basic principle of liberty. Those who have been in the power of the state and who have known that they will be physically forced to comply, forced to the point of death, know well how precious the right of self-defense is. In truth, one against whom you cannot defend yourself might be well considered your master, even your owner. If any country is to be regarded as free, the citizens thereof must have a universally acknowledged right to resist unlawful arrest, even (and especially) to the point of killing police who act unlawfully.

That grand jury struck a blow for liberty, but much remains to be done. Mr. Magee was only spared indictment because the grand jury found insufficient evidence to prove that Sowders had adequately identified himself as a police officer before Magee gunned him down. Had Sowders clearly identified himself as the armed agent of the state, intent on abducting Mr. Magee and his girlfriend and stealing their crops and firearms,  Magee would even now face a lifetime in prison or possibly even execution for defending himself against an armed, violent intruder.

But Magee struck another blow for liberty the moment he pulled that trigger. As a veteran of the Iraq War and of the nocturnal home invasions that characterized that war, I can say from personal experience that the knowledge that the inhabitants of a home might shoot back weighs heavily on the minds of criminals, uniformed or otherwise, as they prepare to break in. Indeed, the casualties we suffered played a huge, perhaps dominant part in the switch from “cordon and search,” or classical home invasions, to “cordon and knock” as the preferred tactic for locating the enemy. Furthermore those casualties, as dearly as I may miss the ones I knew personally, were the reason we ultimately left Iraq.

Whether or not to resist state violence is a deeply personal decision we all must face any time we confront an agent of the state, whether it is the tax collector, a traffic stop or a SWAT team coming through our doors at midnight. But even the simple act of making it a decision, of actively deciding whether it is in your best interests and in the best interests of all our brothers and sisters to resist or to passively submit, is a liberatory act, a moment of freedom. For too long we have obeyed our conditioning and rolled over for the state.  Magee’s case is a positive step, but his decision to resist, to shoot at anyone invading his home, regardless of who signs their paycheck, is what makes him a hero.