National-Anarchist Movement Manifesto – Part 5: Racial Separatism

“The struggle of our time is to concentrate, not to dissipate; to renew our association with traditional wisdom; to re-establish a vital connection between the individual and the race. It is, in a word, a struggle against liberalism.” – T.S. Eliot

AS far as the Left is concerned, National-Anarchism is simply a form of generic fascism or, according to some of the more paranoid theories, a Right-wing conspiracy devoted to the subversion of the Left itself. Needless to say, this interpretation is incorrect and National-Anarchists are vigorously opposed to statism and reaction in all forms. At the same time, the ‘national’ component of the term National-Anarchism centres on the fact that we are racial separatists. Needless to say, whilst we wish to form Anarchist communities that are ethnically organic we also oppose negative and counter-productive attitudes that encourage racial hatred or mindless violence. Race-based politics have nearly always been the domain of Right-wing organisations. But the fact that National-Anarchists are prepared to address this thorny issue should not cause people to wrongly dismiss us as yet another Right-wing organisation committed to promoting ‘white supremacy’, because National-Anarchism itself transcends both Left and Right. We are not supremacist, racist, statist or totalitarian. In addition, the German National-Socialists and Italian Fascists of the twentieth century allied themselves with large banking interests and betrayed the more ‘socialistic’ aspects of their original programmes. We are genuine Anarchists and proud of the fact.

Right-wing organisations that recommend either a tightening of current immigration laws or advocate that people of non-European descent be repatriated to their countries of ethnic origin, inevitably try to play the system at its own game and therefore always come off second-best. The reason for this is simple. Not only do they become seduced and then corrupted by the parliamentary establishment and end up having to compromise in order to make electoral progress, they also reinforce the nonsensical realities of the modern nation-state by completely failing to understand the important difference between citizenship and ethnicity. As we mentioned in the Introduction, the 1789 French Revolution transformed a nation of monarchical subjects into citizens of a new republic, but aside from the fact that the jingoistic watchwords of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ were never put into practice, it did become possible for individuals to become part of the nation through citizenship alone, rather than it being a result of their French ethnicity. This subtle change has now smoothed the way for modern capitalists to bring in economic migrants from the Third World who, allegedly, are just as ‘French’, ‘English’ or ‘German’ as those of us with a blood-lineage stretching back thousands of years. The ‘nations’ of today, therefore, are completely false. By giving credence to these artificial entities, the Right actually reinforces the liberal-democratic myth. However, due to mass immigration and shifting demographics, the populations of contemporary Western ‘nations’ are changing all the time and therefore the establishment makes a determined effort to constantly redefine the whole concept of nationhood. The multi-racial populations of Europe and North America cannot be regarded as ‘nations’ at all. People of non-European extraction may well be national citizens and hold a valid passport informing them that they have become ‘naturalised’, but, in reality, true nationhood is based on ethnic considerations. Names like ‘England’, ‘France’ and ‘Germany’ were once related to specific tribes and they were hardly Moorish, Bedouin or Zulu, so the fact that modern nation-states no longer reflect the ethnic identity of those original Indo-European tribes – or at least not entirely – makes the whole thing a total farce. Is northern Paris, with its large African population, still French? Are the Turks who have settled in Deutschland still German? Of course not.

Race defines who we are, it provides us with an identity and exists for a damn good reason. Without maintaining this essential diversity, something you can find throughout nature, the world will become increasingly drab, standardised and monotonous and the only people left on the planet will inevitably form part of a coffee-coloured mush of uniform humanity. National-Anarchists wish to preserve the different races of the earth and believe that multi-racialism ends with the dissolution of all races. Racial separatism is the only way that the organic balance can be restored. We realise that it is impossible to separate people in the large cities and towns, many of whom have racially-mixed children or wish to live among foreign populations, and neither should we attempt to do so. Indeed, we believe that the nation-states of the West are likely to collapse in the next few decades and that our respective countries will begin to fragment along racial and cultural lines. So there is clearly no need to treat people inhumanely by herding them into camps or deporting them in the way that the Nazis and Soviets did in the last century; something which ended disastrously for those concerned. National-Anarchists must form new communities based on their own racial and cultural values. The maxim of the future will be respect for others and unity in diversity.

Further reading:
Dr. John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press, 1976.
ENM, Forgotten Ideals: National-Socialism Before 1933, The Rising Press, 1996.
H.B. Isherwood, Racial Integration, Britons Publishing Co., 1966.
Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints, JR, 1973.
Douglas Reed, Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser, Jonathan Cape, 1940.
Douglas Reed, The Prisoner of Ottawa, Jonathan Cape, 1953.
Troy Southgate, Hitler: The Adjournment, Iron Sky Publishing, 2010.
Troy Southgate, Fascists, Nazis or Neither?: Ideological Credentials of the British Far Right, 1987-1994, The Palingenesis Project, 2010.
Lothrop Stoddard, Racial Realities in Europe, Historical Review Press, 1981.
Otto Strasser, Hitler and I, Jonathan Cape, 1940.
Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Bloomfield Books, 1976.

Advertisements

National-Anarchist Movement Manifesto – Part 4: Community Against the State

“There will be a qualitative transformation, a new living, life-giving revelation, a new heaven and a new earth, a young and mighty world in which all our present dissonances will be resolved into a harmonious whole.” – Mikhail Bakunin

“A good man and a good citizen are not exactly the same thing.” – Augustine

WE don’t have to rely on ministerial expense scandals, corruption in high places and lying politicians to convince us that parliamentary democracy is a sham; the system itself is rotten to the core.

In the past, the political process involved small groups of chieftains, warriors and holy men, each of whom would get together at regular intervals to discuss the needs and aspirations of their respective communities; particularly in relation to security and wellbeing. Politics has always been open to abuse, of course, but the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) tradition of the Witenagemot – also known as the Witan – was one of the more decentralised examples of how our ancestors would exert a form of political authority that had been channelled up from the grassroots. Those involved felt a sense of duty and responsibility to their people, quite unlike the politicians of today with their noses firmly stuck in the trough.

The Witenagemot began as a distinctly tribal phenomenon and even the meeting place for these folk gatherings were pretty indeterminate and sporadic. Unfortunately, however, in the wake of the Norman invasion of England in 1066 the Witenagemot was transformed into the more elitist Curia Regis, which served as an advisory body to the monarchy and soon became the first parliament. This subtle change made it very convenient for the Norman establishment to centralise power in the hands of an ever-diminishing number of people. After the English Civil War of the seventeenth century, the power of the monarchy was curtailed and parliament became more powerful. But rather than make it easier for ordinary people to express their opinions on the issues of the day, it became a tool for the landowners and the ruling classes.

The main problem with parliamentary democracy is the fact that it is representative. Indeed, whilst it is possible for people to vote for a political party and elect a politician from their immediate locality, that individual cannot be recalled or replaced for several years – depending on the country concerned and the parliamentary system in question. However, as we know only too well, politicians are not very good at keeping their promises and tend to get elected and then make a series of treacherous u-turns. So whilst a politician claims to represent your interests he or she actually represents the interests of a party. The term ‘party’ relates to a part of the whole, so despite a Member of Parliament supposedly representing people residing within a specific area, only a mere section of the community – i.e. those who voted for the MP in the first place – is able to have its wishes expressed. And that’s without taking into account that a minority of people even bother to vote in the first place, let alone the fact that politicians rarely bother to fulfil their promises!

Instead of representative democracy, through which politicians serve their own interests at the expense of the community on behalf of the state, National-Anarchists believe in participation. In other words, instead of voting for politicians every few years and then allowing them to go on and act precisely as they wish, we believe that people should take an active role in politics themselves. Not on a national scale, but within their own localities. Instead of politicians, National-Anarchists favour delegates, people who must either reflect the wishes of the people or be replaced immediately. This process would safeguard against corruption and unaccountability and make sure that people had a real say in the running of their own areas. This will mark a return, if you like, to the old Witenagemot system. And whilst National-Anarchists do not believe in applying centralised ‘rule’ we do accept that the actual form of decision-making is something that will be particular to each community. And community is the key word.

The fact that people have put so much power in the hands of the state has meant that the traditions and values of our communities are becoming eroded at an alarming rate. National laws and constitutions are a relatively modern phenomenon and to suppose that humans are incapable of organising themselves into close-knit communities is to hand over total responsibility to the state. Think about it, do you really wish to leave things to the businessmen, the politicians, the councillors, the judges, the bailiffs, the tax collectors, the landlords, the soldiers, the police and the teachers, or would you prefer to see power, wealth and arms restored to the community where it belongs? The less we depend on the state and its institutions, the more irrelevant it will become. Once that happens, of course, it will become superfluous to requirements and will be swept aside. We fight, therefore, for the communityagainst the state.

Further reading:
Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, Grafton, 1976.
Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange, Penguin, 1984.
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Grafton, 1977.
Peter Kropotkin, The State: Its Historic Role, Freedom Press, 1987.
Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, Freedom Press, 1998.
George Orwell, Nineteen-Eighty-Four, Penguin, 1983.
Muammar al-Qathafi, The Green Book, World Centre for Research, 1977.

National-Anarchist Movement Manifesto – Part 3: The Failure of the Left

“The only economic difference between a herd of subservient Russians and a mob of free Englishmen pouring into a factory of a morning is that the latter are exploited by private profit, the former by the State in communal fashion. The motive of the Russian masters is to establish a comfortable bureaucracy for themselves and their friends out of the proletariat labour. The motive of the English masters is to increase their private fortunes out of proletariat labour. But we want something different from either.” – Hilaire Belloc

“Karl Marx, who spent most of his life in the reading room of the British Museum Library, probably came as little into contact with nature as it was possible to do and still stay alive. The result was that his philosophy ignored everything not human absolutely completely. He was aware (just) that food came from the country. He was aware that there must be some people out there somewhere who grew it. It was his object to rescue these imaginary people from what he called ‘the idiocy of rural life’. What is that to the idiocy of spending all your life in the British Museum Library?” – John Seymour

THE theories of Karl Marx that had appeared in the mid-nineteenth century, eventually came to fruition during the 1917 Russian Revolution. Across the course of ninety of the most brutal and bloodied years in human history, the murderous communist experiment centred in East Europe and the Far East became just as hated and despised as its capitalistic twin in the West.

Modern Leftists allege that after the death of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1924, their revolution was hijacked by Josef Stalin. However, it remains a fact that the ever-popular hero of the anti-Stalinist brigade, Leon Trotsky, had been funded by Wall Street financiers. The common ground, of course, was not ideology but ethnicity. Wealthy Jewish bankers in New York had few qualms about assisting their Bolshevik counterparts in Tsarist Russia, especially when it meant there was a chance of removing the Russian monarchy and creating new markets ripe for exploitation. The racial link between capitalism and communism is irrefutable. In 1918 the Bolshevik Party was controlled almost entirely by revolutionary activists of Jewish (Khazar) extraction. According to Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent for the Times newspaper, “out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State, there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Czech, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews. If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of the assassination of the Russian Imperial Family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration.”[Les Derniers Jours des Romanof, Thornton Butterworth, 1920, p. 29]. Wilton’s remarks are validated by Hilaire Belloc, who, in 1937, wrote that “As for anyone that does not know that the present revolutionary Bolshevist movement is Jewish in Russia, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppressions of our deplorable press.” [G. K. ‘s Weekly, February 4th, 1937]. Winston Churchill also noted the decidedly Jewish character of Bolshevism in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8th, 1920, when he said “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.” [Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8th, 1920].

Despite the fact that early Anarchism had so much to offer those living beneath the heel of the old European monarchies and, consequently, the new capitalist class that emerged from the Reformation and Enlightenment, the growth of the Left soon led to Anarchism being completely infiltrated. The groups that direct the anti-capitalist ‘movement’ are usually led by Left-wing dogmatists and control-freaks who like to claim that National-Anarchists are trying to subvert Anarchism for their own ends. But this is false. As we have said elsewhere, time and time again, we are not ‘racists’ or ’white supremacists’ with some kind of secret agenda, we have formulated a programme to combat the continuing degeneration of Western society and ensure that things like diversity, identity and cultural heritage survive the impending collapse.

Sadly, however, most people on the Left will not rest until they can organise every minute aspect of people’s lives. It is a self-perpetuating disease. This is why Leftists talk of the ‘right to work’, when – as Bob Black rightly points out – the real problem is work itself. The Left, just like the totalitarian Right, refuses to tolerate anyone who tries to opt out of its vision of an all-inclusive society. Some of us, however, want no part of this and will only ever be ‘socialists’ among ourselves and with our own kind. In this respect, we are an elitist Movement holding firm to the notion of meritocracy. What we do not accept, however, is that everybody is ‘equal’.

The issue of egalitarianism is one of the main stumbling blocks of the contemporary Left and stems from John Locke’s ill-conceived theories about the tabula rasa. This is the ludicrous idea that humans enter the world as a ‘blank slate’ and soak up everything around them like a sponge. But we are not merely influenced by environmental factors or the impression made upon us by our immediate surroundings, we also inherit many genetic traits from our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. To some extent, then, we have already been shaped before we even leave the womb and that can have a big impact on the kind of people we eventually become. The socio-economic climate in which someone is born can have an impact on the way they develop, of course, but genetic factors far outweigh the environmental considerations and should not be ignored.

To suppose, therefore, that humans are somehow ‘equal’ is quite ridiculous. On the other hand, this does not mean that people who are less intelligent or physically handicapped should be treated with disdain or cruelty. Those who display a superior ability in certain areas have a responsibility to those who exhibit less. Humanity – like the rest of nature – is hierarchical and the Left’s progressive fantasies about a world in which everyone acquires the same rank, inevitably manifests itself as a levelling process in which oppressive laws are used to drag the strong down to the level of the most weak and resentful. National-Anarchists believe in encouraging people to express their full potential, not in forcing them to sink to a common denominator.

Left-wing politics inevitably descend into barbarity and totalitarianism and this is why capitalism has been allowed to prosper to the extent that it has. Whenever the Left ascends to power, it simply administers capitalism in a slightly modified form; through the bureaucratic organs of the state. Left-wing strategy, however, has often been highly effective and there is no reason why tactics such as entryism, industrial sabotage, picket lines, fundraising and community action should not be used by National-Anarchists. This is why we have also recommended several texts dealing with Derek Hatton’s Militant and other organisations that have successfully infiltrated both local councils and the ranks of their opponents.

To conclude, National-Anarchists reject both state and private capitalism and wish to ensure that power begins at the grassroots and is channelled upwards. This vision is a long way from the dehumanisation of the Left-wing ‘workers state’, in which people are portrayed, not as individuals, but as economic units ripe for exploitation. Make no mistake, the Left does not offer an alternative of any kind and should be rejected.

Further reading:
Blake Baker, The Far Left: An Expose of the Extreme Left in Britain, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1981.
Mikhail Bakunin, Marxism, Freedom and the State, Freedom Press, 1998.
Bob Black, The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, Loompanics Unlimited, 1985.
James Callaghan, The Far Left in British Politics, Basil Blackwell, 1987.
Michael Crick, Militant, Faber and Faber, 1984.
Rev. Denis Fahey, The Rulers of Russia, anonymous publisher, 1984.
Derek Hatton, Inside Left: The Story So Far, Bloomsbury, 1988.
Douglas Hyde, I Believed: Autobiography of a Former British Communist, Reprint Society, 1952.
Arthur Koestler, Darkness At Noon, Vintage, 2005.
George Orwell, Animal Farm, Penguin, 1951.
Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Veritas, 1981.
Nigel Young, An Infantile Disorder: The Crisis and Decline of the New Left, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.
Yevgeny Zamyatin, We, EOS, 1999.

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.

National-Anarchist Movement Manifesto – Part 1: Anti Zionism

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

ALTHOUGH people around the world are quite aware of the disproportionate influence of Jewish pressure groups within the various governmental and mass media appendages of Europe and North America, most of which are completely under their control, few are prepared to come out and say so for fear of persecution or incurring the usual threats of ‘anti-Semitism’. It is a fact, however, that ever since ambitious European monarchs first plunged us into the financial vortex of the burgeoning international debt system, an elite coterie of Jews and their allies have effectively manipulated world events for their own interests. This was achieved, not simply through usury, but also as a result of Jewish involvement in the bootlegging and criminal racketeering of 1930s America, something which eventually went on to finance the Zionist takeover of the Hollywood film industry and, by 1948, brought about the establishment of the bandit-state of Israel. But Zionism is not Jewish nationalism, as some like to claim, it is Jewish imperialism.

National-Anarchists do not ‘hate’ ordinary Jews and neither do we wish to undermine them as a people with their own unique religious and cultural identity, but what we will not tolerate, however, is the ongoing enslavement of our people by a minority of vampiric parasites intent on carving up the world’s resources in an attempt to create a single, global market. We believe that the way to combat Zionism is to continue to expose the hypocrisy of those who, on the one hand, use the Nazi ‘holocaust’ to evoke sympathy, and, on the other, brutally repress the long-suffering Palestinians in their own land. Over 90% of modern Jews are descended from a semi-Turkic people who, faced with the sectarian intolerance of their encroaching Christian Orthodox and Muslim neighbours, converted to Judaism en masse when they were part of the old Khazar empire that spanned the area between the Black and Caspian seas during the eighth century. Indeed, they have no authentic racial or territorial connection with the Middle East at all. National-Anarchists support the Palestinian intifada, as well as Jewish groups like Neturai Karta and various other opponents of Zionism who are seeking to expose the multifarious lies and distortions perpetuated by the Israeli regime, as well as its intelligence wing, Mossad, and the organisational nerve centre which continues to operate at the very heart of the United States Government. Zionism is an enemy of all peoples and must be vanquished.

Further reading:
Ivor Benson, The Zionist Factor, Veritas, 1987.
Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Croon Helm, 1983.
Andrew & Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert Relationship, Harper Collins, 1991.
Executive Intelligence Review, The Ugly Truth About the Anti-Defamation League, EIR, 1992.
Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, Macmillan, 1977.
Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace?, Veritas, 1983.
Victor Ostrovsky & Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer, St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion, Veritas, 1985.

National-Anarchist Movement Manifesto: Introduction

by Troy Southgate

“The only means of strengthening one’s intellect is to make up one’s mind about nothing; to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts.” – John Keats
IT may sound hard to believe, but there was a time when ordinary people had more control over their own lives and inhabited a world in which the vast majority of individuals were able to live in close-knit communities with their own kind, pursue a more rural existence away from the shallow environs of the average shopping mall, hunt or grow food for their own consumption, make conversation and music in a society without television or computer games, and even pass on traditional values to their own children without the pernicious influence of Establishment schools and the mass media. So what went wrong?
Between 500 and 850 CE, not long after the despised Roman occupation of Britain came to an abrupt end, the incoming Germanic tribes settled down and gradually began to add their own flavour to the island. Before long, it became comparatively decentralised and was eventually broken up into seven distinct kingdoms. Things were far from perfect, of course, but as a result of this crucial balance of power the Angle, Saxon and Jutish tribes were able to enjoy a large degree of self-determination. When the Normans arrived in 1066, however, the newly-created English nation was transformed into a land of serfs and, as the Domesday Book proves beyond any doubt, ruthlessly exploited for its valuable resources and things were never to be the same again.
By the time the Middle Ages came along, imperialistic adventurers like Edward I and other monarchical warmongers across Europe were borrowing huge amounts of money from Jewish financiers and plunging the country into mounting debt. But whilst Edward himself found a convenient excuse to deport these usurious individuals from England’s shores, thus saving himself from almost certain bankruptcy, by the sixteenth century events were changing dramatically as the Protestant Reformation swept away the existing socio-economic infrastructure and inevitably caused thousands of people to be expelled from the monastic hospitals, religious almshouses and other places of refuge which, at that time, were maintained by the Catholic Church. According to the radical social commentator, William Cobbett, prior to the Reformation the word ‘poverty’ had not entered the English language.
Along with the great religious changes of the sixteenth century, came the artistic flowering of the Renaissance and the less positive values of the humanist Enlightenment. Whilst Christianity had served as the prevailing current in England for many hundreds of years, the new ideas sweeping into England from the rest of Europe now positioned man firmly at the centre of the universe and therefore it was inevitable that spirituality – let alone Christianity – would rapidly decline and be replaced by the materialistic values of a new mercantile order. These profound changes, which led, in England, to the seventeenth-century Civil War and the triumph of Cromwell’s parliamentarians over the monarchy of Charles I, soon paved the way for the French Revolution.
In 1789, the French monarchy came under attack from a resentful bourgeoisie and Louis XVI fell victim, like many others, to the diligent blade of the guillotine. Once the pseudo-revolutionaries of the late-eighteenth century came to power, the lives of ordinary French people soon worsened and the transient values of the brutal regime were shown to be entirely false. Indeed, following the inauguration of a new ruling class the organic ties of the past were completely extinguished as racial, cultural and spiritual bonds were considered obsolete and thoroughly discouraged. This, of course, was the first step towards the globalisation process of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and the ideas of the French Revolution went on to lead to the growth of many destructive ideologies such as nationalism, communism and liberal-democracy.
Meanwhile, back in the British Isles, an explosion of scientific technology allowed a combination of aristocrats and nouveau-riche to harness the indomitable force that led to the Industrial Revolution. This resulted in the displacement of the country’s rural communities, as millions of people left the land and moved to the expanding cities to work in the soulless mills and factories. This strategy of mass enslavement saw people forced down mines and up chimneys to make profits for the fatcats at the helm. By the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the gap between rich and poor had widened considerably and, if you found yourself at the wrong end of the class spectrum, you inevitably ended up in the workhouse. The capitalist disease had spread across Britain, and the world, like a cancer.
Throughout this period, wealthy banking families like the Rothschilds and others were able to seize control of the purse-strings of various European countries, as well as to foment wars and revolutions for their own ends. Various protest movements attempted to fight for justice and better conditions, but in 1917 the communists took power in Moscow and were hailed as a powerful ‘alternative’ to capitalism, despite going on to murder and repress hundreds of millions of people in both Russia, Eastern Europe and the Far East. The reality, of course, is that whilst capitalism exploited ordinary people for private gain, communism was simply a form of state-capitalism administered by a new ruling class. To make matters worse, communism provided the capitalists, as well as the national-capitalists of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, with a new impetus and thus smoothed the way for the victory of liberal-democracy and the economic trading bloc known as the West. The rest, as they say, is history.
What you are about to read is designed to give you a taste of what life could be like in decentralised, National-Anarchist communities. Bear in mind, however, that this is only a very brief outline and that we have provided a series of reading lists to help you explore the various topics in more depth. Once you have acquainted yourself with our position on various issues, you will find information relating to how you can get involved with the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM). Our job is to offer you a vision of a brighter future. If you like what you see, you can help us make that future a reality.

Further reading:
John Burnett, Useful Toil: Autobiographies of Working People from the 1820’s to the 1920’s, Routledge, 1994.
William Cobbett, A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, Pan Books, 1988.
Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Penguin, 2009.
Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, Inner Traditions, 1995.
Charles Levinson, Vodka-Cola, Gordon & Cremonesi, 1980.
Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Oxford University Press, 1991.
Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford University Press, 1971.
Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality, The Noontide Press, 2008.
Tomislav Sunic, Homo Economicus: Child of the Postmodern Age, 1st Books, 2007.
Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Penguin, 2002.
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, The Noontide Press, 1992.

 

Welf Herfurth: “A life in the Political Wilderness”

http://vimeo.com/15115009