National-Anarchism and Classical American Ideals: Is A Reconciliation Possible?

This essay is included in the recently re-released NATIONAL-ANARCHISM:A READER edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.

By Keith Preston  
Attack the System


“Establishing a new world order of supranational government is Hitlerian in concept and will need to be Stalinist in execution.” (1)

 -Taki Theodoracopulos

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”(2)

 -George Washington

“That government is best which governs least.”(3)

  -Thomas Jefferson

“anarchism (‘an-ar-kiz-im) n (1642): a political theory holding all forms of government to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups”(4)

  -Webster’s Dictionary

As long as there has been power and authority, there has been rebellion. From the insurrectionary efforts of Spartacus in ancient times to the noble resistance of the people of Occupied Palestine in our own era, the enslaved and oppressed have sought to throw off the chains by which their masters keep them bound. The great libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard argued that the history of human civilizations is largely a struggle of liberty against power with the latter gaining the upper hand with much greater frequency than the former. The great nineteenth century historian Lord John Acton insisted that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. At no point has the truth of Acton’s famous adage been demonstrated more strongly than in the last century. R. J. Rummell’s monumental studies in a unique field that he chooses to label “democide”, a term coined to describe the systematic slaughter of subjects by the states which rule over them, show that nearly one hundred seventy million persons were annihlated by “their” governments during the twentieth century alone. These figures exclude those killed in intra-state warfare. Reviewing the sorry record of the treatment of subjects by states, Rummell paraphrases Acton and concludes that “power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely”. (5) In a similar vein, the Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich August von Hayek recognized that power comes most easily to the ruthless, treacherous, cunning and amoral. Those who achieve power are faced with constant challenges to their position of supremacy and are therefore driven to eliminate all those who can challenge their rule. The more concentrated power becomes, the more ruthless and deadly those who hold it will be. Hence, those who have held the greatest amount of power throughout history have also been history’s massest of mass murderers-Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others of their ilk.
The greatest crimes are those committed by large disciplined organizations rather than solitary individuals. Arthur Koestler noted:

“…a series of fundamental misconceptions…which prevented (man) from learning the lessons of the past, and…now put his survival in question. The first of these..is putting the blame for man’s predicament on his selfishness, greed, etc.; in a word, on the aggressive, self-assertive tendencies of the individual…I would like to suggest that the integrative tendencies of the individual are incomparably more dangerous than his self-assertive tendencies.” (6)

One need not reject the claims of a Hobbes or a Burke that humans are creatures of passion rather than reason to recognize that the most severe crimes perpetrated by individuals pale in comparison to those committed by organizations led by some sort of institutionalized authority. The modern serial killer is insignificant when contrasted with the death squad member or secret policeman. The greatest crimes of all are, of course, committed by the institution of the state, what Nietzsche characterized as a “cold monster”. It is of the utmost importance to recognize that even persons of “normal” psychological make-up or moral temperament can be driven to act in the most atrocious ways when prodded by group norms or the direction of malignant leaders. This is borne out by the relevant studies in social psychology, particularly those of Stanley Milgram.(7) Hannah Arendt described this phenomena as “the banality of evil”, a process whereby the most senseless and irrational forms of inhumanity acquire an aura of normalcy and take place within an atmosphere of dull mechanization. (8)
Various critiques of power, authority and the state have arisen thoughout history. The European Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries gave birth to the ideology of classical liberalism, which sought to limit the rule of power through various institutionalized mechanisms and processes. Classical anarchism arose as an ideology that explicitly rejected the authority of the state in toto, rather than seeking to simply curb its worse abuses. In his study on the origins of the state, Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that states have their roots in the invasion, conquest and plundering of some groups by others. (9) This observation strips the state of any veneer of legitimacy it may try to shroud itself with. Modern theorists of “democratic” or “constitutionalist” expressions of the state will typically argue that “modern” states are somehow to be differentiated from those of the Old Order, who claimed authority on the basis of divine right or superior might rather than “popular sovereignty”, “the general will” or other such platitudes. Yet claims of this type have been effectively exposed and discredited by Lysander Spooner, Hans Hermann Hoppe and other notable anti-state thinkers. (10)
If the primary danger to human life and liberty is the excessive concentration of power, then humanity has never faced a greater threat than it does today as the universal dictatorship of the New World Order under the boot of American imperialism continues to be consolidated. At present, the American imperial regime demands the exclusive “right” of the first-use of military force, including nuclear weaponry, as part of its own “defensive” perogative, yet curiously seeks to deny this right to others. In a manner rivaling the greatest tyrants in history, the US regime has systematically fabricated all sorts of extravagant falsehoods to justify its imperial ambitions regarding the Islamic nations. The American regime has established a Faustian bargain with the degenerate ideology of Zionism for the purpose of further consolidation of its own power, both internationally and within the American nation itself. The emerging world order is one of unilateral and utterly arbitrary rule by a regime that demands absolute obedience, economic domination by a handful of transnational corporations of the First World by means of mercantilist arrangements managed by byzantine bureaucracies, and cultural dominance by the combined values of liberal commercialism-consumerism and authoritarian leftist-egalitarianism and “multiculturalism” under the ideology of “political correctness”. David Michael describes the dangers, both bellowing and subtle, posed by such a global order:

“Even without the danger of the machinery of world government falling into the hands of a Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, and without the danger of large supranational institutions or nations being manipulated or exploited to serve certain groups or individuals at the expense of other groups or individuals, the sheer remoteness of supranational institutions from the ordinary people can have undesirable effects. The remoteness of decision making can lead to inappropriate decisions, as might occur where the quality of the food we eat is determined by supranational institutions rather than local farmers. The remoteness of the dominant culture can engender psychological and sociological problems-violence, alienation, crime and youth problems have been attributed, inter alia, to globalization and the breakdown of communities that it has engendered.” (11)

As power has never been quite so centralized as it is at present, the anarchist critique is now more relevant than ever. The essence of the traditional anarchist position is that the state is no more than a criminal gang writ large. The state exists to control territory, protect an artificially privileged ruling class, exploit its subjects or expand its power. Any other claims by or on behalf of the state are simply a matter of evasion, obfuscation, or perhaps mere naivete. Although the philosophical anarchist critique of the state originating from the ideas of William Godwin or Pierre Joseph Proudhon is the most radical and comprehensive, this critique follows in the footsteps of many strands of traditional ethical, religious and philosophical systems going back to very ancient times. These include the criticisms of power offered by the early Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu, the Stoic and Cynic branches of classical Greek philosophy, the very ancient Hebrew scriptures, and the teachings of early Church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo as well as tendencies within the Radical Reformation, such as the Anabaptists. (12)
Having emerged only a couple of centuries ago and having never been dominant in any particular nation or culture, philosophical anarchism is still a rather new and underdeveloped political outlook. “Classical” anarchism of the nineteenth and early twentieth century variety, represented by Bakunin, Kropotkin and the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists, positioned itself as the most radical wing of the international socialist labor movement, as the so-called “labor question” was the dominant social struggle of the day. The political programs of the classical anarchists, as well as their contemporary “neo-anarchist” descendants, typically call for some sort of decentralized socialism, although neo-anarchism often focuses more on the advancement of left-wing cultural values such as feminism, “anti-racism” and “gay liberation” than on politico-economic matters. Another branch of modern anarchist thought, the “libertarian” anarchism of Murray Rothbard, is more rooted in classical liberalism than classical socialism, and traces its ancestry to the uniquely American branch of classical anarchism that emerged in the nineteenth century, the so-called “individualist” anarchism of Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker. Although these variations of anarchist thought provide a rich intellectual heritage that can be drawn upon, they are clearly inadequate in a number of important ways. The principle error in the branches of anarchism thus far established is that of universalism. It is particulary important that this error be confronted if anarchism is to offer a viable alternative to the universalist ideology that provides the intellectual foundations of the New World Order.
Reading through the incessant manifestos and political statements issued by anarchist factions, one notices a number of dominant themes. Foremost among these is a type of Rousseauan utopianism that postulates the innate benevolence of human nature, a benevolence that would realize its potential if only the oppressive chains of established institutions were removed and the true essence of humanity allowed to flourish. As the nineteenth century was a time of enormous human advancement, classical anarchists like Proudhon or Bakunin can be forgiven for adopting such a childishly naive outlook. However, with the experience of the twentieth century now behind us, such a perspective becomes laughable with the advantage of hindsight. Another common theme in conventional anarchist thought is an implicit reliance on archaic Marxist and Fabian social democratic economic theory, a set of ideas that have been disasterous in every nation where they have been put into practice. Marxism is a dead faith, except among Western radicals, and the elitist social democratic views advanced by the Fabians have served to create a permanently entrenched “new class” of bureaucratic parasites that are slowly but surely driving the First World nations towards stagnation, deterioration and eventual collapse. (13) Anarchists are typically the most zealous champions of the cultural ideals of the modern Left-feminism, environmentalism, homosexualism, anti-racism. Yet these ideas are hardly radical in the modern welfare states of the West. Traditional forms of oppression such as bestial violence towards ethnic out-groups, the traditional religious subordination of women, and the organized state persecution of homosexuals have become socially unacceptable in modern societies to such a degree that Scotland Yard now maintains a “Diversity Directorate” to police attitudes not sanctioned by the high priests of “political correctness”. Left-wing anarchists have, on such matters, become a type of self-parody that robotically parrots the rhetoric of the left-wing of the ruling class.
The professed aims of anarchists of the Left also conflict with one another. The ideal political order postulated by left-anarchists is typically something that resembles a traditional New England town meeting or the participatory democracy of ancient Athens. While this model is no doubt as legitimate as any other, it is hardly any sort of panacea. After all, it was the democracy of Athens that put Socrates to death, thereby souring his successors Plato and Aristotle on democracy, and it was the town meeting governments of Puritan New England that instigated the witch trials of Salem. Yet, left-anarchists somehow assume that all of their idealized directly democratic, consensus-based, decentralized communities are somehow going to embrace the egalitarian-multicultural perspective of the Left. If such a system were put into place in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, the first vote taken would be to appoint Osama bin Laden to the position of President for Life. Libertarian anarchists make a similar mistake in their efforts to universalize a commercialist culture bound together by no common threads other than the actions of consumers in the marketplace and the standard common law rules concerning crimes, torts and contracts.
To understand what is wrong with these schools of anarchism, it may be useful to draw upon the work of Hayek. Loosely and awkwardly, we might characterize a Hayekian approach to social theory as one that draws a sharp distinction between “constructivist” and “organicist” understandings of social evolution and the origins of human institutions. Both leftist and libertarian variations of anarchist theory are implicitly rooted in Enlightenment rationalism, which tended to glorify and overstate the capacities of human reason and the ability of human beings to achieve a certain state of existence through the application of critical intelligence for the purpose of reconstructing the external world. While the excesses of the Enlightenment in this realm may have been an understandable backlash against the superstition and irrationalism that often dominated previous eras, the enduring legacy of all this has been a prevailing tendency towards fantastic utopianisms on the part of modern intellectuals, whether they be of the left-anarchist, left-liberal, libertarian, Marxist or neoconservative varieties. As an antidote, Hayek emphasized the inherent limitations of human knowledge and human reason as a means of “constructing” elaborate plans for the reorganization of society that are ultimately doomed to failure and the intellectual conceit reflected by such efforts.
One of the most distinguishing characteristics of anarchists is the smallness of their ranks. This is likely rooted in the tendency of most anarchists, of whatever school, to focus on ideological abstractions and a type of intellectual elitism that disregards the sentiments and sensibilities of ordinary people. Most people are not intellectuals. Most people are not interested in ideology. Most people are not the rugged self-reliant individualists idealized by libertarians or the faithful crusaders for social justice that serve as left-wing archetypes. Instead, the nature of most people is to focus on their immediate day-to-day business. Most people seek security, identity and self-actualization in groups and get their ideas about what constitutes “right and wrong” from cues taken from peers, members of their own in-groups and perceived leaders and authority figures. The strongest attachments of this type seem to be family, ethnicity, religion, culture, language, geography and, to some degree, economic function and social class. Particularistic attachments of these types are commonly disregarded by leftist and libertarian intellectuals (and by establishment liberals and neoconservatives!) as reactionary, backward, overly parochial or provincial, ignorant and superstitious and even bigoted and hateful. Yet it is precisely these types of particularism that provide the social glue that holds organic and authentic human societies and cultures together. It is these types of particularism that the ruling class of the New World Order wishes to eliminate in order to reduce every individual to the level of identity-less worker-consumer drone faithfully practicing the religion of the credit card and reciting the catechism of political correctness. Consequently, it is these particularisms and the attachments that ordinary people have to them that serve as humanity’s best hope for fostering resistance to the universal slavery the oligarchs of the New World Order wish to bring about.
There remains the question as to how the anarchist critique is to be practically applied and what sort of institutions an anarchism-influenced civilization would likely produce. Unlike some of his successors, the godfather of classical anarchism Pierre Joseph Proudhon recognized that “anarchy” was an ideal, like “peace” or “justice”, towards which humanity could only strive. Said Proudhon:

“…It is scarcely likely, however far the human race may progress in civilization, morality and wisdom, that all traces of government and authority will vanish.” (14)

Likewise, the eminent philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell characterized anarchism as “the ultimate ideal to which society should approximate”. (15) Instead of pursuing utopian fantasies, anarchists should focus on identifying and breaking up concentrations of power wherever they may be located. The best bet for achieving this aim would likely be the development of strong regionalist and localist movements, both inside and outside of the territorial boundaries of the United States, with each of these reflecting the unique cultural or ideological orientations of their own organic or intentional communities, and organized in ways whereby different regions and communities are independent but mutually supportive of one another in the face of imperial power, regardless of their particular sectarian differences. The perspective of Troy Southgate offers a clue as to how to proceed:

“We firmly believe in political, social and economic decentralization. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU and the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village communities.” (16)

Such a vision is entirely compatible with the original anarchist vision of Proudhon who offered decentralized confederations of communities, municipalities and distinctive regions, each containing their own cultural identity, combined with an economy ordered on the basis of small property holders and dispersed control over resources, cooperatives and worker organizations. Such a vision affords most of humanity the opportunity to obtain sovereignty within the context of the social groups most strongly identified with. Such a vision offers a means of reconciling the numerous social conflicts fostered by the modern state resulting in an increase in social harmony, liberty, prosperity and peace. Those with conflicting values should simply separate from one another in favor of mutual self-segregation. Such is the way to authentic cultural diversity as opposed to the vision of those for whom “diversity” is simply a collection of exotic foods, museum displays and state-mandated social engineering.
As noted, anarchism as a political philosophy is still very much in the elementary stage of its development as an intellectual system. Fortunately, certain strands of anarchistic thought have emerged in recent years that may eventually prove to be a corrective for some of the extravagance and frivolity found in the established branches of anarchism. One of these is a tendency emerging from the British Far Right known as “National-Anarchism”. This particular variation of anarchist theory lacks the irrational utopianism found in most other schools of anarchism. It might be said that national-anarchism is anarchy without pretensions. The core tenet of national-anarchist ideology is a fervent opposition to the emerging global system of the “New World Order” under the rule of American imperialism. More than any other political tendency, anarchist or otherwise, national-anarchism recognizes that there is really only one system of government in the contemporary world and that is the American empire. As a national-anarchist publication, “Voice of the Resistance”, puts it:

“Nations, at least as you knew and loved them, are dead. We live today in a post-nationalist, globalized world. What you call your nation is now a mere administrative district of the New World Order. Never mind its ‘proud and ancient history’! Never mind its ‘wonderful accomplishments’! Never mind how many of your ancestors fought and died for it! Those things were in the past.” (17)

Incidentally, this apt description of the nature of the New World Order applies to the American nation as well, despite the American origins of the global system. The conservative Catholic commentator Joseph Sobran observes:

“Only a few Americans have clearly understood that contrary to our sentimental illusions, the old federated constitutional republic has become not only a single consolidated state, but an empire as well. Today the president has ceased to be a mere executive, subordinate to the legistlative branch, and has become an elective emperor, a temporary Caesar. This is hard for Americans to see, because it goes against our cherished national myths and has no close historical precedent. But foreigners may see it more clearly than we do. To American ears, the phrase “American imperialism” still sounds like leftist jargon. But it is more accurate than our slogans of democracy.”(18)

American conservatives, libertarians and other anti-statists and anti-globalists now find themselves in an interesting ideological predicament. To consistently oppose “Big Government”, one must first and foremost oppose centralized government, imperial government and global government. The foremost proponent of centralism, imperialism and globalism in today’s world is the US regime. This necessitates that authentic anti-statists adopt an attitude that the jingoist wing of US politics would characterize as “anti-Americanism”. As a look at the leading “paleoconservative” publications will show, this is a position that traditionalist conservatives are loathe to adopt. Their deathly fear of being labeled “anti-American” and lumped together with the riff raff of the reactionary left prevents them from developing as comprehensive a critique of the global imperial order as they otherwise might (just as their deathly fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic” prevents them from developing a similar critique of the role of Zionist ideology in the formulation of American imperial ambitions).(19) Yet these phobias are unfounded. If the historic America that traditionalist conservatives cling to is just another nation that has died at the hands of the empire, then the current US regime is not an expression of America but a hostile, enemy, occupational regime. Joseph Sobran notes:

“At any rate, the old America-the America of hard work and sound money, of thrift and piety, of small property and free markets, of individual freedom and responsibility, of limited government and dispersed power-is gone. The kind of people who made the old America hardly exist anymore. Their descendants might as well belong to another species; anyway, they will soon be outnumbered by aliens and “minorities”… Americans neither remember the old America nor comprehend the new one, which defies comprehension. What is an “American” these days? Someone who has filled out the proper forms? One out of hundreds of millions of disinherited people, who have nothing in common but a government that supplies them with depreciating paper currency? A mere digit of the empire, I suppose.” (20)

Serious opponents of global empire are not conservatives but radicals and revolutionaries of the first order. More than any other ideological tendency, national-anarchism recognizes that traditional ideological, cultural and even national boundaries are irrelevant in the current world order. As David Michael, a leading theoretician of national-anarchism, explains:

“The ‘left/right’ political distinction is a cynical ploy to divide the people and set them against each other so that they do not unite against the single main enemy of us all: the Establishment. As Eduard Limonov remarked: ‘There’s no longer any left or right. There’s the system and the enemies of the system.” (21)

If traditional nations have been absorbed by the empire, and if the traditional left/right political spectrum has been dissolved by the universalization of the values of American imperialism and global capital, then the traditionalist elements of the right are the natural allies of the anti-corporate left. The primary divisions among these scattered forces are cultural in origin. The traditional right places its emphasis on established institutions and values such as family, religion, ethnicity, nationality, traditional culture and organic communities. The left focuses first and foremost on those social groups believed to have been previously dispossessed or “excluded” in some way. These include workers and the poor, racial minorities, women, homosexuals and others. This type of progressivism has become institutionalized and rigidified in its own right as the existence of Scotland Yard’s Diversity Directorate and the “speech codes” found on the campusues of American universities demonstrate. Both sides on these matters regard their opponents as tyrants and reactionaries. If effective opposition to the New World Order necessarily involves the creation of an anti-Establishment alliance that transcends conventional ideological, cultural and national boundaries, then obviously some means of accommodating such a diverse array of perspectives is sorely needed. National-anarchism invokes the ideal of radical decentralization as a means to this end. Read entire article

Gustav Landauer's Folkanarchism

 From VolkanarchistischKollektief

Gustav Landauer (1870-1919) was a German anarchist during the German November revolution. On the 2nd of May 1919 he died a martyrs death, during the fall of the Soviet republic. His anarcho-socialist ideas can definitely be seen as a solid basis for what we today describe as “folkanarchism”. Landauer is best described as a critical and realistic idealist. He was not deceived by idealist mirages, nor by materialist fallacies.



Folk and Culture
In contradiction to most socialists from his time, Landauer never believed that humanity would reach a higher phase of life by the development of technology and science. He didn't count on the idea that “progress” would be mechanically achieved, but by an eternal rejuvenation and renewal. The peoples never aged, only their cultures did. At a certain time each culture irrevocably lost its life force, through which it froze and fell. Because of this the peoples who were once its bearers fell into a state of “serenity” and forgot that what they had wanted, known and done, until finally the day came that they were regenerated by a new idea.

When this new idea appeared between them as a real unchanging truth, then the individuals were bound again through worship and love. Through this, human life became lifted to higher forms of organisation and a new culture flourished. In these times the urge to connect with the people got the upper hand and the power over the individual. With this a form of social life came to being that was described by Landauer as “the community of communities”; the organic connection of little, self-governing and, on their own strength acting units, that in turn connected themselves with larger units. This age of great culture was marked by the new idea feeding the “stream of life”, only then the relationships were healthy and life had dignity.

This era was always preceded by a stage in which the spirit of the community dominates. In this stage no brilliant personalities rise above the masses, because the essence of life is uniform. Brilliant personalities come forth from the bosom of the community and the general spirit of the people themselves, therefore the people does not gawk at them as “wondrous animals”, but recognize them as natural fruits from the tree of society. These highlights are rarely reached in humanity its rich and infinitely long history. During these highlights there is no need for an ideal, no craving for the new, because the spirit that gives meaning to life, is present in all its manifestations.

After these era’s of balance, inexorably follows times of demise. The negative forces that are present within each culture, are rigid dogmas, which prevail over the living spirit. The living spirit is killed by them, because people are clinging to one and the same dogmatic form. Organisations, like the State, have contained since their existence the seeds of domination and mechanically rigid centralism. Through the advance of the general decay their bad sides have gotten worse, while they grow in strength. In the masses, the spirit that binds all individuals into a true community, disappears. When the life of the community no longer feeds the individual, the individual gets alienated and lonely. This process of sophisticated individualization on the one hand, and atomization on the other, leads towards a mindlessness of the masses. They can only become a people again, when a new culture flourishes.

Progress and Revolution
In contradiction to most revolutionary Marxists, Landauer unconditionally rejected the “Zeitgeist”. Fierce anti-capitalists like Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht accepted the growth of the big-industrial organisation and saw the associated mechanization as “progress” in the spirit of Marx. Their “progress” was nothing more than the “progress” of the bourgeoisie. Landauer´s thought was not based on the historical materialism, which makes the development of technology as the criterion of progress. He didn´t see the development of Western humanity since the Renaissance as an unparalleled triumph. Landauer had his own criteria for progress. He didn´t see progress in materialist terms, but measured life by the content in which people became aware of their connectedness. The modern Zeitgeist he acknowledged as an era of cultural descent, of increasing alienation and upheaval.
However Landauer didn’t believe in the “eternal damnation” of a people. He saw change through renewal as a law of life. Through demise, growth could be born and from despair new strength could derive. There was only one spirit that could rise the people again: the spirit of justice in community life. Landauer didn’t only see his socialism as the only opportunity to escape the need and social misery of the proletariat, but also as the only opportunity for the renewal of the entire humanity. Only this could stop its demise and alienation.

Landauer considered the revolution as a constantly recurring phenomenon, through which society could escape from the danger of cultural rigidity. Since the Western culture perished, the West mostly survived through violence and centralized State power. During this period the Western humanity also strived for freedom, which was strongly expressed during the revolution. Therefore Landauer considered the revolution as the run-up towards spiritual rebirth. The urge to live, which was suffocated during normal times, was released during revolutionary days.

Although Landauer was convinced of the regenerative function of the revolution, he didn’t see it as the way towards socialism. According to him the great force of socialism was construction: the peaceful reconstruction. When the revolution had destroyed the old strongholds and obsolete forms of life, then her positive forces were enough to ensure the existence and further development of the community.
Landauer’s views on socialism were realistic-idealistic. Realistic was his view that the urge for socialism arose from social relations and the impossibility to which capitalism led us. His view was idealistic because he was convinced that next to these social conditions, another force of a completely different order was needed before socialism could be born: the creative spirit which could produce new relationships between mankind. For Landauer socialism was not absolute. The natural feeling of fraternity between fellow countrymen and fellow human beings he acknowledged, as the active force that gave meaning to life and to the world. Socialism was not build on a certain modes of production or a certain technology, but on a deep and noble urge within human nature: social instincts and social feelings.

This is the socialism Landauer fought for many years of his life and for which he eventually died a martyrs death.

Beyond Nationalism, But Not Without It

BY Ashanti Alston
from Anarchist Panther zine #1

 What motivates me more than anything else about anarchism and its relevance to Black revolution is that it has offered me some powerful insights into why we have not been able to recover from our defeat (the 60’s revolution) and advance forward to the kinds of untities, organizations and activities that make for invincible revolutionary movements.

There are all kinds of Nationalisms and there are all kinds of reactions to nationalism. I would like to address this issue from the perspective of someone who has moved through and grown within some of the Black Nationalisms specific to the Black Community. I would like to share what that means to me as it pertains to the questions you raised for this ONWARD theme of Anarchism and Nationalism.

"…we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist. – Audre Lorde

Great quote. I’ve taken it from the latest issue of Arsenal #4 (page 4) as it introduces its own discussion into the very same theme. As a Black anarchist TIRED of primarily white anarchists just totally dismissing nationalism, I truly appreciate Arsenal & Onward taking this on as two of the newest newspaper/mags on the scene.


Black nationalism saved my life, in a sense, as a teenager in the 1960’s. It "jarred" my unconscious acceptance of amerikkanism dogging my peoples and helped me to see the larger picture. I am a 60’s child. There was Malcolm, there was H. Rap Brown and Stokeley Carmichael of the Black Power movement, and then there was the Black Panther Party. All were nationalists, all represent, also, an evolution of nationalism within the black community. But because of the totally racist, genocidal dynamic within this Babylonian Empire, the black nationalist understood that we must…we must…we must primarily look to ourselves to free ourselves. Point blank. And none of these thinker felt it was necessary to ‘check in’ with The White Man (from the ruler to the revolutionary) to see if it was okay. Ha! Picture that. It was about our survival as a people, not as that mythical "working class" or that equally mythical "citizen." SO, for me, as this teenager who had just witnessed the 60’s Rebellions in my own hometown, my own thoroughly racist hometown, nationalism was a lifesaver. WE MUST LOVE EACH OTHER. BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL. WE MUST CONTROL OUR OWN COMMUNITIES. Etcetera, etcetera.


Its funny cause as an anarchist searching for some good anarchist shit from the 60’s to be able to hold up and show "proof" that the anarchist were better on the position of Nationalism than the Marxists and Leninists, I found hardly anything! I found some positive stuff from a "libertarian" publication but to my surprise they represented the "anarcho-CAPITIALIST tendency! Yet, I found them to be on point and consistent on RESPECTING nationalism and national liberation. ("The Libertarian Forum" of the late 60’s and early 70’s. Karl Hess, Joseph Peden, and Murray N. Rothbard). They, at least, understood that black people’s nationalist struggle was a struggle against the State, the Babylonian state. They, also, looked at what the nationalist groups were doing in their actual grassroots practice, like creating concrete defenses against repression and alternatives in survival institutions. Thus, they liked what the Panthers were doing on the ground through their programs and supported that kind of nationalism as being compatible with "anarchism on the ground." Paul Goodman made similar observations of the early civil rights movement groups. But it was understood that these groups were dealing with issues of survival against genocide, and that these groups were developing their own analyses and programs to rally their communities. One last thing about the libertarians of LF, they interestingly enough were critical of the Panthers when the Party turned towards Marxism and other authoritarian ideologies because in their "on the ground" practice the survival programs were no longer spontaneous responses to specific oppressions but increasingly had to be kept under the tight control of the Party.


Nationalism and statism are different in that nationalism can be anti-state. But they can have commonalities in that nationalism may only be against a particular kind of state, such as a Racist State, or a Fascist State. Anarchism and nationalism are similar in that they are both anti-statist, but what does it mean when the specific anarchist movements within a specific country are racist and dismissive of any and all nationalism, be it reactionary or revolutionary???? For me, even the nationalism of a Louis Farrakhan is about saving my people, though it is also thoroughly sexist, capitalist, homophobic and potentially fascist. Yet, it has played an important part in keeping a certain black pride and resistance going. Their "on the ground" work is very important in keeping an anti-racist mentality going. As a black anarchist, that’s MY issue to deal with cuz they’se MY FOLKS. But it points to where anarchism and nationalism have differences, and that is in anarchists having NO understanding of what it means to be BLACK in this fucked up society. We do not have the luxury of being so intellectual about this excruciating boot on our collective neck, this modern-day middle-passage into the Prison Industrial Complex, this…that…this…that.

As a postmodernist anarchist, identity politics is important to me. Go back to Audre Lorde’s quote. Every time I hear someone talk about my people as if we are just some "working class" or "proletariat" I wanna get as far away from that person or group as possible, anarchist, Marxist, whatever. As a postmodernist anarchist I also find my people’s experience the font from which we will find our way to liberation and power. That’s what I get from being the "insurrection of subjugated knowledges. My nationalism gave me that kind of pride because it was such a rejection of White thinking or at least a decentering of the primacy of white thought, capitalist, socialist, whatever. I say this to say that folks outside of our experience need to respect that they aint got no monopoly on revolutionary thinking and dam sure aint got none on revolutionary practice. It is easy to sit back and intellectualize about our nationalism from the modernist, eurocentric framework of rational, scientific, materialist models. While one does that, it is our nationalism which constantly rally our people come together, remember our history, love ourselves, dream on and fight back. Black anarchists and anti-authoritarian revolutionaries understand the limitations of nationalism in terms of its historical sexism, hierarchy, or its modernist trappings in general. But we also recognize anarchism modernist trappings in the form of American racist privilege when it comes to people of color.


The efforts of Lorenzo Kom’boa Erving, Greg Jackson and others to build an organization/federation of black community partisans/organizers is an example of uniting black revolutionary nationalism and anarchism. I believe that Black Fist, even if called generally a people of color or third world anti-authoritarian organization, understood the necessity to be grounded in the experiences of black and brown communities. Thus, the experiences of the Panthers and the Brown Berets and other like groups were essential. The question seems to be whether white anarchists and anti-authoritarians can work with such groups. Even if those two groups no longer exists, their experiences are important.


White folks need to deal with being ANTI-RACIST ALLIES to folks of color communities and activists. Activists in particular because we are usually whites’ entry point into any possible relationship with our communities.. Anarchist theory and practice cannot take the form of a mere adherence to the founding fathers and canonal practices, such as Kropotkin, Bakunin, and the Spanish Civil War. Tired of hearing it! Anarchism HERE in Babylon must reflect our unique problems and possibilities for struggle. Our struggles are not just against capitalism. Too simple. Our struggles are not just against racism. That’s, also, too simple. There’s all kinds of negative isms we are fighting against and just as importantly, all kinds of worlds we are fighting for. That’s why I feel that the whole idea and practice of "convergences" and "spokescouncils" are sooooo important to activists in general to learn from and enhance because they are about making space for all "Voices" to be heard and factored into the decision-making so that whatever activities comes forth from it prefigures the kind of new worlds we truly want. This rambles, right? My apologies. I end this by advising: WHITE ANARCHISTS, DEAL WITH BEING THE BEST ANTI-RACIST ALLIES YOU CAN. WE NEED YOU BUT WE WILL DO THIS SHIT WITHOUT YOU.


To my folks of color:

COME ENVISION…envision a world, of worlds within our world where there’s principled co-existence within the wonderful diversity of the Black Community.

Harlems / Spanish harlems / watts / hip-hop communities / villages of the Carolina coast / college communities / gay-lesbian-transgender communities / zulu nation / new afrikan / religious communities that come together mainly on Saturday or Sunday / squatter communities / outlaw communities / kemetic communities / ibo-ghanaian-sierra leonean-ethiopian-rasta neighborhoods / nomadic poet-artist tribes / and then those of us who just be plain ignant and harmless and crazy when we have to be and fun-loving and like to journey through and between communities and sometimes just create new mixed ones…WHAT IF ? …and HOW ?


Ella Baker said we can do it if we can trust ourselves and get away from leadership-led revolution; Kwesi Balagoon said we can do it if we willing to create a chaos that will shut this mutha down; Audre Lorde said we can do it if we LEARN TO LOVE AND RESPECT OUR BEAUTIFUL DIVERSITY and reject the tools of our oppressors; Harriet Tubman daid aint a better way t live THAN AT-WAR FOR A RIGHTEOUS CASUE; and Franz Fanon said if we smack that mutha across the face, drive that pig outta your territory at the point of a gun IS LIBERATING FOR THE SOUL.

WHAT IF ? Envision it…HOW?…


Like Huey Newton’s community of communities, BEYOND NATIONALISM and fully self-determining, embracing our diversity of beliefs, lifestyles and non-exploitative economic arrangements, reuniting Earth-loving peoples with a loving Earth.

Through the Imagination, All is possible.

 

THE ANCIENT FUTURE: ANARCHO-FEUDALISM!

This essay is included and first published in the recently released 2013 publication,  National-Anarchism: Methodology and Application, edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.

By Wayne John Sturgeon

One of the most significant contributions to what could be referred to as a form of anarcho-feudalism is what is sometimes described as ‘Heathian anarchism’. Heathian anarchism is a form of free market libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism. This was originally defined in the social theory of Spencer Heath (1876-1963) who had been deeply influenced by the land reformism of Henry George (1), who advocated the socialisation of rent via a ‘single tax’ on land value made payable to the government. Heath developed this, but rather advocated a voluntary rent made payable to single private corporations who would provide for all public services out of such a revenue. Thus, this single private landlord would own all the land and housing in a single given geographical area, much like a city-state from medieval and Greek times. Spencer Heath defined this vision in his book, Citadel, Market and Altar(1957), where he develops a Trinitarian theme working throughout history, symbolised by the threefold synergy of human biology transferred to the social and economic spheres (2).

As the human being is made up of a skeleton with muscles and tissues (corresponding to the ‘Citadel’) and a nutritional, circulatory and reproductive system (corresponding to the ‘Market’), plus a neural and nervous system based in the mind (corresponding to the ‘Altar’), their successive and ultimate holistic synthesis and integration would bring about the fully realized spiritual human being and society. This would take place in three stages of historical development and social evolution. Firstly, the ‘Citadel’ or government organism would be progressively absorbed and transcended, when distorted by coercion, and transcended by the principle of co-operation via an evolutionary anarcho-capitalism based in a voluntarist free marketism. This spontaneous order or ‘Market’ stage would eventually become economically successionist and anti-statist before achieving a consummation of market forces in the ‘Altar’, a period within the social organism symbolizing the full realization of art, science and religion.

Heath would also echo elements of medieval apocalyptic and mystical millennialism by referring to these periods as the age of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

Heath based most of his views on the ancient Anglo-Saxon model of society that existed in England before the Norman Conquest, where voluntary revenue of rent provided for all public services. Not until after 1066 was any permanent system of centralized taxation put in place. Land ownership thus became a political and coercive institution, laying the foundations for the latter servile feudalism in contrast to the more decentralized voluntary feudalism that had existed before. Where before ‘to own was to owe’ (private property having a social value defined in service to others) and there were mutualist obligations between landlords and freemen on the land, and whereas these relationships had been defined without either the twin evils of serfdom and servitude through forced and conscripted labour.

The ‘Norman yoke’ inaugurated the Romanist conception of feudalism laying the basis for the authoritarian state. The early conception of Anglo-Saxon voluntary feudalism was based in a free market and proprietary contractual association that was completely non-political. This had been evolving out of the earlier tribal blood bond of allegiance to an earthly king via the custom of public moots and witans, etc. Sadly, this had been historically arrested and distorted by the papal inspired invasion of 1066, along with other events.

Heathian anarchism does not differ from most other modernist schools of anarcho-capitalism, in that Spencer’s vision contains no model of competing security agencies in any one geographical area or zone. There is only the one, although this single provider would be subject to the competition of other city-states or free zones. Where Heath saw these emerging communities as being also in competition to central governments etc., they would also be responsible for protecting their tenants from both criminality on the one hand and statist taxation on the other. It is easy to see here how Heath’s vision has provided the template for many different social and economic experiments in anarcho-capitalist enclaves, retreats, intentional communities and so on.

Heath foresaw voluntarist possibilities in the development of multi-tenant properties such as hotels, holiday camps, industrial business parks, apartment buildings and even shopping malls, if these could be made to function as templates for entrepreneurial opportunity, individual autonomy and quality of community life, towards spiritual realization etc.

 Heath’s grandson Spencer Heath MacCallen would further develop these concepts in his booklets, The Art of Community and The Enterprise of Community, Market Competition, Land and Environment (3). Heath would also form a close friendship in his later life with the radical alternative monetary theorist, E.C. Riegel (who was also influenced by Proudhonist mutualism), and inspired the popular LETS system of community non-governmental credit (4).

Maybe it is time to reclaim this tradition of voluntary ‘Anarcho-Feudalism’, both in its agorist sense of being a model for economic successionism, its Trinitarian model of historical and spiritual development, and its inspiration and celebration of the ancient historical regionalist and non-papal pre-reformation Anglo-Saxon confederate England. In this sense, it looks both backwards and forwards at the same time, in anticipation of realizing the ‘Ancient Future’: this ‘ancient future’ being an attempt at a synthesis of religion and social life akin to a radical traditionalist sacred order that allows for dynamic innovation but is essentially timeless and changeless in its stability, unlike the dynamic of modernity that is constantly striving to change humanity and the world but from a materialist viewpoint.

In this respect, another precursor to a vision or inspiration for an anarcho-feudalism can be found in the writings of the much-celebrated J.R.R. Tolkien (5). Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings sought to reclaim a cultural tradition and revive a ‘mythology for England’ based in what Tolkien referred to as ‘the north-west of the old world’, a world where indigenous peoples and cultures live in harmony with nature but without sentimentality strive to survive against the fascist imposition and union of state power, capital and technology as represented in the book by ‘Mordor’ – ‘One ring to rule them all.’ Tolkien noted in 1943 that ‘my political opinions lean more and more to anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) or to ‘unconstitutional monarchy’. I am not a ‘Socialist’ in any sense – being averse to planning (as must be plain) most of all because the planners when they acquire power become so bad.’

Tolkien was a devote Roman-Catholic, and one of the writers of a famous fraternity of Oxford-based scholars dubbed the ‘Inklings’ that comprised the brilliant Christian apologist C.S. Lewis and the Christian esoteric novelist Charles Williams (6).

Tolkien’s description of ‘The Shire’ very much functions similar to a municipal (as opposed to representative government) direct democracy, half republic and half aristocracy, neo-feudal Paternalism. There are three positions of authority in the hobbits’ Shire, two of them hereditary and one elected, but even here the power or rather duties are minimalist. The hobbits appear self-governing, and even at the end of the book, Lord of the Rings, the king merely grants to the Shire the autonomy and independence it already had as a sovereign province. The king merely serves as a ‘symbol of unity’, much as the concept of ‘Romanity’ served the pre-schism church before the advent of papalism as a true template of ‘subsidiarity’: an orthodox imperium of historical regionalism where decisions are taken at the lowest level possible given the ancient church practice of ‘Sobornosti’ and autocephalous administration.

So Tolkien was very much in one sense a ‘revolutionary conservative’ and anti-modernity, particularly in the ecological sense given his profound love for trees – a theme very much evident in Lord of the Rings (7).

It is tragic that many of the themes Tolkien wanted to reclaim and seed back into popular culture against the cult of modernity, with its worship and idolatry of technocratic centralism and despotism, would be betrayed in the hands of fascism. Writing during the Second World War, he commented, ‘I have in the war a burning private grudge against Hitler for ruining, perverting, misapplying and making forever accursed that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe which I have ever loved and tried to present in its true light’. Indeed, when asked by impending German publishers of The Hobbit as to his racial origins, he sarcastically replied, ‘If I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.’

Let us reclaim the northern tradition as a faithful and true guardian over and against those who would like either to hijack it or to destroy it (8).

Notes

1. Other important thinkers and activists in this tradition of Georgist and libertarian/anarchist syntheses being Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, Franz Oppenheimer and Fred E. Foldvary, who has developed a brilliant exposition of natural law or universal ethics from a libertarian standpoint. Please see The Soul of Liberty, The Gutenberg Press, 1980.
2. This concept of tripartite or threefold commonwealth society can also be found in the writings of anthroposophicalism as originated by Rudolf Steiner. Steiner envisaged three separate realms pertaining to ‘equality’ in the political realm, ‘fraternity’ in the economic realm and ‘liberty’ in the cultural realm. The distortion of this being theocracy dominating the political and economic realm, capitalism dominating the political and cultural realm, and communism dominating the cultural and economic realm. Steiner’s conception was that all three realms had to be completely independent and autonomous, but would gradually evolve into what amounts to a form of conciliated Rosicrucian styled corporatism, albeit libertarian rather than essentially fascist. Please refer to The Renewal of the Social Organism, The Anthroposophic Press, 1985, and Tarjei Straume’s website exploring Steinerite anarchism: www.uncletaz.com
3. Also see: The New Approach to Freedom. Escape from Inflation, The Monetary Alternative. A Short Perspective for Land and Social Evolution and Planned Communities without Politics. Finding a Market Solution to the Social and Economic Problems of Common Interest Development. Available on request from sm@look.net
4. Please refer to The Monetary Economics of E.C. Riegel by Jon Matonis at: www.themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com. Also worthy of consideration is Silvio Gesell at: www.complimentarycurrency.org
5. Please refer to the excellent Defending Middle Earth: Tolkien Myth and Modernity by Patrick Curry, Harper Collins, 1998.
6. See The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and their Friends by Humphrey Carpenter, Harper Collins, 1997.
7. Consider the impact Lord of the Rings had on the ‘romantic’ counter-cultural protest movements of the 1960s to the 1990s and beyond, and in particular to the anti road-building protests in England throughout the 1990s and the negative media stereotyping of the activist ‘tree hugger’. As William Blake observed, ‘The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way.’
8. For a brilliant introduction and exposition on anarcho-feudalism, please see also Anarcho-Feudalism as Practical Model for National Anarchism by Craig Fitzgerald and Jamie O’Hara, published in National Anarchism Theory and Practice, edited by Troy Southgate. Blackfront Press, 2012.

Anarchism without Hyphens

NATA defines the term National Anarchism as Pan-anarchism without hypocrisy, but an unfortunate amount of anarchist interaction consists of debate over which hyphenation is best. National Anarchism may seem to participate in and perpetuate such an argument at first glance, but its lack of universalism actually makes it the most inclusive and diverse school of anarchist thought. -CF

By Karl Hess 

 There is only one kind of anarchist. Not two. Just one. An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.

An anarchist is a voluntarist.

Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the billion-faceted varieties of human reference. Some are anarchists who march, voluntarily, to the Cross of Christ. Some are anarchists who flock, voluntarily, to the communities of beloved, inspirational father figures. Some are anarchists who seek to establish the syndics of voluntary industrial production. Some are anarchists who voluntarily seek to establish the rural production of the kibbutzim. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, seek to disestablish everything including their own association with other people, the hermits. Some are anarchists who deal, voluntarily, only in gold, will never co-operate, and swirl their capes. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, worship the sun and its energy, build domes, eat only vegetables, and play the dulcimer. Some are anarchists who worship the power of algorithms, play strange games, and infiltrate strange temples. Some are anarchists who only see the stars. Some are anarchists who only see the mud.

They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas. The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance.
Anarchism, liberty, does not tell you a thing about how free people will behave or what arrangements they will make. It simply says that people have the capacity to make arrangements.

Anarchism is not normative. It does not say how to be free. It says only that freedom, liberty, can exist.
Recently, in a libertarian journal, I read the statement that libertarianism is an ideological movement. It may well be. In a concept of freedom, it, they, you, or we, anyone has the liberty to engage in any ideology, in anything that does not coerce others, denying their liberty. But anarchism is not an ideological movement. It is an ideological statement. It says that all people have the capacity for liberty. It says that all anarchists want liberty. And then it is silent. After the pause of that silence, anarchists then mount the stages of their own communities and history and proclaim their, not anarchism’s ideologies - they say how they, how they as anarchists, will make arrangements, describe events, celebrate life and work.
Anarchism is the hammer-idea, smashing the chains. Liberty is what results and, in liberty, everything else is up to the people and their ideologies. It is not up to THE ideology. Anarchism says, in effect, there is no such upper case, dominating ideology.

It says that people who live in liberty make their own histories and their own deals with and within it.
A person who describes a world in which everyone must or should behave in a single way, marching to a single drummer, is simply not an anarchist. A person who says that they prefer this way, even wishing all would prefer that way, but who then says all must decide, may certainly be an anarchist. Probably is. Liberty is liberty. Anarchism is anarchism. Neither is Swiss cheese or anything else. They are not property. They are not copyrighted. They are old, available ideas, part of human culture. They may be hyphenated but they are not in fact hyphenated. They exist on their own. People add hyphens, and supplemental ideologies.

I am an anarchist. I need to know that, and you should know it. After that, I am a writer and a welder who lives in a certain place, by certain lights, and with certain people. And that you may know also. But there is no hyphen after the anarchist.
Liberty, finally, is not a box into which people are forced. Liberty is a space in which people may live. It does not tell you how they will live. It says, eternally, only that we can.


Karl Hess (1923-1994) was an American writer and libertarian activist. He joined the Libertarian Party and was the editor of its newspaper from 1986 to 1990. This short text first appeared in the magazine “The Dandelion” in 1980. It stresses the position already highlighted by the historian and theoretician of the anarchist movement, Max Nettlau (see: Quelques idées fausses sur l'Anarchisme) that anarchy means freedom and voluntary self-organization and no one in the anarchist movement is interested in prescribing which of the various “isms” (capitalism, communism, mutualism, etc.) any anarchist should follow. This message is very relevant now that the interest for anarchy is growing and that some people, who profess to be anarchists, are battling in order to promote very vigorously (and in some cases trying to impose) their own brand of anarchism, either anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism. To all of them the message from Karl Hess is: neither anarchist-communist nor anarchist-capitalist, because “there is no hyphen after the anarchist”.
For a video concerning this text see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSR3DlzNNUc
 

National-Anarchist Communities: Will I Be Accepted?

 From National Anarchist Movement

This essay is included and first published in the recently released 2013 publication,  National-Anarchism: Methodology and Application, edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.


by Neil G. Hiatt

“In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell, 'Nineteen Eighty Four'

                        This article has stemmed from a question posed by an enquiring mind and the conversation that developed in response on the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) Facebook group [1]. It was a reasonable question, for the only 'stupid' question is the one that is not asked, as long as it is posed in a respectful, civil and constructive manner, and one that arose due to the misunderstanding (either genuine or because of the lies spread by our detractors with an ulterior fascistic motive) of the National-Anarchist 'ideology'. That is, specifically, in regards to National-Anarchist communities and how they would relate to people of 'mixed heritage' and whether or not they would be accepted into an above mentioned community, or for that matter, which community they would be 'placed' into.

However, important as it is, this article will not limit itself to those solely of mixed ethnic background, but all manner of individual characteristics and how they would relate to acceptance within a National-Anarchist community. Some characteristics of the individual, whether relating to cultural, sexual orientation, gender, or by any number of distinctions, may not be mentioned due to the overwhelming number alone, but I trust the gist of what I am saying will be clearly understood nevertheless.

I thought it a question that, as it rears its head every now and again, deserved to be put into article format for the benefit of others that may have similar questions, if only reiterating the points and various views made elsewhere by myself and others – a sort of bringing it all together in one place if you will. Yet, I do not claim this to be the final answer on the topic and welcome others to elaborate upon it if the desire is felt.

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that National-Anarchism is for every race, and not the 'white race' or any one race alone (however you may define race) as is sometimes believed, and more-so that National-Anarchism has supporters of many racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, and from all over the world. Indeed, it must also be pointed out for those that are not familiar with National-Anarchism in general or from a non-hostile perspective, that there is far more to National-Anarchism than mere race! This can be seen by anyone with an open and unbiased mind with the willingness to learn the truth and not have their opinions subject to, and tainted by, smears – often by so called 'Anarchists' that have far more in common with fascists and that act like Nazi-Stormtroopers. This is often the case with dogmatic leftists stuck in their political cages, unable to view anything or anyone from outside of their own narrow minded and ideologically restrictive shackles. And, of course and not forgetting, the first port of call for many in the internet age with the significantly flawed and biased Wikipedia article. But as Voltaire is quoted as stating, “Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road." And, I think, followed up nicely by Henry Louis Mencken when he stated, "Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."

I once read an eloquent comment, so poignant in its avowal narrative contextually and directly, that regrettably it escapes me from whence it came or of its original form, that went something to the effect: There really must be a resilient viral strain, an endemic of psychosis in prodigious scope here in the western world, that makes it decidedly insurmountable for anyone to have such an imagination necessary to evaluate objectively anything at all from another context than their own. After-all, having the eyes to see and ears to hear mean absolutely nothing without a mind to think.

I urge those truly interested in learning the truth to view the numerous articles and radio interviews on the National-Anarchist website, read the manifesto, the various discussions on the National-Anarchist facebook groups, and specifically the books on National-Anarchism put out by National-Anarchists. [2]

As I have stated before, regardless of what you may or may not believe, nor how strong you hold on to whatever convictions you might have, it is an eternal truth that to hold a valid, intelligent, and educated opinion on any subject or matter, and to make any decision based on such, you need to always, and regardless of consequence, look at both sides of the story. Equally important is that you delve into any issue of debate or interest with an open and unbiased mind. This is, I am afraid, the only way to truly hold an informed and edified sentiment in any area, that is reasoned, rational and sophisticated and equally impartial, non partisan and realistically fair. Without such you can never hope to be taken seriously, by others, nor importantly I might add, by yourself. To have any hope of holding an educated opinion you need to listen to both sides of the story and then, and only then, can you truly decide for yourself on your stance in such a way as laid out above. You need to do research and one should always look at all angles from all possible roots in an open-minded manner, regardless of any particular area of study, without bias, prejudice or personal preference. This is the only way to get an unbiased and balanced point of view. That much is fact.

The question of 'race' and the confusion over the term 'National' (and its alleged oxymoronic status when when linked to 'Anarchism') and various lies spread about the National-Anarchist Movement have been the subject of a number of articles and discussions [3], addressed and thoroughly refuted by writers far better than myself, because, as Mark Twain is credited as stating, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." So, that need not be discussed here. However, that being said, the question of communities, race, and acceptance, does.

So, where to start? Well, let us begin here...

If one was Black, Asian, Jewish, White, or mixed, etc, racially speaking, would they be accepted into a National-Anarchist community? The short answer is yes, even if that community has to be started by that person, or persons, themselves. By extension, if one was homosexual, Muslim, Christian, Odinist, environmentalist, vegan, etc, they too would be accepted into a community, even, as I have stated above, that community has to be started by that person, or persons, themselves. Having said that, they may also be accepted into another already existing community, and one that isn't formed on the basis of homogeneity - racially, religiously, or culturally speaking. Like I said, the short answer is yes, but there are also many a letter between the Alpha and Omega, metaphorically speaking. And, to illustrate this, that is ultimately up to the parties involved themselves to decide, freely, and respectfully.

At the end of the day, whatever community accepts you, and you agree to their standard of living and operating, is that which you are a part.

The key to understanding this concept of communities within a National-Anarchist framework, is that of non-coercion, free-association, and mutual respect. But also not forgetting autonomy and decentralisation from the state.

And, it needs to be made perfectly clear that there is no vision or secret plan for an all-powerful oligarchy that will decide and force people into certain groups and areas like pawns on a chessboard. Indeed, that would go against the very concept of Anarchism itself. Anyone thinking that has a fundamental misunderstanding of National-Anarchism in general, and Anarchism overall.

Village-communities will spring up based on whatever criteria those involved agree upon (as I have pointed out is already happening in another article [4]), whether it be any of the above or otherwise. We certainly do not wish to place anyone, individual or group, into any assemblage whatsoever – that would be so far from the truth and reality of National-Anarchism that that opinion would be like a dot to us on the proverbial horizon. It must be made clear, that association is the sole responsibility of each individual to decide for themselves who they wish to affiliate with, and conversely, the decision of the existing group as to who they wish to let into their tribal village-community.

For example, and for arguments sake, I am white, and I come across an already existing National-Anarchist community that is based upon Odinic principles, spiritually speaking. That community may be based on spirituality alone, or also incorporate racial separatism into the mix, or not as the case may be. Now, I am an Odinist anyway and the community accept me, but I may not agree with the fact that they are racially separatist or that they are not vegan like I am. So, what then? Well, it is rather simple when looked at from an Anarchist perspective, based upon 'non-coercion, free-association, and mutual respect', or common sense for that matter. That is a community that developed with a group of individuals with shared opinions, and ideologies, that are not interested in what anyone else is doing as long as it doesn't affect them and they don't force anything upon anyone else. It was created entirely out of mutual understanding and agreement, so I either accept their stance, or move on. Now, I can either find a group of others that share my view of a community or I can form one myself, or work on my own for that matter. But like I say, it is down to, and I stress again, non-coercion, free-association, and mutual respect. It is actually very simple when you look at it.

For me to come into a group, that has come together and mutually agreed upon what they want their community to consist of or ideals based upon, and start saying that they're wrong, or things should be done differently, or that we should exclude homosexuals (if that existing group welcomes them or is a homosexual community to begin with), or we should only consume vegan food, or that my way works best, is rather fascist in and of itself, and unless it was a respectful discussion in which we all came together to discuss freely, and I accepted the outcome, I'd rather be acting, for fear of repeating myself, like a Nazi-Stormtrooper.

Tribes or groups, whichever term you prefer, may have any number of criteria as to how their communities are formed and to what extent they are ultimately based upon. Yes, some may use race or ethnicity as a separator, and race is a reality to National-Anarchists, but race is not the be all and end all of National-Anarchism, and National-Anarchism extends far beyond such limitations, and into many diverse, yet interconnected areas, as the Manifesto makes apparent. This makes perfectly clear, and is obvious to me at least, that there is simply not just a singular ideal for a National-Anarchist community, but room for any number of them based upon whatever criteria is chosen by those involved.

Race, religion, spirituality, culture, ethnicity, heritage, sexual-orientation, etc, are only some of the components with which different individuals and various groups will choose to come together on in a mutually agreed manner and form a village-community or autonomous-zone out of such cooperatively.

And, of course, as there are now already within the National-Anarchist Movement, groups active that are not based on any of the above, where all are free and welcome to join. But that is the key thing... freedom - the freedom to choose and to associate with whomever you wish, so long as you don't force your opinions and requirements upon others, and equally, others don't force their feelings, persuasions, and sentiments upon you. It is very much live and let live as the saying goes. This ultimately leads to pure and true self-determination and individual autonomy, for those that can mutually cooperate upon whatever criteria they choose, either within the community, or two separate communities based on differing criteria being cooperative and respectful with each other.

If you want to live within a black separatist, homosexual, or raw-food diet only enclave, then so be it! If you want to subsist within a mono-racial or multi-racial community then good for you! If you want to have cohabitation within a naturalist environment with like minded people, then go for it! Any combination of the above or more? Then knock yourself out! The possibilities are endless as long as it is freely and mutually agreed upon. Others should respect you for that and not bother you unless you mutually agree to cooperate for whatever reason, and equally, those separate groups should not bother each other, unless as I state, you mutually agree to cooperate.

As Nathan Wild has said, and I agree, National-Anarchism “is a recognition that communities of different cultures/ethnicity want to be separate to achieve their collective potential. If anything I feel that that is a refreshing honesty or realistic appraisal of reality.”

The point is that autonomy of the individual is paramount, and each person has the unalienable right to associate freely with anyone he or she chooses and sees fit, or, of course, with no-one at all.

As should be apparent by now, National-Anarchism itself doesn't set the boundaries by which communities are made or in any way that individuals should associate, but the communities of individuals themselves set the markers for how they wish to live, freely, and without interference. Ultimately, the individual nor the group should tell any other individual or group how to live or how to think, so long as each individual or group actions do not impede those of others.

To paraphrase Mr. Southgate, non of what is proposed by the National-Anarchist Movement is to be forced upon anyone at all, and is entirely voluntary, with no one being goaded. Furthermore, it is certainly not for the entire country either, whatever country you may reside in. In effect, it is for those that choose it, and, to quote, “must be very gradual and designed to meet the needs and aspirations of those people who wish to preserve their own identities in the face of increasing globalisation. It has more to do with seceding, dropping out or breaking away, than with trying to drive a wedge between people.”

Of course, there are those that enjoy multiculturalism that are not of mixed race, and there are those that are, and that is absolutely fine. What is more, as I have tried to express, is that if a community based upon this is wanted, then so be it, as long as it is voluntary. But, conversely, if there are those that want a community also but are not interested in multiculturalism, then this is fine also, and what is there to stop them cooperating? And, even if they don't want to cooperate and want to be entirely separatist, then this is perfectly fine also. It is all about freedom and respect. I fail to see why anyone would think hate would come into it, that is totally nonsensical. Of course, there are those that hate, but they would have no place within the National-Anarchist Movement. But for those interested in looking deeper, you will find that race is only one element of National-Anarchism, but sadly for some, it means removing their blinkers to see as much.

It really isn't that difficult to understand, and far from how our detractors like to portray us. And, as I have read elsewhere and fully agree,  'anyone that claims the title of 'Anarchist' yet seeks to deny others the right to form communities and associate with others with whom we see fit, based on whatever criteria we mutually agree upon, are not only the furthest removed from true Anarchist principles, but are in actual fact the only real fascists and Nazis left. Furthermore, it is high time that the Anarchist title was reclaimed, and in comparison to typical Right Wing Hollywood Nazi's and Left Wing Marxists, National-Anarchism is indeed a breath of fresh air.'

The childish shouting of the nasty little smear words 'Nazi' or 'Fascist' at us (in effect used to frighten others from talking to us and taint their opinions), rather than engaging in debate in a respectful and constructive manner, is the last line of defence for those without an argument or the ability to converse in a civil way. As Samuel Adams has said, “Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason.” These people are not Anarchists, and nor are they shining examples of the humanity they claim to be a part of and astonishingly, represent. They can be seen for what they truly are, hate-filled fascists and puppets of the state, whether they know it or not. Much of it is projection, coupled with their inability to participate in polite dialogue.[5]

See, for example, these far more rational comments on the subject of 'Fascism' within National-Anarchism, with Michael Schmidt, founder and ex-member of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) of South Africa, stating that:

"On balance, in his [Gandhi] völkisch nationalist decentralism, I would argue for him to be seen as something of a forebearer of “national anarchism,” that strange hybrid of recent years. Misdiagnosed by most anarchists as fascist, “national anarchism” fuses radical decentralism, anti-hegemonic anti-statism (and often anti-capitalism), with a strong self-determinist thrust that stresses cultural-ethnic homogeneity with a traditional past justifying a radical future; this is hardly “fascism” or a rebranding of “fascism,” for what is fascism without the state, hierarchy and class, authoritarianism, and the führer-principle?" [6]

And, commenting in the National-Anarchist Movement facebook group, Troy Southgate observes:

“National-Anarchists are also opposed to Fascism. On the other hand, we prefer to avoid using the term 'anti-fascist' because we are not interested in suppressing free speech or free association as many other so-called 'anti-fascists' do, although we are most certainly anti-fascist in terms of our hostility towards fascist centralisation and state dictatorship. In fact our manifesto makes it perfectly clear that National-Anarchism and Fascism are diametrically opposed.”

Indeed, as Noam Chomsky has stated, “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

Labels simply do not have any meaning these days, and using them as smears in some adolescent way to somehow silence someone either shows that person’s lack of understanding of the terms real meaning and association or their complete inability, as mentioned, of being able to hold their own in the civil and respectful conversational manner. Only the immature and foolish mock and scorn that which they have absolutely no knowledge or understanding, nor indeed for that matter, the intellect to grasp such given the opportunity to do so. Mediocrity of the mind, no matter how well one tries to conceal it, will always reveal itself to be as such. Of course, not everyone that childishly disagrees with you is simply not understanding the self evident and logical, but it is on purpose and with an ulterior agenda. Having said that, I fully acknowledge and agree that there are going to be those with genuine questions, and to those we are more than willing to explain and take any and all criticism, and take the time to converse. One thing is for sure, is that we will give far more respect, civility and constructive discussion to those that wish to silence us, than they give us.

I write these words in response to the sick and rotten root of defamatory  accusation that will, when nurtured, grow and spread its disease like an incurable cancer, watered and loved by those with fragmentary circumstantial beliefs, vindictive mindsets, and simple and hateful yet ill-conceived agendas. But, ever the ready gardener will rise above such mediocrity of mind and look to his blessings with honour, respect and decency and move forward with pride and honesty in his heart.

Indeed, who am I to tell others how to live and who to associate with? I certainly wouldn't be an anarchist if I did, more-so a fascist dressed in anarchist clothing. Which, oddly, is what I have come to discover many of the dogmatic leftist 'anarchists' are, fascists in anarchist clothing. Let it be said, we as National-Anarchists are above the fascism and dogmatism of the right, and beyond the dogmatism and fascism of the left.

This movement encourages liberty, justice, autonomy, agorism, self-sufficiency, trade, bartering, environmental deference, non-coercion, free-association, mutual respect and cooperation, and the freedom from interference from the state. Ultimately, it sets you on the path to self-determination and true freedom. But you need to take the first step!

Professor Noam Chomsky has commented that, “If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.”, yet for an anarchists this should not be an option, so, in summary, I will leave you now with the words of Britain's first Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, to ponder:

"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge."

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Josh Bates, Justin Gillespie, Nathan Wild, and Troy Southgate, for without their valued input and inspiration, I may never have decided to put this article together in the first place, which with respect, incorporates some of their openly expressed opinions, some in paraphrase, that, as a National-Anarchist, I wholeheartedly share.

NOTES

1] 

* National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) Facebook Group

2] 

* National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) Facebook Group

* National-Anarchist Permaculture Information NetworkFacebook Group

* National-Anarchist Tribal Alliance – New York (NATA-NY)

* National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) Publications

* Radio Interviews With Welf Herfurth

* Radio Interviews With Craig FitzGerald

3]

* Is National-Anarchism An Oxymoron? – National-AnarchismIn  A Nutshell which also featured in the first volume of National-Anarchist publications, 'National-Anarchism: A Reader' (2012, Black Front Press)

* 'National-Anarchism: Setting The Record Straight' by Troy Southgate, featured in the third volume of National-Anarchist publications, 'National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice' (2012, Black Front Press)

* National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) FAQ

* A Note On Racial Separatism

* Race Essential To National-Anarchism?

* Responding To The Lies

* Lies About National-Anarchism (Links To A Number Of Conversations)

* Allegations Regarding National-Anarchism

* Radio Interviews With Welf Herfurth

* Radio Interviews With Craig FitzGerald

* Answering The Critics In 3 Albums

* So Apparently National-Anarchists Are All Violent RacistsWho Want To Kill Non-White Christians

4]

See note 3 in the article 'It Can Be Done, But We Have Too Wake Up' by Neil G. Hiatt which featured in volume three of National-Anarchistpublications, 'National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice' (2012, Black Front Press)

5] 

* BR Conversations

* The BF Debates here or alternatively here.

6]

* Michael Schmidt, founder and ex-member of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) of South Africa - http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23404