Thursday, 20 June 2013

The right to be different


As far as the West is concerned, the 20th century can be remembered as an age of MACRO-ideology - i.e. universalist ideas pitted against one another: Liberalism and Free Trade, social democracy, Marxism and fascism. To a large extent it was all all nothing - Democracy versus dictatorship, state ownership versus private, free trade versus protectionism. Today these clashes have become a phony war, because whatever the outcome all we end up with is mass consumerism and alienation. The atomisation of society, rampant individualism. Economic growth and production for the sake of it. Societies with no cohesion or common goal.

National Anarchists recognise that ways of life should be about horses for courses and choice. But we are not really offered that from the globalisers in the West - just more homogenised, identikit monoculture. We also recognise that there is no real chance of challenging and defeating the global order. We have to 'opt out' of it as best we can. National Anarchists seek to make the 21st century one of increasing MICRO-ideologies i.e. pluralist ideas and ways of life which recognise each others right to exist and which wish to see the development of practical counter-cultural mores. Ultimately this would involve socio-economic and cultural networks leading to the establishment of small, tribal intentional communities. These could be as self-sufficient as possible, but could if they wished work in federation and co-operation with other tribal communities as they would mutually see fit. This scenario could be acted out among any communities or networks that take National Anarchism as a guiding principal. Therefore I see no reason why a Christian tribal community couldn't co-operate with a Muslim one (trade/barter/skills and resource sharing) or an English nationalist community with a black nationalist one or whatever. They would have the same goals albeit differently manifested, and of course an opposition to mainstream society and putting tribalism above everything else. Of course, the practicalities and legalities of the establishment of tribal communities will have to be addressed be those involved. National Anarchists and other radical nationalists know taking this road won't be easy.

National Anarchism is a pluralistic ideology that wishes to see all ways of life and identities (within broad limits) thrive. One sticking point for some is the issue of race. Many (most?) National Anarchists see race as one of the core factors to identity - and it is identity and everyone's right to their perceived own - which is at the core of National Anarchism. National Anarchists are not racial or ethnic supremacists and I would expect that all National Anarchists treat every human being with respect, courtesy and kindness. I try to treat everyone I meet with the kindness they deserve no matter who they are and what they look like (no I don't want a medal!) But I do understand those who, if they wish, want to live and associate among people who share their heritage and origin because they feel most comfortable with the familiar, others like themselves. It might have something to do with psychology (I'm no expert). No doubt to many race just isn't an issue and National Anarchists should be okay with this. Many people feel comfortable living alongside and associating with people of all races and this is fine. Certainly two different people of different races can share much in common: language, morals, religion, interests and tastes, sense of humour. But if skin colour is a factor for some in relation to bonding, kinship and social interaction then I respect that. Ultimately National Anarchists champion the right to be different - if you are not hurting anyone then what's the problem?

Obviously a fine line needs to be drawn by all radical nationalists about how much effort they devote to building counter-cultural lifestyles and how much they involve themselves agitating in the mainstream. At the same time, an intentional tribalist community could, if the need arises, subsidise its income by operating as a business, serving it's sympathetic periphery as well as those communities it is in federation with. So for example, an eco-nationalist smallholding which supports say three couples and their kids (who may or may not be home schooled) could, when the need arises, sell its surplus produce to the wider local 'mainstream' nationalist community - possibly through some nationalist business register. As a result the wider nationalist community becomes more independent, stronger and the merits of eco-nationalism are presented to mainstream nationalists in a positive and practical way. Likewise for all other communities and their supporters - green, red or whatever. Will these enterprises have to pay taxes to the neo-liberal governments? Well yes, but the advantages outweight the disadvantages I think.