Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Forward to the New Squirearchy!


The year revolved around the village, the festivals round the year, the church round the festivals, the Squire round the church, and the village round the Squire. The Squire was our centre, a crumbling moot tree; and few indeed of our local celebrations could take place without his shade.
                                                                  - Laurie LeeCider with Rosie


We all want to see the Alt-Right go mainstream. We want to see it reach that critical mass where its ideas and tenets are normalised. This will mean recognising realpolitik to a large extent. Playing to populist tunes guided by our agendas. But it is important not to lose sight of our ideals. During the media's brouhaha in the wake of that speech of Hillary's, Richard B. Spencer was pressed on the idea of the ethno-state. Correctly, he likened the notion to the left's goal of communism - the ethno-state is the Alt-Right's land of milk and honey, but of course it's not up for discussion today or next week. However, although our immediate tasks are to challenge liberalism, egalitarianism and globalism with the primacy of race,  race realism, identity, nationhood, hierarchy, traditionalism etc, it is vital we retain a visionary ideal. A spiritual dimension that can satisfy the romantics, while all the dull, profane political battles are taking shape.


I propose that ideologues within the wider Alt-Right should be considering the adoption of agrarian schools of thought as legitimate ideals. I am of course not suggesting the reintroduction of serfdom - it's not a selling point. However, rural ways of life and economies correlate with Alt-Right thinking. Ruralism is a noble, morally superior state of existence to urban living which is susceptible  to alienation, degeneracy, deracination and consumerism. I'm not suggesting Alt-Right ideology should become exclusively agrarian - we cannot all waltz off and be farmers - but agrarianism deserves a place at the table.

Agrarian lifestyles and the advocacy of them by social movements such as what hopefully the Alt-Right will become, are a basis for the elevation of tribe, homeland and people - because they provide a secure, organic basis for those sentiments. They provide the conditions for national, spiritual rejuvenation which industrialism and city life cannot. Of course we need some level of industry, as I've touched on before, but the plough should command the prime reverence.

In addition I (only half-jokingly) propose the Alt-Right adopt the policy position of a future benevolent hierarchy that I'll call the New Squirearchy. Land ownership could take many forms in an Alt-Right framework, and a Neo-Manoralist model (with a strong sense of justice and the knowledge that 21st Century populations must be fed) is one I suggest. After the great counter-revolution, where a new gentry has emerged through merit and great deed, land ownership has quite naturally fallen to them as agribusiness becomes an unpleasant memory.  The new squires should provide a sense of belonging, loyalty, comfort, continuity and duty - attributes whereby we might win our ethno-state sooner than we would guess.

Sunday, 11 September 2016

Be prepared

Many of us have interests we fear make us look decidedly nerdish and I will confess mine here. For the last few years I've been a keen novice prepper. I won't elaborate too much as I don't really feel qualified to. Besides, there are dozens of websites, blogs and youtube channels dedicated to prepping where interested parties can have their questions answered.

I know prepping can be held up to ridicule, but I recommend the basics to anti-globalists. I don't know what the future holds, but if socio-economic upheaval does happen then being a half-clued up prepper would be advantageous.

I only have a simple Bug-out bag - a basic kit for emergencies, and if there's a power cut, I'm sorted for illumination with my solar charging kit (pictured).

My aim is to go totally off-grid, but that's some way off. I think prepping and off-gridding is something nationalists of all shades should consider. So too is growing vegetables. I started an allotment this year and have found it both rewarding and productive. Stocking up on clothing and toiletries are things I've started recently also.

Away from prepping, years ago I made the conscious decision as an anti-globalist to buy clothing and footwear from charity shops, jumble sales and car boots.

Small steps like these can help in weening we nationalists off our dependence on the globalist/consumerist machine we want rid of.

Friday, 2 September 2016

Where now for the Alt-Right? As you were...

I remember experiencing, during my younger days as a leftist, periodic bouts of gleeful optimism. This or that initiative or strategy took off to my delight only to fizzle out miserably a short time later and leaving me, like Wolfie Smith, dejected.

I've been reminded of that this past week in the aftermath of Hillary's Reno speech on the Alt-Right. Now don't misunderstand me, I think it's been great. The Alt-Right army has arrived and it could be about to mobilise up a gear towards the great culture war. But no Alt-Righter, from the Field-Marshals to the auxiliaries like myself need any lecturing on hubris. We just don't know what is going to happen.

I think I'm on message with what the veterans and High Command of the Alt-Right see it as and although a raw recruit I view myself as a loyalist to their core values. However I think it would be a tactical mistake to enforce orthodoxy on the numerous currents in and/or aligned to the Alt-Right - at least at this stage. Our focus now should be challenging the leftist-liberal hegemony that controls the western social narrative. This can be enacted without rigid ideology or a list of boxes to tick. If someone calls themselves Alt-Right but as far as you're concerned they're not, don't pick fights with them. It's of no importance, let them do their thing and you concentrate on yours. Learn from the past and avoid infighting. By all means debate when time permits and seek to educate your comrades, but don't let that become your sole activity. The main task and focus is challenging liberalism and liberals, that's it. Social movements historically develop and refine over time. The great reform movements of the nineteenth century were multifaceted and varied as were the socialist movements in the twentieth. Over time vanguards and elites emerged which bought orthodoxy, but that was only when they were on the verge of social/political power after many years in opposition. The Alt-Right is nascent and no faction should seek to gain the rights to the label, even though they may have a strong case.

Regarding immediate tasks ahead I hope the Alt-Right will develop into a multifaceted, diverse counter-culture, free of squabbles, uninterested in minor points of disagreement, focussing it's energy on moving the Overton window in our general direction. I hope the Alt-Right grows organically and new elements within it appear adding momentum and ideas. Furthermore I look forward to other currents like the National-Anarchists, Identitarians and the more orthodox nationalist formations joining in dialogue with us and for all factions to act in a fraternal, non-sectarian manner. Unity in diversity should be our watchword and taking on the liberals in the potential great cultural battles ahead should be foremost in our minds, not ideological purity.

The best of both worlds?

Some of us traditionalist agrarians and tribalist greens sneer at industrialism, mass production, consumerism and consumption - and with good reason. If anything was primarily responsible for divorcing us from our tribal heritage and lineage, it is modernity, urbanism and technological 'advancement' that they imply. We like to tell ourselves we will have no need for such baubles once we get our autonomous villages up and running. Tilling our motherland alongside our kindred will be a real tonic for the soul - and (we like to tell ourselves) this will redeem us in the eyes of our ancestors. But on many levels, would our forefathers swap their hardships for our creature comforts if they could?

Of course, many of today's technologies (though possibly brilliant in themselves) are socially and spiritually useless. But what about those that aren't? We could work a field with a couple of fine shires and a sturdy plough, but won't the nags deserve a good vet, and where would the plough be forged and how will the ore be extracted? Yes, our ancestors worked all that out three or four millennia ago. They mastered husbandry and bred good stock. But knowing what we know, let's be honest, we would prefer a tractor would we not? I'm no expert, but doesn't making a tractor imply advanced specialised production methods? Our village networks are going to have to be on the ball to make them, maintain and repair them - then there's the fuel...We might have to grow a lot of sunflower (and don't you have to mix it with diesel?) We could see to our energy needs at village level - but we would need specialised, outside technology to begin with. This requires centralisation and a strong reactionary elite in the city-states.

Let's be honest - you'll have to be one hard-core green anarchist not to want to get the very best medical care and treatment should you ever need it. Yes, there is merit in the  argument that many of today's ailments are caused by industrial-technological society itself, and that these ailments can be alleviated by half forgotten and trusted folk remedies. But what if you got something serious? I'd want to see a specialist. But can't we have the best of both worlds? Would we noble savages be selling out if we sought a happy medium between our bucolic folkdoms and socially useful, progressive technologies? After the counter-revolution our reactionary elites should adopt a 'hands-off' approach toward the peasant caste in the rustic provencies of the empire. They could legitimately demand their cut of our yield in return for our protection, but a good ruler would let us villagers think we were the boss. The Emperor would instruct his ministers to pass decrees that fostered the development only of those technologies that were proven to be of use to the nation as a whole, and importantly, we will return to the old days when things were built to last and easily repaired.

I would welcome a debate within emerging eco-nationalist/tribalist circles on technology. How can we develop  practical, working theories that strike a healthy balance between simple, socially-useful, hardy technology and the agrarian primacy which truly national societies necessitate?

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 by 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.