National-Anarchist Movement Manifesto – Part 2: Anarchism

“The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual.” -Mikhail Bakunin

“I must create a system or be enslaved by another man’s. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.” – William Blake

“Society seeks order in Anarchy.” – Pierre Joseph Proudhon

IN the eyes of many people, the word ‘Anarchism’ conjures up lurid images of a scowling Johnny Rotten waxing lyrical about unleashing chaos and destruction upon contemporary society. Anarchists are supposed to be anything from long-haired nihilists and hedonistic drug fiends to happy-clappy utopians completely out of touch with the real world. The nineteenth-century representation of the average Anarchist, at least according to those who set out to lampoon or vilify it in the controlled media, was that of a stereotypical madman, invariably bearded or bedraggled, clutching a bomb or stick of explosive. But real Anarchism has nothing to do with decay and degeneration, or with mindless violence and terror, it can actually provide a real and tangible alternative to the ongoing decline of Western civilisation.

Anarchy originates from the Greek term an archos, meaning ‘no rule’ or ‘without rule’. This should not imply, however, that Anarchists believe in disorder, because in this case the term ‘rule’ is associated with the manner in which a society is organised in accordance with a specific form of behaviour or conduct. So to suggest that a community should have ‘no rule’, therefore, does not mean that it should descend into utter chaos, because the rule itself relates to an appreciation of the natural order and refuses to acknowledge the constitutional, man-made laws or customs laid down by empires, states and other forms of administrative or governmental control. But this does not mean that Anarchist communities are incapable of adhering to a set of beliefs, values or principles, on the contrary, it simply means that natural order takes precedence at all times. Indeed, natural order is the most organic form of social organisation on the planet, because it allows man to live in the way that nature itself intended. Not as wild animals or in blind ignorance, because man finds himself in possession of a superior intelligence, but certainly as far as satisfying our most basic needs, instincts and desires are concerned. Laws and systems seek to enslave us, but within a more natural and conducive setting we can fulfil our true destinies and rediscover that long-forgotten bond with the environment.

Instead of labouring beneath a system in which ‘rule’ is forcibly imposed, National-Anarchists believe in natural authority. Hierarchy is a basic fact of nature, but something which is quite different to the artificial class system that can be found throughout contemporary Western societies. Leadership, for example, should be encouraged, but it also comes with responsibility and within an Anarchist or tribal context the chief or alpha male is only as strong as the community. In the words of Rudyard Kipling, ‘the strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack’. Unlike the huge gulf between those who govern and those who are governed today, the two are inseparable and necessarily complimentary.

When Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1848, the workers and peasants of Europe believed that they had at last found an answer to the greed and ruthlessness of capitalism. But Marx was advocating a crude form of totalitarianism which he called ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, something which merely led to the creation of a new ruling class and, thus, the perpetuation of mass wage-slavery. But the communists were not the only ‘opponents’ of capitalism, around the same time a Frenchman by the name of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had launched an attack on both capitalism and communism, firmly believing that the latter undermined human individuality. Consequently, several Russian Anarchists, among them Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, also tried to expose the futility of Marxism and, instead, wrote of a future decentralised world of collectives in which people could have more autonomy and express their own identity. During the twentieth century, however, the ranks of Anarchism were infiltrated by communists and what began as a noble ideal characterised by a belief in freedom and identity degenerated into Left-wing bureaucracy and the kind of political correctness that we are so familiar with today. There is no question that the Left has dragged the proud banners of Anarchy through the mud and that Anarchism’s image has been severely tainted as a result, but this is precisely why the world is now ready for a brand new ideal: National-Anarchism. But what distinguishes National-Anarchism from the wider Anarchist phenomenon and what does it have to offer?

Our vision, in a nutshell, is one of small village-communities in which people occupy their own space in which to live in accordance with their own principles. These principles depend on the nature of the people forming the community in the first place, because the last thing we wish to do is impose a rigid or dogmatic system of any kind. In theory, therefore, National-Anarchists can be Christian or pagan, farmers or artisans, heterosexual or homosexual. The important thing, however, is for National-Anarchist communities to be self-sufficient. They should also be mutualist, rather than coercive. In other words, people should be free to come and go at all times. If you are unhappy with the unifying principle of one National-Anarchist community, then simply relocate to another. On the other hand, communities must be respectful of their neighbours and be prepared to defend themselves from outsiders.

Finally, contrary to the increasingly desperate smears of our enemies on both the Right and Left of the political spectrum, we are not using Anarchism as a convenient tactic or to conceal a secret fascistic agenda of any kind – we are deadly serious. In addition, as mutualists we abide by the ‘live and let live’ philosophy. People are different and have different values. In modern, pluralistic societies, those values tend to conflict and it is inevitable that some values will override or perhaps even eradicate others. We think certain values are worth preserving for future generations and this is why we wish to create a climate in which this is possible. National-Anarchism, therefore, is Anarchism sui generis. An Anarchy of its own kind.

Further reading:
Victor Anduril, Anarchic Philosophy, The Rising Press, 2000.
Clifford Harper, Anarchy: A Graphic Guide, Camden Press, 1987.
Richard Hunt, To End Poverty: The Starvation of the Periphery by the Core, Alternative Green, 1997.
Ernst Junger, Eumeswil, Quartet Books, 1995.
Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Harper Perennial, 2007.
James J. Martin, Men against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1927-1908, Ralph Myles Publisher, 1970.
Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, Rebel Press, 1993.
Henry David Thoreau, Walden and Other Writings, Bantam Books, 1989.
Benjamin R. Tucker, Instead Of A Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One, Elibron Classics, 2005.
George Woodcock (Ed.), The Anarchist Reader, Fontana, 1977.
George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements, Pelican, 1986.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. I’ve more often seen the etymology of “anarchy” as ‘no ruler’ instead of ‘no rule’, and this sense is more relevant and seems to better reflect modern anarchists.

  2. It is big capital and its political bedfellow, western bourgeois liberalism, that today disseminate the idea of an Economic New World Order (the dialectical evolution of 19th Century bourgeois capitalism) giving free reign to multinational corporations, financiers and banks, to plunder the resources of the world’s cultural landscapes without any restraints placed upon them by sovereign peoples and their laws.

    The drive towards this New World Order is advanced colonialism in its most insidious form. Where, in the past, colonial conquerors first had to overthrow by force, disease and trickery, today, it is the culture and resources of entire nations and regions they seek to overthrow, with the assistance of advanced technology and the mass media. The alliance between big capital and western bourgeois liberalism includes all Labor Parties and Unions and the great majority of moderate left and right wing political organizations.

    Where this liberalism has been imposed, sanctioned and controlled by elites (of the UN, the Unelected European Union and successive European and US governments) there inevitably follows a wave of exploitation ( financial and industrial) that not only depletes the resources of regional peoples but attacks the root of their culture, implemented with legal force, political subterfuge and arrogant certitude, the goal being the biological and economic leveling of all cultures towards the single monoculture of the ‘world consumer’.

    Both multiculturalism, rigorously defended by the extreme left, and the opposing doctrines of nationalism, rigorously defended by the extreme right, serve these controlling interests. The right, being just as stupid by nature as the left, and a little less informed, have swallowed the bait, their campaigns of obnoxious racist diatribe calling for an end to immigration based on racist stereotypes bound up with hateful notions superiority and inferiority, that are repugnant to decent people whose natural inclination is to then turn towards the main stream bourgeois liberal political parties for ‘just’ policies, which, on the surface, at least, do not appear to discriminate against people on the basis of race or culture, but are designed, in the long term, to bring about the entire destruction of their culture – of all culture – and to replace it with an unbridled global financial and industrial complex totally unfettered by national boundaries and law.

    Yours respectfully,
    Alex


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s