Friday, 8 July 2016
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 Alt-Right) 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.