Wednesday, 24 August 2016

Gaia, her lands and her tribes

I have spoken on a couple of occasions here of my frustration with the liberal-left's monopoly on, and default 'ownership' of, green ideas, ecology and environmentalism. Eco-socialism had (at least in the UK) gained control of mainstream green politics by the end of the 1990s, but there were always dissenting voices. Richard Hunt had developed Green theories with a distinct non-PC, tribalistic angle in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. More recently, in his book Green Philosophy, Roger Scruton argues that Green ideas have a natural home in conservatism. However, the old joke of the Green Party as the 'watermelon party' (green on the outside, red on the inside) continues to ring true.

I once harboured fantasies of a patriotic/nationalist cadre gaining a foothold in the Green Party, but I have long since given up on such a scenario. I remember reading a comment by a Green Party activist some years ago which read something like "we get those types of people from time to time and we deal with them and they leave".

Whilst nationalist groups have, to varying degrees, included some form of Green/environmentalist content in their platforms, and while the wider Alt-Right and Identitarian milieus do not - as far as I know - emphasise (or at least mention) Green issues, at least one nationalist and patriot is now attempting to rectify this. Cornishman Oliver Siochana has begun a one man mission to establish the Gaian Regenerative Party with its philosophy and policy being what he calls Gaian nationalism. This is a healthy blend of nationalism, deep green philosophy, ecology, permaculture, vegan lifestyle, patriotism and tribalism. This is a very promising venture - as after all - nationalism and Green ideals go hand-in-hand. A founding cornerstone of nationalism is the concept of homeland. To achieve a tangible sense of homeland an ancestral territory was required with its own unique, flourishing natural environment. Its people first developed a sense of nationhood, and saw themselves as a distinct and separate tribe, by living in the bosom of their land, as an organic extension of it, and that of course is the gaian philosophy. A people and their homeland became one entity. Stewardship of the land gave the tribes a sense of continuity, as their fathers stewarded the same plot. Different peoples were moulded to their different environments and thus became distinct parts of nature in Gaia's natural order.

Modernity and urbanism have deracinated us from our true tribal habitats and we are losing touch with the concept of homeland - at least in the west. If we begin adopting permaculture and other methods in sync with Gaia, maybe our tribal instincts will receive a boost.

Berrocscir's Banner wishes Mr. Siochana much luck and looks forward to watching the GRP take off. The campaign starts with GRP events in Penzance on the 2nd September and in Falmouth on the 10th. Details can be found on the party's website. You can also find out more by visiting the GRP's youtube channel.

Friday, 8 July 2016

It's all about me! (A statement)

Forgive me my usual navelgazing, and I apologise if this post appears pretentious or self-important, but I know that this blog is read by enough people to warrant it. For eight years here I've been pushing National Anarchist ideology, and I continue to see great merit in it and its proponents. But I think it's right to put on record that recently I have become unsure as to my current political and socio-economic goals. A part of me has begun to see National Anarchism less as an ideal, and more as a rearguard strategy against the prevailing leftist, globalist and universalist ideology of our time. So if, for me, National Anarchism has become no longer an end in itself and merely a vehicle to another destination - then what is that destination? The answer is I don't rightly know...although I have some idea.

No one should be embarrassed to admit it when they doubt their worldview - it's healthy. I've always argued here against dogma but that does not mean that I am not susceptible to it. National Anarchism implies anarchism - the absence of the state. The argument for stateless societies is a valid one which will endure. However I feel that I no longer see the state as necessarily oppressive or morally wrong. States are organic entities - they were built by our ancestors, our nations, our tribes. I view the state through positive eyes - it should be the ultimate guardian of the people (although it should facilitate the people enough so they can protect themselves as much as they are able). I believe in the social contract. The state is there to protect its citizens in return for their subjugation. Of course on countless occasions throughout history the state has failed, sometimes wilfully, in this role. I further believe that in the modern era of neoliberalism and globalism, states and their functionaries have continually acted against their people's national, cultural and tribal interests. It will of course be argued that the state is born of the social elites and this is true. But I have come to believe in the goodness of hierarchy. Hierarchies protect. Hierarchies give purpose, happiness, comfort and continuity. Way back in antiquity the strongest protected the tribe, thereby earning status and privilege. When through circumstance tribes grew into nations, those nations grew elites and these enacted their (natural and good) entitlement to lead and rule using the practical machinery of the state. Of course sometimes elites grow decadent and lose their entitlement to rule. Natural law has it that they are discarded by revolutionary new elites... And this is good.

Understand that I don't advocate overbearing, totalitarian or nanny states. The state should be minimal. It should have a strong military and judiciary ready to act at all levels when needed. But it should keep its nose out of people's lives as much as possible. Government should be as close to the people as possible. Indeed, ideally, the state should have no role in family and community life and should intervene only in exceptional circumstances.

I have long advocated the establishment of intentional, separatist cultural-political, socio-economic village communities in any given geographical area - and I still do. But here's the thing: I have become a firm believer that nationalism should continue to build on the legacy that our ancestors left us. For people like myself who identify as ethnic and racial nationalists, the idea of homeland is paramount. Even today, over a decade after I rejected my former leftism/Marxism/materialism/classism etc, I still feel a great sense of liberal guilt when speaking about my belief in my racial heritage and homeland. A homeland that is exclusively for my people. Our fathers toiled to give us our homelands, and we owe it to them to treasure them, revere them and sustain them. National Anarchism holds that different communities anywhere can take different paths - and I agree with this approach to an extent. But not to the extent where a community clearly crosses the line and becomes something unrecognisably alien from the history of the land on which it occupies. I truly believe that the maintenance of tradition is more important than freedom. I am not a cultural libertarian. I suppose this makes me a mini imperialist. But is imperialism wrong? I believe that Realpolitik dictates that 7+ billion people in the world need their own macro-political units in order to live safe and happy lives. Of course many intentional communities exist - and could exist - safely and happily looking after themselves. But I ask: if the present-day infrastructure disappeared how long would these intentional communities last out against natural law? I honestly believe that in order to prosper long-term, they need benevolent Ethnostates or even empires to guarantee their security and survival. Empires come and go, but so what? Glory outweighs decay.

I'm trying to come to terms with the reactionary idea that imperialism is inherently good. This holds that if a people are weak then the strong can subjugate them. I am uncomfortable with this idea because like National Anarchists and other radical nationalists, I believe in the inherent beauty and worth of all cultures and peoples and their right to exist and their right to self-determination. But just like the comprehensive school system that some say holds the bright kids back, some say a strong people have the right to conquer. Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. I see their point but struggle with it from a moral perspective. A nice compromise would be benevolent empires where indigenous cultures and populations are pretty much left be. Of course in the 21st century there are no more physical lands left to conquer, but if the globalist, neoliberal empire is to go I would not object if some supranational nationalist, traditionalist, and imperial empire/s of the west were to take its place - I see this as preferable.

I still believe in many of the cornerstone principles of National Anarchism - local autonomy, small community, self-sufficiency, small economy, and to an extent identity. I still believe in regionalism and subsidiarity - and I most definitely still believe in the moral supremacy of agrarian and rural ways of life over urban living and modernity. But I feel I can no longer call myself a National Anarchist - because I believe in the concept of national homelands - national communities bounded historical occupancy of a territory...and by a national state. I cannot reconcile National Anarchist principles with my nascent belief in benign and benevolent empire. I have no quarrel with National Anarchists and regard them as friends and comrades against globalism, but it would be wrong for me to carry on using the label for the reasons which I have already explained. I believe in maximum unity among all radical anti-globalists and my solidarity with National Anarchists remains strong. But my increasing acceptance of neo-reactionary ideas (and my new allegiance to the AltRight) require true record on a blog which has for eight years identified as National Anarchist.

The coming struggles against globalism and cosmopolitanism will take many different forms. I believe that National Anarchism's secessionist and separatist strategy can play an important role in eroding globalist hegemony. But ultimately I do not foresee its vision triumphant. I don't want to keep all my eggs in one basket. I want to take a less defeatist approach.

Thursday, 30 June 2016

The men of the woods

I was always a pessimist, particularly when it came to the preposterous idea that my ancestral homeland would ever break free from the all-powerful European Union... This past week has been one of the strangest I can remember, and as I suspect like many others, it still hasn't sunk in. And there was much rejoicing as Michael Palin once said. We can allow ourselves temporary celebration, but I don't think that any patriot and defender of homeland, heritage and tradition would argue that we have globalism, liberalism, cosmopolitanism, and one-worldism on the run.

Yes, Brexit has massive implications - but the radical nationalist strategy should continue to be one of rearguard action. The European Union may indeed crumble - it wouldn't be the first empire to do so. If it does then we Brits can take the credit for pushing that first domino. But modernity and all that it implies will continue to reign, Brussels or no. Radical nationalists need to adopt strategies of secession. We should (if we are not already country dwellers)  ignore the cities (at least temporarily) and up sticks to the countryside, to the farms, the hamlets, the homesteads, the villages, the market towns...closer to the real people of our lands. Where our folk have more of a tangible connection to our collective past. It is in the countryside where our people are less deracinated, more in touch with who they are - and thus showing they are the people we nationalists would prefer to associate with - and we might be able to offer them something too.

It is in the countryside that we radical patriots can best learn the skills needed for any future economic collapse. Prepping is an easy target for ridicule, but these skills are among the most valuable any radical nationalist can acquire. We can laugh at the Action Man image, but basic survival skills are worth having. The better nationalists become at prepping and self-sufficiency, the more able we are to live free of the forces we profess to oppose. It's worth considering.

After the Norman conquest, guerrilla warfare was waged against the invaders by determined bands of Anglo-Saxons. The Normans dubbed them the Silvatici - the men of the woods. Today's radical nationalists across the west (and indeed beyond) need to become latter-day Silvatici. Not as modern-day military men or Robin Hoods but as the people coming home, undetected, joining their kin who are already instinctively tribalistic, conservative, even today relatively unblemished by the globalist worldview.

The Austrians recently narrowly elected a progressive as their (apparently largely ceremonial) President. That is their will. But this map shows where his nationalist opponent picked up his votes from. In case you're wondering it's the blue bits - and those blue bits aren't urban.

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!