Monthly Archives: September 2011
(Reprinted from http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/why_anarchism.php)
IN an interview with Troy Southgate during the mid-1990s I tried to show how government caused the poverty of the periphery by removing the crops by force and then by taxation, creating the wealth at the core; how its taxation on trade, to increase its power, caused a high cost of living, therefore high wages, high labour costs and labour-saving technology to reduce those labour costs. It is this industrialisation which is causing terrible damage to the high population of the developed world.
The killer argument against industrialisation is that it means harder work. American workers work the longest hours (except for Japan, which I don’t know about). What I didn’t talk about was the damage done by government to the small, rooted community, the tribe. The community had three functions: defence, the sanction for good behaviour and welfare.
The first form of government is a local bully and his mates, a ‘hero’ and his companions, who force the local population to hand over the results of their hunting and gathering. To forestal any objection, most of them are disarmed. This is the first nail in the coffin of the community – it has lost its function of defence. The ruler, with the fiat of religion, then makes its laws to protect his position, including laws governing his subjects’ behaviour. These are administered by ‘justice’. This is the second nail in the coffin of the small community. It is no longer the sanction for good behaviour. Amongst groups, without leaders and an imposed system of ‘justice’, unacceptable behaviour is discouraged by shame, ridicule and, ultimately, exile. Crime is not so much punished as made amends for. If someone kills someone, his whole extended family has to give 50 cattle to the extended family of the victim. This is a strong sanction against killing people on potential murderers by their own family. In today’s judicial system a crime is punished but no attempt is made to make amends. A fine is imposed, but it goes to the State, not to the victim.
The final nail in the coffin of the small community came relatively recently. Mobility of labour and thus the provision of welfare by the State. The State now gets half its income and therefore power from indirect taxes, taxes on trade. The more goods are traded, the more taxes the government receives, the more powerful it is. This is justified by the nonsense theory of conventional economics that trade creates wealth which trickles down to the poorest. So the poor are forced to hand over their crops which are consumed by the core. All that’s left to trickle back tothe periphery is soot, sewage, scrap and second-hand clothes. To increase traded crops even more, the poor are driven off their land by Acts of Enclosure and into the cities. This is called Mobility of Labour. Cut off from their communities, they can no longer rely on help in times of trouble. To avoid revolution, governments have to provide State welfare instead. Thus a community now has little use. The State has hijacked all its functions: defence, justice and welfare.
But the State’s take-over of the sanction for good behaviour doesn’t work. On the one hand we are no longer constrained by the opinions of our grandparents. We are no longer ashamed because they don’t know; they are so far away. And the State doesn’t admit that the community provides any useful sanction for good behaviour; indeed, it forbids it. But on the other hand its police don’t care if we beat our wives or husbands; they don’t care whether schoolboy bullies are ‘faxing’ their peers, or staff mistreating orphans or old people. They’re not bothered if the poor are mugging each other. Their function is to protect the property of the rich and their middle classes. While we are no longer constrained by the opinions of our relatives who are far away, nor are we constrained by the police. So we get a soaring crime rate and the breakdown of social life.
As individuals we no longer need the community. The State provides defence, some justice and welfare. So we don’t need to put up with the constraints of the community, the interference of our neighbours and relatives. We are free! We can make as many babies as we like. We can tear down the restrictions of conventional behaviour. We can be ourselves! We can deride the old and their old-fashioned standards, and the traditions that held the community together. It makes a certain sense. We no longer need the community. The State does the community’s job. The fact that social life hasn’t completely broken down is because most of us still behave because of what our parents, friends and relatives would think. But more and more people try to forget this constraint, behave unacceptably and make social life impossible.
So government, by destroying the small community by hijacking its functions, is the cause of increasing social breakdown. It is also destroying the traditional knowledge gained over the millennia and handed down from generation to generation to generation in the community. Nowadays they even have to teach parenting skills to young mothers because their mothers, aunts and grandmothers aren’t close by to help and hand down hard-won traditional knowledge and skills. Dysfunctional families are not a modern phenomenon. But previously, if it was seen that a family was not coping with its children, aunts, sisters and parents would have stepped in and suggested that a child stay with them for a while. A child was not, then, a product of a nuclear family, but a tribe, all contributing. There’s an American saying: ‘You need a village to bring up a child.’ Today the villages and tribes and extended families have been destroyed by government actions. A child of a dysfunctional family has no escape. So he is abused and grows up an abuser. Blood relationship is obviously the basis of the extended family and community. But it is not essential. Every community is able to incorporate a number of unrelated individuals.
So government is the cause of poverty and social breakdown. How do we get rid of government? By cutting its lifeblood, taxation. Without taxation government can’t even hire a hall to meet in, let alone employ police to enforce its laws. At the same time we have to cut the size of the political unit, until progressively, we reach the autonomous, self-sufficient, armed village. Clearly there is not room for many of those, so at the same time we have to cut the population by at least three-quarters. And that still doesn’t leave any room for the animals. Should animals have any space? Some think that Anarchism is impractical, that we have to have rulers. But for hundreds of thousands of years humans have lived and thrived without them. All over the world anthropologists have found that nearly all hunter-gatherer societies don’t have rulers. Anarchism is very practical. It stops poverty. It stops social breakdown and is painlessly achieved by cutting taxes, the population and the size of the political unit.
Richard Hunt lives in Oxfordshire, England, and is former Editor and founder of both ‘Green Anarchist’ and ‘Alternative Green’ magazines. He is also the author of ‘To End Poverty: The Starvation of the Periphery by the Core’ (1997), a ground-breaking work influencing the development of National-Anarchism.
(Reprinted from http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/transcending.php)
MAN’S obsession with trinitarian concepts has lasted for thousands of years. Indeed, when presented with two distinct choices – both of which are considered inadequate – we often look for a third alternative. In the late sixth century BC, the famous Buddhist sage, Prince Gautama, rejected a life of opulent complacency and experimented with self-disciple and denial. Consequently, after driving himself to the very brink of starvation the Prince realised that there was ‘a middle way’ beyond both luxury and asceticism. In this case it was the path of meditation and detachment, a process in which both lifestyles were transcended and overcome.
An interesting parallel can be drawn between the example of Gautama’s rejection of hereditary privilege and the search for an alternative to Capitalism during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The ‘solution’, as we know only too well, was Communism. In fact the last century may be rightly perceived as having been a furious historical battleground for two highly adversarial and bitterly-opposed ideologies. But as Hilaire Belloc observed in The Restoration of Property over sixty years ago, the differences between the two are not as distinct or clear-cut as their supporters often like to contend: ‘The only economic difference between a herd of subservient Russians and a mob of free Englishmen pouring into a factory of a morning is that the latter are exploited by private profit, the former by the State in communal fashion. The motive of the Russian masters is to establish a comfortable bureaucracy for themselves and their friends out of the proletariat labour. The motive of the English masters is to increase their private fortunes out of proletariat labour. But we want something different from either’. Thus Communism is considered, not as the antidote, but as a symptom and a product of Capitalism. Belloc’s own quest for a genuine alternative to both Capitalism and Communism was represented by The Distributist League, which he founded in 1936 with G.K. Chesterton. Both were famous converts to Catholicism and were inspired by Rerum Novarum, a timely encyclical in which Pope Leo XIII replied to the challenge of atheistic Communism by proposing that property be distributed more fairly and workers treated with more dignity. As we shall see below, Belloc and Chesterton were to become two of the chief ideologues of the new Third Position.
By the late-1970s Britain’s largest Far Right organisation, the National Front (NF), had experienced an unprecedented growth spurt. Virtually indistinguishable from the more mainstream Conservative Party in that it defended family values, law and order, capital punishment and several other Right-wing policies, the NF became a household name due to its opposition to multi-racialism and support for the compulsory repatriation of all non-white immigrants. By 1979, however, the Party was heavily defeated at the ballot box after Margaret Thatcher had herself expressed one or two outspoken comments about the growing immigration problem. As a result, most NF supporters left for the comparatively less extreme realms of the Centre Right, although, predictably, Mrs. Thatcher’s pledge to tighten up on immigration was never practicably consolidated. From that point onwards the NF went through a period of factionalism, as the complicated mish-mash of ideologies which for so long had marched beneath the same banner now resulted in a bitter struggle between reactionary conservatives, blatant neo-nazis and revolutionaries. NF luminaries like Martin Webster and John Tyndall were ousted from the Party in the early-1980s, clearing the way for a new up-and-coming generation of young activists; men like Derek Holland, Nick Griffin, Patrick Harrington and Graham Williamson. These individuals had been motivated by ‘third way’ organisations abroad, not least by Italy’s Terza Pozitione (Third Position) and the exiled Roberto Fiore. The strategy of tension – Anno di Piombo – which had characterised Italian politics during the 1970s had led to the development of the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (Armed Revolutionary Nuclei), and demonstrators had been seen on the streets bearing placards in simultaneous praise of both Hitler and Mao. Many NF members had also been inspired by Otto Strasser, a former member of the German National-Socialist Workers Party who had fought with Hitler over the latter’s betrayal of the NSDAP’s more socialistic tenets. So, for the NF, this was to be a new era for revolutionary politics. One in which the boundaries of ‘left’ and ‘right’ were to be totally rejected and redefined.
In 1983 the British NF began to publish a series of revolutionary magazines, entitled Rising: Booklet For The Political Soldier, in which detailed articles were given over to the twin concepts of political sacrifice and struggle. Meanwhile, Derek Holland’s pamphlet, The Political Soldier, inspired yet another generation of new activists and was heavily influenced by the Italian philosopher Julius Evola. By 1986 the NF claimed to have finally purged its ranks of ‘Tories’ and ‘reactionaries’ and, much to the chagrin of the traditional Left, was soon forging alliances with Black separatist organisations like Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and commending the ‘third way’ stance of Khomeini’s Iran. Indeed, whilst the works of Belloc and Chesterton were used to provide the NF with a unique economic platform, the organisation was also advocating Popular Rule, an interesting socio-political theory in which the structure of British society would become so decentralised that it would come to resemble that of Colonel Qathafi’s Libya. Not culturally, but in terms of establishing street, area and regional committees through which power could be decisively channelled up from the grass roots. This, of course, was in stark contrast to the NF’s former dependence upon the electoral voting system. The NF, in awe of its Libyan counterparts, was now distributing copies of Qathafi’s Green Book and happily chanting the mantra ‘no representation without participation’. As a consequence, therefore, the NF’s rejection of the ballot box confirmed its inevitable admittance into the revolutionary domain of extra-parliamentary politics. The movement went on to express its support for regional independence, European solidarity, positive anti-racism and co-operation with Black and Asian communities residing in England.
These were exciting times for supporters of Revolutionary Nationalism, but the personality clashes which tend to prevail in all political circles eventually tore the organisation apart during the Autumn of 1989. On one side were gathered the supporters of Derek Holland, Colin Todd, Nick Griffin and Roberto Fiore, all of whom were involved in the establishment of a new rural project in northern France. On the other were Patrick Harrington, Graham Williamson and David Kerr, who believed that the administrative core of the organisation should remain in the British Isles. Holland, Todd, Griffin and Fiore all left to form the International Third Position (ITP), whilst Harrington and the remaining supporters of the NF disbanded the movement in March 1990 and formed Third Way. But for those who believed that the revolutionary dynamism of the late-1980s could somehow be recreated, it was to end in disappointment and dejection. Third Way became far more conservative by supporting anti-federalist and ‘save the pound’ campaigns, now portraying itself as ‘the radical centre’. The ITP, on the other hand, tried to influence traditional Catholics grouped around The Society of St. Pius X, and – to the horror of the overwhelming majority of its membership – took the disastrous road towards reactionary fascism. So whilst one segment of the old NF had become ‘respectable’ and centrist, the leaders of the other were espousing the principles of Mussolini, Petain and Franco. For the ITP, the inevitable spilt came in September 1992.
By this time I had been personally involved with the NF – and, consequently, the ITP – since joining as a teenager in 1984. Throughout those years I had served as Regional Organiser with both Sussex NF and the Tunbridge Wells branch of the ITP, publishing magazines such as The Kent Crusader, Surrey Action, Eastern Legion and Catholic Action. Combined with Northern Rising (published by the ITP’s Yorkshire and Lancashire branches), these publications comprised five-fifths of the organisation’s literary output. When the ITP virtually disintegrated in 1992, these magazines all withdrew their support. The ITP, meanwhile, was left with Final Conflict, comprising a mixture of skinhead youth culture and Christian bigotry.
The split occurred for a variety of reasons, most notably the fact that the ITP had rejected the interna
(Reprinted from http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/organizing.php)
THE State has been heavily preoccupied with establishing alleged links between ‘far right extremists’ and proto-terrorist activity for many years. There was John Tyndall’s well-publicised japes with the Spearhead training group during the 1960s; Tony Malski’s fictitious plot to bomb the Notting Hill Carnival; the involvement of Searchlight agent-provocateur, Dave Roberts, with Column 88 during the early-1980s; and the National Front’s non-existent collaboration with Arab terrorists in 1988.
The fact that there remains little or no truth in any of these orchestrated assumptions does not necessarily mean that racial separatists have been successful in avoiding the dangerous and incriminating trappings of paramilitary activity, it simply illustrates the fact that we have not done enough to clarify our position with regard to this highly controversial topic. As a revolutionary current, any consistent failure on the part of National-Anarchists to deal significantly with this issue would be totally inexcusable. It is time to assess the modern climate and modify our strategic approach accordingly.
The first question we must ask ourselves, is whether conflict between National-Anarchist revolutionaries and the State is inevitable? I have already dealt elsewhere with the futility of the ballot box and the electoral tactics of organisations like the British National Party (BNP) and Ian Anderson’s renamed National Democrats (ND), but is our own alternative of organic growth within the community really enough? It is a fact that community action initiatives can lead to the creation of a new social, political and economic order which can actually undermine the old regime. Indeed, once we cease to rely upon its bureaucratic institutions the State will become increasingly superfluous to requirements and eventually be swept aside. But is this really enough?
Recent developments leave us with little doubt that the ruling class will employ the full militaristic might of its extensive and highly-trained armed forces in order to deal with any threat to capitalism’s ongoing exploitation of the people. Those who fail to perceive this fact have no right to be involved in the anti-capitalist struggle, and that includes activists and supporters throughout the whole left-right spectrum. It is obvious that the clandestine forces behind the super-rich global empire will never relinquish their immense power and influence without a fight to the death. Creating a counter-culture or, indeed, a counter-power structure alongside the existing system is a basic necessity, but looking at current trends realistically, there is to be no peaceful or purely political solution to the multifarious ills of modern society.
So if conflict does seem inevitable – at least for those of us who have not managed to found our own communities elsewhere – what form is it likely to take? The answer to this question cannot be instantly culled from a revolutionary’s pocket catechism, we are clearly not in control of the future direction of society at this stage and must simply approach each situation as it comes along. On the other hand, the scenario most likely to affect England’s largest towns and cities will be one of chaos and disorder. As more and more people are classified, identified, categorised and basically regarded as non-consuming denizens of a growing underclass, it seems fairly certain that these outsiders will constitute the new revolutionary bedrock from which will we shall carve our resistance to the machinery of the repressive State.
Multi-racialism is going to play a large part in the disintegration of the societal fabric, a fabric that was never going to be woven together by the liberal agents of ‘political correctness’ and ‘positive discrimination’ in the first place. Blacks will side with blacks, asians with asians and – faced with increasing economic hardship and criminal activity – whites will seek protection, solace and respect amongst their own kindred. It will always be the case that chaos inadvertently contains the redeeming elements of sanity and redemption, and this unifying spirit will engender a common identity and enable people to pull together and fight back.
This scenario is not designed to sound romantic or over-dramatic, it is a realistic interpretation of how National-Anarchists will emerge from the ruins of capitalist society.The petty bourgeoisie can have their barbecues, their satellite television and their fitted kitchens for now, but they had better make the most of them. The black clouds of war are beginning to gather overhead as England begins to enter its death-throes, and it is up to us to prepare the way for victory during the inevitable conflict that will undoubtedly ensue. But where do we begin?
The means for the preparation of revolutionary combat already exist, and are there to be exploited. Let’s examine three areas into which National-Anarchists should be integrating themselves with the specific intention of gleaning some vital knowledge for the future:
1. Physical Fitness
The materialist age has undoubtedly led to an increase in human vanity and an egotistical search for ‘the body beautiful’, but at least both the facilities and the opportunities for physical development have increased accordingly. This country has thousands of sports centres, track and field associations and gymnasiums, and there is no reason why National-Anarchists cannot use such places to improve themselves physically. Whilst the masses sit in front of their television screens, stuffing their faces and belching intermittently between mouthfuls of rancid kebab, we must embody the age of the Warrior and the New Man. If you are unfit, then do something about it. Stop smoking; cut down on excessive drinking; try to eat the right food; find out how you can join other National-Anarchists on camping or hiking weekends; and, most importantly, stay active. To be healthy in body, of course, is to be healthy in mind.
The individualistic, dog-eat-dog mentality of capitalism has almost extinguished the final vestiges of neighbourliness and respect that remain. The violent and the deranged think nothing of stabbing or shooting somebody in the street for the price of an ounce of cannabis, and in many areas neither young nor old can walk the streets without fear of attack. For women, children and the elderly, the situation is considerably worse and rapists, child molesters and other sociopaths find it easy to prey upon the weak and vulnerable. But once again it is possible to counteract this trend by improving oneself in terms of getting to grips with self-defence and unarmed combat. Whether it be kung-fu, judo or kick-boxing, learning the basic skills of self-defence is a prerequisite for the coming age of struggle. As society continues to crumble, we will have to form vigilante groups and police our own communities. Social disintegration leads to a growth in gangland activity and one only has to look at countries like Russia and Albania for examples of how a major economic catastrophe can lead to organised crime. When the time comes, it may be necessary to secure food, electricity and water supplies, and we must control the streets in order to defend ourselves, our families and our property.
3. Further Activity
If revolutionary activists are forced to defend themselves and their families from the faceless mercenaries of the State – and this includes the police, army, landlords, tax collectors, bailiffs etc. – then they must become familiar with the means to do so. It is worth noting that if you can spare one evening a week and just one weekend every month, then why not join the Territorial Army (TA)? The TA pays its volunteers the same rate of pay as a regular soldier, so by taking advantage of the situation you can actually be paid and trained by the State to deal with its consequences.
These three options are not suitable for all National-Anarchists and we have always maintained that we can incorporate differing attributes within our flexible range of interests. However, all able-bodied people should think very seriously about improving themselves in one way or another. The outcome of these initiatives cannot be foreseen, but as England steadily decomposes amid the gradual collapse of liberal-democracy, none but the most organised and prepared will arise in triumph to retake their claim amid the shattered ruins.
(Reprinted from http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/anarchy.shtml)
Q. Why ‘national’ anarchism? Surely nationalism is incompatible with anarchic principles?
A. National-Anarchists do not support nationalism in the sense that we look to artificial nation-states or borders and boundaries. In a more realistic sense we are Indo-Europeans and therefore part of an ethnic heritage that includes not only Europe but also countries like Iran, Afghanistan, India and Tibet. Indeed, we base our ‘national’ outlook upon a much broader interpretation, not on the limited parochial attitudes of nineteenth-century imperialism. When we speak of nationhood we are referring to its tribal and organic implications. Therefore our concept of the word ‘national’ relates not to territory but to the racial identity which is a natural facet of all peoples.
Q. So do you support some kind of Eurasian superstate?
A. No. We believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities. However, given that National-Anarchist communities will always be regarded by the Establishment as some kind of fifth column – and, in all likelihood, infiltrated and crushed – it may be necessary to migrate to areas which currently lie completely outside of Western jurisdiction.
Q. Are National-Anarchists racist?
A. Certainly not. Our vision comes from a love of our own kind and a genuine respect for others. This stance is totally at odds with racial hatred and is fundamentally based upon the realities of self-determination for all peoples. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to a white supremacist agenda or wish to enforce our worldview on others. National-Anarchists are racial separatists and wish to build links with like-minded individuals and organisations regardless of their racial or ethnic background. Racial miscegenation endangers mankind in the same way that hunting and pollution threaten both the environment and the animal kingdom. Together with our comrades around the world, we are seeking to preserve the natural condition of humankind.
Q. So do you plan to outlaw mixed-race relationships?
A. Not at all. These are issues which must be decided by those concerned, although we do remain adamant that such practices remain outside of our own communities.
Q. But what if people disagree with your ideas?
A. Fine. We have no problem with that. As long as they do not prevent us from occupying our own space and land in which to live according to our own principles and beliefs. Attempting to interfere with our way of life or seeking to prevent us from living in our own anarchistic communities is fascist and authoritarian. We do not wish to persecute others or bend them to our will. But if our opponents are not prepared to respect our freedom and establish their own communities elsewhere, we will not hesitate to defend ourselves accordingly.
Q. How do National-Anarchists intend to pursue their objectives?
A. The Capitalist System is dependent upon the constant acquisition of resources for its own survival. In years to come, however, International Capitalism will slowly disintegrate in the same way that the Roman Empire – which also specialised in expansionism and the control of the periphery – finally collapsed under the weight of its own greed and ambition. Therefore we must hasten its demise by encouraging revolution on the periphery and, thus, depriving the urban centres of their valuable resources. Once we empower the exploited peoples in the so-called Third World, we can finally slice off the tentacles of Capitalism one by one until the very core of political and economic power is completely eradicated. Destroy from within and create from without, that is the very essence of National-Anarchism.
Q. But the centres of power are mainly in Europe and North America, so what will become of the West?
A. Who cares! The whole concept of Western civilisation has been built upon exploitation and greed. Moreover, it is an historical progression which has taken mankind away from its primordial condition and led to the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many.
Q. But surely this process will lead to technological regression?
A. Of course. National-Anarchists are not opposed to technology per se – or at least those forms which do not harm the environment – but it remains a fact that once the internationalist system begins to wither away and people start to return to a more natural lifestyle, the factories will stand idle and therefore nobody will be on hand to produce computers, televisions and other luxury items. People will be forced to live without cars and supermarkets, chat shows and telephones, vibrators and central heating. Eventually this will lead to a more leisurely way of life, simply because on average hunter-gatherers work something like two hours a day in order to satisfy their basic needs. But it would be wrong to suppose that National-Anarchism is deliberately advocating a more primitivist lifestyle, on the contrary, we merely predict that it is inevitable and that people must face up to it. It remains to be seen just how far this process will go.
Q. What is the way forward for National-Anarchists?
A. We will continue to forge links with other opponents of globalisation in the hope that, eventually, we will become one of the makers and shapers of the developing anti-Capitalist movement. So in this regard we extend the hand of friendship and co-operation to all like-minded peoples both in Europe and around the world.
BM Box LCRN, London WC1N 3XX, England.
(Reprinted from http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/na_future.php)
WHAT led me to write this short essay – through which I will try to explain how National-Anarchism first arose and what it stands for and why – was the fact that whilst involved in a discussion regarding the Unabomber with other comrades I came to realize that in Portugal, and in Portugal alone, there is a huge lack of knowledge regarding this vanguard’s ideological current, a current that at least from the perspective of those who run Wikipedia, although very reluctantly, has finally been included as a valid current of Anarchism.
It’s common for National-Anarchists (N-A) to be frowned upon with distrust by the whole political spectrum – both from the right-wing and the left-wing – and even fought back by both mainstream Nationalists (pro-State, supremacist and racist) and mainstream Anarchists (anti-State, egalitarian and anti-racist). Why? Because N-A, even though they agree partially with a few common goals, repudiates the majority of the dogma upheld by both movements. N-A stands out as a revolutionary third way.
The repudiated dogmas
State – N-A, like any other Anarchist current, does not uphold the existence of a ruling state; all decisions must be taken by the local communities, not by a central government and politicians that are not aware of the realities of the people. N-A is also anti-totalitarian, by extension that means it is anti-fascist and anti-communist.
Racial supremacy – N-A does not recognize the superiority of any race, whatever it may be, by doing so it does not uphold that Nationalist dogma. Races are different and cannot be compared nor labeled. What is good for one race does not necessarily mean that it is good for another race. What some consider as evolution and civilisation, others find to be abomination and barbarism.
Racism – N-A is not racist, it does not discriminate against anyone because of their race, creed or culture. N-A works with revolutionaries from all races, ethnic backgrounds and creeds.
Equalitarian – N-A is not egalitarian, it defends the fact that every person is different unto himself, meaning that if I am different from my own brother or my own family it’s only due to an act of imbecility that I would not consider myself to be different from members of other sexual, racial and cultural groups. Each person is an individual, with different capacities; equality does not exist in the real world. Nonetheless, N-A stands for the equality of opportunity.
Anti-racism – N-A, even though not being racist, does not uphold the anti-racist dogma that discriminates “positively”. N-A recognises that races exist and that their differences can and should not be fanatically eliminated, as most of the anti-racists believe.
Left/Right – N-A has attracted since it’s conception both former leftists and rightists, it is a third way ideology and as such it is beyond left and right, considering both concepts to be surpassed realities. Some of the N-A propaganda upholds that today it’s not an issue of Left versus Right but of the State versus the citizen, of people that support the System and people that fight the System.
What it stands for
N-A stands for something that many believe to be pessimistic and/or defeatist, and considering the degree of social degradation that is so deep and rooted we see no way of turning this boat around, if you will allow me to use an analogy from “Ship of Fools”. Drugs, alcohol, MTV and sexual degradation have affected our society in such a way that it is impossible to return to the old days, some even consider those things as a fundamental part of our society.
N-A stands for the termination of nation-states, has a necessity for survival and upholds the need of a rebirth of our tribal spirit. All national territories should be regionalised, fragmented, reduced to small territories and within those territories people with common ethnic or cultural affinities will gather together. Our notion of Nationalism is very strict: it covers solely the racial group closer to us (Azoreans, Galicians, Flemish, for example) and also covers the cultural aspects of that group (we also uphold autonomous communities for homosexuals, hippies, vegetarians, Muslims, pagans, etc.) or even the political aspects (autonomous communities for Anarchists, Ecologists, Social Democrats, etc.). N-A above all stands for the right of any individual to live among those whom he feels more comfortable with ideologically, racially and culturally, or by any other identitarian concept that may define him and his people as a group.
We should have autonomous and independent communities for each ethnic and cultural group. N-A believes that the racist formula upheld by most Nationalist parties, proposing the expulsion of all ethnic and cultural minorities from our territories is completely unrealistic and surpassed by the real world: there are millions of citizens from other races and cultures living in Europe and, believe us, they are here to stay!
So being, the regions where a large concentration of different populations live will have to right to create their own communities and that is nothing new, even the Greeks in old Hellas lived in this way, in autonomous city-states that had different cultures (let us compare Sparta to Athens, just to exemplify this example).
This N-A stance angers particularly the mainstream Nationalists, but we hope that they might gift us with any other more realistic solution, or would they prefer a total civil war or maybe even a policy of genocide?
This being said, you are free to consider National-Anarchism as an Utopian ideology. N-A is not an ideology for the present time, it is something that has been created to prepare the ground for tomorrow, when today’s System disintegrate amid all the wars and natural disasters that have started in the last few years. It’s not with joy that we behold today’s world, N-A may very well be the only valid future for the time when it all gets even worse and, believe us, it will get much worse. National-Anarchism, at least, tries to be a more realistic option.
This is the first blog post from NTNA; we will be updating this blog on a regular basis.
Be sure to check out our facebook group for more updates!