Saturday, 26 March 2016

All our yesterdays


True to my usual form of getting into things ten years late, I'm a recent YouTube convert. Through said medium I've recently become an eager fan of Millennial Woes, the lad with the soothing Edinburgh brogue who's making a name for himself in the exciting world of what he calls the Reactosphere. While viewing one of his vids I was fascinated when he mentioned the idea of race memory. This reminded me of a post I wrote here four years ago. Back then I was unaware of race memory specifically, and being the numpty I am, was blissfully unaware that a theory for the hunch I had when I wrote that post, existed and was based in genetics.

The reason I say all this now is that I believe race (or genetic) memory may be responsible for feelings and emotions I've had all these years. I'll use an example: Apologies to UK based readers here, but I'll do a bit of explaining because many of my readers are from outside the UK. I live in a suburb on the edge of a city in England. Apart from seven years or so when I lived in other cities, I always have. This suburb contains three housing estates - all small in scale as housing estates go. The first was built in the early 1950s as Council housing. This is social housing built and owned by the state to provide secure, good quality housing with low rents to working class families. All the houses on this first estate are modest and (with slight variation) all look the same.

A second Estate in my suburb was built slightly after the first, in the mid-1950s. This estate was built for owner occupiers and therefore the houses were a bit grander (although like the first still semi-detached). It was here that my parents moved after leaving their council estates on the other side of town after they married and thus moved up the social ladder a bit, and it was here where ol' Berrocscir spent his early years.

The third estate was built in the mid-1980s and it's where I currently live. My point is??!! Well, it's occurred to me for a while that the houses on my estate are now thirty years old, but to my eyes they could pass for ten. This is maybe due to building techniques, brickwork colouring and tiles used, but they definitely feel 'new' and from up the hill this last estate looks like it doesn't really fit, where as the first two seem to fit snugly to the rising gradient. They seem to cling naturally to the gentle slope, to my eye, giving the mirage of appearing to be a natural extension of their environment. Sorry if this sounds a bit too Pseuds Corner! When the new estate was built the developers left old trees and hedgerows alone which helps a bit, but I remember when this estate was a field and I have a vague childhood memory of seeing a horse here - I'm no psychologist but maybe this plays some part in how our genes orientate our soul towards the past. This 1980s estate will never stop being 'new' to me because I can remember what was there before it. The council estate came before me so I'm comforted by it.

On the council estate the houses look their age, but this is a good thing. They are 'lived in' and cosy especially during the grey winter months when the nights draw in. Moss grows on their tiled roofs. I see nature close to us. They look like the cottages of our fathers. Seeing them induces a great sense of comfort in me as do the houses in the second estate.  Is this architecture a sign of race memory? I don't know. I think what I'm feeling is a sense of what Roger Scruton calls oikophila - a love of home.
Maybe oikophilia is a result of race memory.

Most people have a great love of, and joy in, the natural world, the countryside and wilderness. I know I've always been grateful that my suburb has glorious countryside on its doorstep. Our ancestors from the pre-industrial age may be calling us via our DNA when we go off rambling or to camp. I have no expertise in this subject, but I love the idea of it.

Monday, 8 February 2016

Identity Crisis?




Ever since I broke with leftism over ten years ago, I've reminded myself never to be enslaved again by any ideology or dogma. I found National Anarchism appealing precisely because it facilitates the option of adopting many different socio-political beliefs and cultural traits. National Anarchism equals true diversity, pluralism and anti-imperialism through its emphasis on self-determination and freedom of association - and I remain supportive of these principles.

However, my political influences and allegiances continue to develop (in my view healthily). Recently I've gravitated towards two relatively new political/cultural movements: the AltRight which is primarily based in the US, and the Identitarian movement which is primarily based in Europe. My National Anarchism has been based from the start on the promotion of ethno/racial/indigenous identity (not all National Anarchists do so) and I have always lent a sympathetic ear to groups, movements and individuals with similar outlooks. This is what brought me into the orbit of the AltRight and Identitarianism.

Both these movements are broad based 'big tent' affairs with an emphasis on the cultural, rather than the political sphere. This appeals to me because although I remain generally supportive of nationalist political parties, I believe that for radical nationalism and tribalism to take hold in the West in the face of globalism, we need a cultural revolution where our identity politics can become normalised and enter the mainstream.

Both the AltRight and European Identitarians are young, dynamic, vibrant, smart, intelligent, articulate and use slick propaganda which they propagate well. I'm particularly impressed with the European Identitarians' mastery of disciplined demonstrations, stunts and most importantly their social welfare work. Tribalism should be active in all spheres.

A few weeks ago my belief in the National Anarchist cornerstone principle of autonomous tribal village communities was tested when I watched a video of a panel Q&A session at a conference of the National Policy Institute in the US, where Richard B. Spencer (a leading figure on the AltRight) said:
"We're Europeans. We're not these little people who want their own little garden, you know: 'My little garden patch out by the barn, we're gonna secede and have our little ethno-state'. No - we should be an empire. The thing that the current masters of the universe fear is a superpower on the level of a European empire. That is something that can confront them, that could defeat them, and I just think that at some point we as Europeans have to come to this realisation...we need to embrace power..."
This had a profound effect on me. Are empire and imperialism always or ever synonymous? Can a benign empire exist where intentional National Anarchist communities, networks and villages freely operate unhindered and protected by a ruling elite with its own anti-global, nationalist system? An empire where different ethnic/national populations and varied religious, cultural and social groups can practice semi-autonomy without fear or favour?

Given my own ethno-national identity, what is wrong with jettisoning the National Anarchist principle altogether and embracing the goal of a new anti-globalist European superpower, albeit one that recognises the different nations of Europe and their sovereignties, letting them manage their internal affairs, interfering only when that sovereignty is threatened? Or maybe just keep it simple with a wide, post-EU family of European homelands? These British Isles and this Europe are what my ancestors built for me and my people. Why should I betray this sacred inheritance in order only to retreat to the little tribal redoubts that I've been advocating here for years?...Well, the world is not black and white. I respect the pluralist principle. Not everyone sees the world the way I do (we could argue they are brainwashed with the liberal narrative, but will they listen?) Are liberals, and the 'different' to be turfed out? I still believe in self-determination for all, regardless of if I happen to approve of them or not. In addition, the green anarchist in me knows all about empires that come and go. Is it better to nurture our tribes out of sight of the machine?

So while I hail the AltRight and Identitarians and align myself with them, even in these uncertain times for Europe I still believe in the unlikelyhood of national/cultural revolution across Mother Europe, and for that reason I still adhere to the National Anarchist strategy of secession and autonomy within a liberal, globalist world. Is that defeatist? Maybe. I'm not some intellectual titan (can you tell?) All I can do is send my greetings, admiration and solidarity to the Altright and Identitarians (fellow travellers for a better tomorrow) whilst continuing to plough my National Anarchist furrow.

Please watch and share the above video from the Identitare Bewegung and this one here from the National Policy Institute:


Friday, 18 December 2015

Towards a third Wessex Renaissance


As I write, that name Wessex, in recent times slowly but surely growing in currency, is hopefully receiving a shot in the arm courtesy of The Last Kingdom TV series. Don't laugh - the goggle box has its benefits and Peter Pan spawned a girls name! How many today (with a new hero in Uhtred) are now googling 'Wessex' and pledging allegiance?!

More people today, from across the political spectrum, are searching for alternatives to Globalism and centralist ways of doing things. The political elites may have 'left' and 'right' labels, but when it comes to the nitty gritty, they are one and the same.

As a National Anarchist and radical tribalist I support all alternatives to the narratives of our Globalist betters. Regionalism is one alternative I back, and as a Wessexman it's Wessex regionalism that I embrace. Regionalist movements can take 'leftist' or 'rightist' hues, but it matters not - they all go against the global grain.

Many will know of the Kingdom (and later Earldom) of Wessex, perhaps from their schooldays (that's where I fell in love the land). But it's fair to say that the Wessex meme - once the mighty and real 'Cradle of England' - gradually dwindled into the faintest of folk memories. However, cultural revival is episodic, often appearing out of nowhere during times of great socio-economic change in reaction to, in spite of and as an antidote. The great Celtic revivals were a reaction to industrialisation, urbanisation and of empire.

Though not on the same scale, Wessex has had two revivals of note. The first arrived with Thomas Hardy and Dorset dialect poet William Barnes - and there is suggestion that the name Wessex was being used in a contemporary way before them. The 'idea' of Wessex subtly rippled on through the twentieth century until the second explosion of the Wessex brand in the 1970s with the emergence of the Wessex Regionalist Party.

Now that the millennium has turned and we witness uncertain, rootless times with entrenched cosmopolitanism, we are ripe for a third Wessex resurgence. I'll further argue that it should take a predominantly cultural dimension. The Wessex Regionalists and Wessex Society have been working away, punching way above their collective weight, achieving impressive victories like the growing recognition, acceptance and adoption of the Wessex flag, yet so much more is possible. We need to reinvent Wessex through spectacle - much like our Celtic friends. Commemorations utilising the Wessex calendar, pageants, dramatic and visual arts, music, song and and story (The Welsh do it). We should lobby to get plaques and monuments erected at significant sites in Wessex history (and make sure the whole world knows about it while we're at it) We need to celebrate Old English and popularise Zexysch*. We need to nurture Wessex sports teams (some already use the name). In all spheres of life we need to assert a Wessex identity. I'm not suggesting all this will happen in a day, but Wessex boys and girls need to think hard about what they can do to accelerate the pace. Maybe in time a Wessex welfare organisation will emerge, active in our communities, aiding our old folk and others who may need our help. The effects of the global system on Wessex's rural economy is one area where such an organisation could work.

The time is right for Wessex and for all regions (how about Wessex twinning with other regions and the opportunities arising?) Some nationalists will argue that nation-states are the best defence against globalism, but I just can't follow the logic - demand the full programme! There are signs that the Empire is teetering - it's time for a Wessex Renaissance.

*Zexysch is a Wessex linguistic form created by Robert Craig. I found this example on an internet forum:

"O Zghort Hystory Of Zexysch"

"Won þe Roman admynystration wyþdrew vrom þe Brytayns back yn þe vyft century A.D., þei left behynd am on assortment of Germanyk soldiers, most of wutch wur Zaxons.

Þe Zaxons (Zeaxes) quyklych toke over þe provynce of Upper Brytayn wyþ hys ancient capytal at Cyrencester. At þe zame tyme, þe Engle (Angles), wo wur o volk vrom þe Zouth of Jutland, wur zettlyng an Lower Brytayn (þe Norþern provynce, wyþ hys capytal at Iork).

Yn þe urlyest dais, þare wur zum zufven cunedoms, zuch as Kent and Deyra. Over tyme, þese zufven wur reduced to dree - Northumbrya, Mercya and Wesseax. Northumbrya and Mercya wur vounded by Engles, wyle Wesseax had as hys vurst cunyng, þe Bryton, Cerdic, i.e., Caradoc, probably þe natyve commander of Zaxon soldiers stationed at Cyrencester, or Carleon.

Northumbrya was þe most ymportant of þe dree. Ac, yn þe menetyme, Wesseax contynued to grow at þe expense of þe Mercyans and þe Brytons of Zomerset, Devon and Dorset. Kent came under hys zwai. Mercya vound ytzulve squeezed by hys powervol neyibours.

Northumbryan supremacy dyd noit last, as Vykyng armyes zwept across þe land, and Northumbrya and Mercya vel to am. Onlych Wesseax zdood aienst am. Cunyng Alvred reeched on agreement wutch partytioned Mercya and created Greeter Wesseax and þe Dane-law.

Vrom þan up to þe Norman Conquest West Zaxon was offyciallych þe Englysch language. Vollowyng þe unyfycation of England, þe Anglyan dyalects came under þe ynfluence of þe West Zaxon language. However, wyþ þe deth of Cunyng Harold at Hastyngs, and þe passyng of þe crown to Wyllyam, eal þe dyalects wur put an on equal votyng aien.

West Zaxon (also known as Old English [O.E.]) was now eclypsed by Chancery Englysch, developed vrom þe East Mydland dyalect zboken yn London. Zeth þun, Zexysch hath been yn retreat, wyþ dyalect myxyng contynuyng apace.

Noit onlych hath Chancery Englysch iufven us dyalect myxyng, but also language myxyng, zdartyng wyþ Norman Vrench, goyng an to Latyn and Greek, and now ever each language under þe zunne hath been brouit yn to make Englysch as we know yt.

Under Norþern ynfluence, hath hath becum has, chycken hath been replaced by chicks, chyldren is beyng replaced by kids, father hath replaced vader, eggs hath replaced eyeren, shoes hath replaced zghoen, cows hath replaced cuen/kyen/ kine. Even þe eald words vor she, they, them, their have been lost. Wel, we can do zumþyng about bryngyng zum back."

Monday, 2 February 2015

Whet the bright steel!



Whet the bright steel, Sons of the White Dragon, kindle the torch, Daughter of Hengist!


Introducing my newly acquired white dragon flag of the English. This flag, it has to be said, has its critics from within English nationalist circles. For the bigger picture I suggest you use Google, but to cut a long story short, there are questions over the flag's authenticity. Keen advocates claim it to be the prime Anglo-Saxon standard of pre-conquest England, but primary sources are few and arguably flakey. However, if Celtic identity can be reinvented and romanticised, then why not an English one?

As several different versions of the flag exist, I was planning on arguing here for a campaign of standardisation for the white dragon - in order to gain official recognition from Whitehall, the Flag Institute and Flag Registry. Gain this and public buildings could have their arms twisted to fly it (or possible unwelcome publicity if they decline). But I've now concluded we don't need the say so of petty officialdom to make the white dragon a banner for English patriots to rally to. A quick look on ebay alone where sales are in the hundreds, show the dragon's undisputed momentum - it is proving as popular, if not more so than many officially recognised flags.  The White Dragon, in it's present form, has been around since the 90s and it doesn't look like a flash in the pan. However, I am calling on white dragon advocates to favour and fly the design above. It's the best design in my opinion and here's why:

This one on the left, I believe, despite being the most ubiquitous design, isn't actually that good.





This one on the right is just a little to canine for my liking and, rather like the one below left, a little too reminiscent of the red dragon of the Wealas - the Welsh.

The design here on the right is better, but maybe a little too oriental perhaps?




The design, left, is of course the most accurate because the white dragon is really the Anglo-Saxon wyrm. A wyvern or viper, lacking hind legs. However the Wyvern has already been claimed by Wessex, so this won't do. To be fair, as far as I know this is the only design not currently commercially available. The design to the right here is probably nearest the mark in terms of historical accuracy, but lacks the x-factor in my book.

Of course, the red field is the one common denominator - it is striking, and can represent our common  English blood, and in the 21st century - defiance against a liberal elite. While green would obviously also be appropriate, every current design agrees on red, so I won't rock the boat further.

I don't wish to dictate - but this is a call to all defenders of the white dragon, lets choose one design and stick to it (that being the one favoured by me...)

Tuesday, 30 December 2014

We are where we are

National Anarchists, it has been claimed from some quarters, are guilty of 'giving up' and even of surrendering to cultural Marxism. These conclusions are based on false assumptions.

National Anarchists are not 'giving up' on anything because a) we reject the nation state, b) we recognise that populations, nations and tribes have been throughout history - and still are in a state of flux - organic movement with homelands and territories subject to glacial shift c) Many National Anarchists do not base their 'nationhood' on primordial ethnic origin (although many indeed do) so the first group have nothing to 'give up' - they are starting afresh.

What about those National Anarchists with identities based on ethnic heritage? Are they betraying their forefathers, abandoning the Motherland? Look at the forces that control the world: Multinational corporations dictate a global financial system and market which means that this era of mass migration is inevitable. What can nationalists do to combat this massive reality? They can vote for nationalist political parties to the extent where the powerful liberal political elites begin to get a bit panicky and talk tough. But still engineered immigration continues. What can nationalists do? They can organise and agitate for national revolution, but how many listen? Even if, by some miracle, one, two or five nations of Europe undergo a national revolution - What do you think NATO and the IMF will do?

National Anarchists are realists. We agitate for the establishment of tribal village communities, networks and redoubts because we think they have a better chance of success. Don't get me wrong (and I don't assume to speak for all who identify with National Anarchism) I'd love to see the establishment of national homelands based on collective history and heritage. But the clock can't be put back. National Anarchists do not seek to send 'em back because a) we can't and b) we believe in justice - other peoples have settled in Europe rapidly in recent decades because they have been guided there by the global elites as socially engineered economic migrants. The powers that be should not have herded them about but that's the reality and migrants to all first world countries have built lives for themselves. If they are able and wish to return to their own Motherlands to help build them up (which is of course what they should have been able to do anyway) then great - but they are not the enemy of the indigenous. The National Anarchist answer to where we are at (to those who care) is to build up autonomous tribalism, socially, economically, culturally and territorially.

Are National Anarchists cultural Marxists? No. We are for true diversity - cultural Marxists are for multiculturalism, which is the opposite. We are for tribal autonomy, they are for mixing society up into a confused, rudderless melting pot. This isn't diversity - it's a recipe for nothingness. National Anarchists respect and defend all identities and their right to flourish without interference from social liberals adhering to a PC agenda and ideology based on some misguided notion of equality.

National Anarchists are also dismissed for our supposed inaction. I don't know if any National Anarchist autonomous zones exist - they may. But either way, those who criticise do so because they can't see the example in practise - but not the idea itself. What alternative? I go with the National Anarchist slogan There is no way back, there is no way out - but there is a way through!

Friday, 28 November 2014

For maximum radical unity

National Anarchism is a school of thought which goes above and beyond all hitherto dogmas. It transcends the pigeonholes that strangle political discourse to such an extent that many have ceased thinking of them as such. National Anarchists allow the individual to define concepts of nationhood as they see fit. National Anarchism is the new vanguard of anti-imperialisms - political and cultural. We celebrate and defend all ways of life and do not seek to deny anyone of their right to live according to their chosen ideals and identities - whether they be ethno/racial, national, religious, ideological, cultural or subcultural.

My own tribalism is based on that of the ethno-English and their collective national identity (I reject the leftist argument that this is an artificial con and a ruse, and maintain that this identity is born of an innate human desire to belong). My tribalism is based on my own peoples' common origin, traditions, culture, customs, language and history. That said, as a National Anarchist I don't seek to impose my values on others and certainly won't defend a nation state.

So I am a nationalist of sorts - a radical nationalist. I have my own definition of nationalism, but I accept that it is not the only legitimate definition. In the past I have posted missives here which have criticised civic nationalism - I still stand by these, but that doesn't mean that there can be no common ground between civic nationalists and ethno-nationalists. We have common enemies. Take for example the newly formed Patriotic Socialist Party - some of it's policies: economic autarky, animal welfare, localism - could appeal to National Anarchists. The National Liberal Party - with its emphasis on national self-determination, is another group that has parallels with National Anarchist arguments.

Personally I am most impressed with the Socialist Workers Party England (no, not the placard distributing, megaphone wielding, shouty shouty lot!) and consider their Policy Outline as an excellent example of contemporary radical nationalism. Of course, the SWPE are statist in their outlook (as are the PSP and NLP) but National Anarchists shouldn't sneer at this. Read up on them, learn from them. Differences of principle should not stop us from finding friends and fellow travellers - we have enough enemies. We need allies.

The National Anarchist current is growing - of that I'm certain. We are holding our ground and winning arguments with our detractors. But we must not become arrogant. Let's not let National Anarchism become just another dogma itself!




Monday, 24 November 2014

Raising standards

It's brilliant to see that Exmoor now has her own flag. Congratulations to Jenny Stevens, its designer. You can read about the flag's evolution here. It's encouraging to see that, in this age of mass junk consumerist culture, local identity is shining through in England. People are still proud of their patch, their home, their tribe, their vibe...County flags have taken off in a big way, and the flags of England's historic regions are beginning to catch up. Following on the heels of the Wessex Wyvern, the St. Alban's Cross - the flag of Mercia - has just been registered with the flag institute, thus freeing it from Whitehall red tape. What is significant about the Exmoor flag, however, is that it represents a bioregion -  and if Exmoor can have a flag, then why not Dartmoor, the Cotswolds, the Weald, the Dales et al. Unofficial cultural regions too, the world over, can (and many probably do!) have their flags. In England a recent example of such would be the Black Country. Now whether you choose to proudly hang them from your castle wall, or simply wear them on your lapel - just do it. The globalisers and centralisers won't like it, but they need to be told - OFTEN!

Saturday, 27 September 2014

The campaign for the real regions begins now!

The unionists have had their way, but one of the postive fallouts of the Scottish Independence referendum is that devolution is back on the agenda. As I'm a National Anarchist I want to see my autonomous villages - you can't get more devolved than that! But ideals aside, it's important for radical tribalists to see opportunities everywhere. Regionalists of all hues are our natural allies. I'm a National Anarchist, but not sectarian and I'm delighted to align myself with other radicals - this is not a luxury, it's essential. I want to see maximum co-operation between all decentralists as we're more likely to succeed that way. And one step toward a decentralised British state is a step closer to meaningful autonomy.

In the wake of the Scottish vote greater regional autonomy for England is now being seriously debated. This presents English regionalists (and their Welsh and Scottish counterparts) with a real chance of progress. They have to seize this chance and manage it properly.

Two criticisms of regionalism put about by centrists are 1) It's an arbitrary
carve-up into souless, bureaucratic zones - we all remember the Prescott fiasco! and 2) It will destroy Englishness and national unity. Real English regionalism is of course, based in English history and its peoples' organic, tribal roots. It's based on our parishes, hundreds, shires and Kingdoms of the Heptarchy. Regionalists need to shout this loud: "We're not 'South West', we're Wessex. We're not 'Midlands', we're Mercia. Culturally and spiritually their concepts are increasingly popular, living in the hearts of many. As a schoolkid I was enthralled by the heptarchy and the fact that Cornwall had it's own flag! These little worlds and little platoons made sense to me, and if presented in the right way today they make sense to Joe Public, not least because they provide them with a romantic sense of place, connected to their own histories.

Our elites have been talking about City States, I don't object to these. I conceed that if cities adopt radical measures they can go a long way to toward feeding themselves (yes, really!) and of course cities should run their own domestic affairs to the max and come to mutual arrangements with their periferies. We're stuck with cities! However, regionalists need to provide a radical agrarian vision as one in which people can gain real control over their lives. By shedding the trappings of technology in agrarian redoubts our regions can prove central government as an increasing irrelevance.

As to the claim that Englishness will fade - I don't buy it. Autonomy, independence, freedom - these are mainstays of the English psyche. England will still exist on the cultural, social and spiritual levels.

Now on to more practical considerations: One constant criticism of regionalism is the view that all it leads to is the creation of another layer of expensive government with more fiddling, greedy politicians. Regionalists can refute this with the following argument: The House of Commons and the Lords can be abolished. The regions could elect sovereign parliaments with full executive powers. The existing parliamentary constituencies can remain in place (no extra expense there) Elected MPs from the Cornish, Wessex, Mercian parliaments et al can then send delegates to a Council of the Isles (or a national federal body for England, Wales, Scotland, Ulster)that will meet as an when to decide issues of national and international importance, such as mutual defence. Of course, most domestic decision making could remain, rightly, at parish, district and county levels - with wider co-ordination being decided by regional parliaments. County pride is currently sky-high and rightly so. But federating the shires into our historic regions can entrench that tribal pride further. To borrow the Wessex Regionalists' maxim Big enough to cope, small enough to care. One exception to the rule is probably Yorkshire: a shire with an immense sense of self (I'm envious!), it's own growing devolution movement and big enough to stand alone. Will Yorkshire folk be happy to be part of a Greater North? That's an issue for them.

Now, on to the (big) elephant in the room: the European Union. Regionalists, in my view must unequivocally oppose the EU and advocate UK withdrawal, not to do so will make a mockery of their case. There is no way around this.