Sunday, 25 September 2011

Hard truths and the Brave Old World

After I lost my faith in Anarcho-Marxism/Internationalism (and my concurrent flirtations with Left-nationalism) around a decade ago, I became, for a while, attracted to civic nationalism. It seemed reasonable enough and a sensible compromise in the reality of modern Britain. But by about seven years ago I had identified fully with ethno-nationalism in general and with National Anarchism as an ideal. Why? Using the English example, why should other ethno-cultural groups be expected to give up their own identities? The civic argument makes sense when thinking in terms of a cohesive nation-state, but an independent England wouldn't be able to turn the clock back in terms of immigrant communities. As the folks at England Devolve! say:

Integration by assimilation may work below some critical inflow threshold; above that threshold it is a recipe for the mutual destruction of cultures - and, in a market economy, for descent into C-ca C-la culture. Why should not a second or third generation Bangladeshi honour their roots, their great radical poets like Tagore, just as Anglian immigrants fifteen hundred years ago honoured their old England, recited the epic of Beowulf round their fires?

Which is the greater good - ethnopluralism or the cultural imperialism of civic nationalists? I find National Anarchism so appealing because it has room for every way of life, National Anarchists respect and value every ethnicity and culture as unique and equally worthy. We also acknowledge that if those who prefer to live in multi-ethnic and multicultural communities, well, then they can do so. While ethno-tribalists would see this as a great pity because it would mean that unique cultures and ethnicities will slowly fade, we do not dictate. In turn we demand that no one dictate to us. Ethnopluralists deeply value racial/ethnic/cultural distinctiveness and we wish our children to look like us and our ancestors. What our children then ultimately do is up to them...

Another reason why National Anarchism makes sense, at least in regard to England, is that the concept of some re-established nation state is a nonsense. Realistically, England will never again be the exclusive home to the indigenous. There's no prospect of large scale repatriation. Most BNP types accept this. Even if mass immigration was stopped tomorrow our cities and larger towns will remain multi-ethnic and then of course we will still have the problem of  Amercana and global culture to deal with! Of course, one of the cornerstones of nationalism is to each tribe a homeland. But sticking heads in the sand and demanding an all white Britain is a nonstarter. In the reality of modern Britain we need to downsize in terms of space, and besides, we ethno-nationalists will probably remain a minority! Present realities actually offer English National Anarchists and radical nationalists with an opportunity: to call for our cities to become the territories of the multi-culturalists and/or immigrant communities - and for rural areas to become redoubts for the indigenous, areas ripe for us to concentrate our attentions and to plan our projects.

Despite large sections of Britons seemingly happy to mix, we do see tribalism in action already: self-segregation in our cities and the 'white flight' phenomenon. Work toward national revolution in terms of outside the current system - as a rearguard action. We cannot seek to topple Leviathan. Begin the long, hard task of building our Brave Old Worlds - ethno-British community building out in the sticks* - a world of self-reliance, economic secession and increasing autonomy.

*rural areas