Saturday, 7 January 2012

ABOUT NA Shropshire

“There's no longer any left or right. There's the system and the enemies of the system.” - Eduard Limonov



We urge you to please check out the NA FAQ HERE, the below links, and especially Flávio Gonçalves excellent short article, 'National-Anarchism: The Way of the Future' and National-Anarchism In A Nutshell which is an equally impressive text by J. Bates. At the end of each section of the Manifesto, their is a highly recommended reference list for further reading.

"Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric." - Bertrand Russell

Formed in the late winter of 2011, the Shropshire faction of the National Anarchist Movement is a collective of like minded individuals, predominantly at this point 'lone wolves', that are centred in, but not limited to, Telford and Shrewsbury. We aim to spread the National Anarchist message throughout the county and work, from resistance to revolution, to total liberation!
"Be bold and courageous. When you look back on your life, you'll regret the things you didn't do more than the ones you did." - H. Jackson Brown
To learn more about National Anarchism we URGE you to read the 'Frequently Asked Questions' list, the National Anarchist articles linked at the end of the FAQ list, and especially the National Anarchist Movement (N-AM) Manifesto on the official N-AM website, here.
"The world we want to transform has already been worked on by history and is largely hollow. We must nevertheless be inventive enough to change it and build a new world. Take care and do not forget ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos, Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) We urge you to open your mind and take in ALL the information we provide on the National Anarchist perspective before either dismissing us or joining us. If you do indeed gradually wade through what we ask and digest it in your own time you will see that what we are and what we offer is a very different picture than that painted of us by the controlled media and the facistic stormtroopers of the Antifa bigot cult. True knowledge IS the key, NOT censorship and hate!
"When we talk about understanding, surely it takes place only when the mind listens completely - the mind being your heart, your nerves, your ears - when you give your whole attention to it." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
When we choose not to stand up, speak out, and act against 
tyranny, oppression, and injustice, whether from a singular personage or from a Multinational Corporation, the State, or ruling political regime, we are in fact approving of it.
"When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right." - Victor Hugo
We understand that government has failed, that 'democracy' is a lie, and that the political system as a whole is a fools errand and is designed to give the impression that individual participation by so-called representation is a way of making change. This is a lie. We believe in the community and real social change. We understand that with the realisation that democracy in Britain, and the West as a whole, is a fallacy, and as more and more people turn their backs on this false system, (whose sole benefactor is the New World Order and their globalist agenda which they can only thrive on with you believing it works) it will completely collapse. 
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” - President Franklin D. Roosevelt
We are poised for this collapse and prepared for the uprising.
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." - Morpheous, The Matrix
We are beyond Left and Right, against Statism, we stand for total decentralisation and localised community autonomy, distributism, land reform and a real social alternative. We believe in power to the people, and before profit. We are against capitalism, globalism, jingoist imperialism, Zionism and racial hate and supremacism.
"By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe." - Faust
We are National Anarchists and we are the future. We ask you to join the resistance and become the revolution! For total liberation! For the community - against the state!
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill -- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill -- you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." - Morpheous, The Matrix
The National Anarchist perspective is open to all races and sexes. Are you ready to join us? Are you read to be the future? 
"Congratulate yourself if you have broken the monotony of a conventional age" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Resistance! Revolution! Liberation!
Rise! Rebel! Revolt!
"We are born of the night. We live in it. We will die in it. But tomorrow there will be light for those now crying in the night, for those to whom day is denied, to whom death is a gift, to whom life is forbidden." - Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos, Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN)
“I demand only one thing: that every tribe, great and small, be given the full opportunity and right to act according to its will.” - Mikhail Bakunin
“I feel myself always the patriot of all oppressed fatherlands. . . Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principal of freedom.” - Mikhail Bakunin
We urge you to please check out the NA FAQ HERE, the below links, and especially Flávio Gonçalves excellent short article, 'National-Anarchism: The Way of the Future' and National-Anarchism In A Nutshell which is an equally impressive text by J. Bates.

Official NA Movement Website
Official NA Movement Manifesto (Also in Russian)
Official NA Movement Facebook Group


National-Anarchists seek to establish decentralised, village communities in which people can occupy their own areas in which to live according to their own principles. These areas can take on a variety of different forms, offering people a real alternative to the dogmatic and stagnant ideologies of both 'left' and 'right'. Ours is a realistic and tangible form of escapism, a network of total environments to nurture and maintain the great diversity of mankind. Some of us also support racial separatism, but we remain opposed to race hatred and supremacy. Our Anarchism is also genuine and therefore we reject Fascism and National-Socialism in their entirety.

"Protest is when I say this does not please me. Resistance is when I ensure what does not please me occurs no more." - Ulrike Meinhof

N-AM Manifesto (Also in Russian)At the end of each section of the Manifesto, their is a
highly recommended reference list for further reading.





We urge you to please check out the NA FAQ below, the following links, and especially Flávio Gonçalves excellent short article, 'National-Anarchism: The Way of the Futureand National-Anarchism In A Nutshell which is an equally impressive text by J. Bates. At the end of each section of the Manifesto, their is a highly recommended reference list for further reading.

Official NA Movement Website
Official NA Movement Manifesto (Also in Russian)
Official NA Movement Facebook Group

Who are the National Anarchists?

National Anarchists come from many different backgrounds and work in many different occupations. Many are from regular working class backgrounds, some are professionals, others artists and musicians. Many National Anarchists come from Left or Right political backgrounds who are fed up with the dogmas and political movement they were involved with in the past. Usually National-Anarchists recognise that something isn’t “right,” the lack of traction in creating a true social alternative in our community or country. Others are tired of worn out dogmas, infantile pandering to certain groups, and to the globalist agenda of the political status quo, or all truth be told, know that groups they were associated with in the past are hopelessly unable to do the things that can make a difference in today’s world. They want to create a true social alternative to the globalist agenda of communist-hijacked political movements.

So just what is it that National Anarchism advocate?
Does it really aim at a stateless society? or simply the abolition of the existing state and the formation of an ‘organic’ state from below, i.e. one rooted in the interests of the community rather than tied to say capital interests or in the grip of anti-community ideologies like multiculturalism and egalitarianism.

We advocate that society should be run with as little or no government as possible and on an ethnic and cultural basis. Communities can also be organized by religion or sexual orientation: the only limit is the imagination and will of the participants. We stress the importance of autonomous local communities and oppose globalization in all its forms.

We are upfront and honest about our beliefs in a way that is unsettling for our critics. We don’t bullshit people by telling them how they should live their lives or claim to have all the answers for today’s problems. National-Anarchy is essentially a method of operation, strategy, and tactics, to outflank global capitalism on the periphery and neutralise those who would destroy our culture and identity to be replaced with a globalised consumer humanism.

National-Anarchism advocates a totally stateless society. Not a society that we intend to impose on everyone else, but a series of decentralised organic communities that will be entirely anarchistic in nature. Our ideal differs from mainstream anarchism in that we allow groups to live in mono-ethnic communities if they so desire. Not for the purpose of hatred (or supremacism) but the utilisation of space that allows cultures to live with whom they want. If people want to live in multicultural societies elsewhere that is fine with us and we don’t have a problem with that.

Some critics of National Anarchism say that your ideology is nonsense or an oxymoron. Is National-Anarchism just smoke and mirrors?

Certainly not. It’s very convenient for people to say that National-Anarchism is just ‘fascism’ under another name, but we are defiantly opposed to centralisation and bureaucratic fascism in all forms. In fact the primary characteristic of National Anarchism is its anarchism and not its racial perspective. It is only at the next level down that one finds the racial separatist position, although that, too, lies side by side with our anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal and pro-green strategy. Therefore National-Anarchism is a form of anarchism sui generis, an anarchism of it’s own.

I don’t like the term “National” Anarchism, explain why you use it.

We use the term because that was the term given by Troy Southgate who was key in developing these ideas in their contemporary form. Getting caught up in labels is unimportant, call it whatever you want for all we care. Alternative names some people like are “Tribal Anarchists” or “Folkish Anarchists.” What matters is that we are National-Anarchists against the State and liberal-Democracy.

Then how are the National Anarchists going to organize the economy?

As a general rule National Anarchists are opposed to capitalism and communism. They seek instead a Third Way of meeting community interests and putting people before profits. Liberal democratic consumerism is the antithesis of the kind of life we wish to have. Liberal democracy, and capitalism, is hegemony over local community interests. Contrary to the hyper scarcity and abundance that characterize capitalist and socialist economies, we advocate an economy of scale that promotes self sufficiency, community needs (such as health care), and a progressive social system that puts people first.
Mutualism and Syndicalism are promoted by some members.

Why ‘national’ anarchism? Surely nationalism is incompatible with anarchic principles? 

National-Anarchists do not support nationalism in the sense that we look to artificial nation-states or borders and boundaries. In a more realistic sense we are Indo-Europeans and therefore part of an ethnic heritage that includes not only Europe but also countries like Iran, Afghanistan, India and Tibet. Indeed, we base our ‘national’ outlook upon a much broader interpretation, not on the limited parochial attitudes of nineteenth-century imperialism. When we speak of nationhood we are referring to its tribal and organic implications. Therefore our concept of the word ‘national’ relates not to territory but to the racial identity which is a natural facet of all peoples.

So do you support some kind of Eurasian superstate?

No. We believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities. However, given that National-Anarchist communities will always be regarded by the Establishment as some kind of fifth column - and, in all likelihood, infiltrated and crushed - it may be necessary to migrate to areas which currently lie completely outside of Western jurisdiction.

But what if people disagree with your ideas?

Fine. We have no problem with that. As long as they do not prevent us from occupying our own space and land in which to live according to our own principles and beliefs. Attempting to interfere with our way of life or seeking to prevent us from living in our own anarchistic communities is fascist and authoritarian. We do not wish to persecute others or bend them to our will. But if our opponents are not prepared to respect our freedom and establish their own communities elsewhere, we will not hesitate to defend ourselves accordingly.

How do National-Anarchists intend to pursue their objectives?

The Capitalist System is dependent upon the constant acquisition of resources for its own survival. In years to come, however, International Capitalism will slowly disintegrate in the same way that the Roman Empire - which also specialised in expansionism and the control of the periphery - finally collapsed under the weight of its own greed and ambition. Therefore we must hasten its demise by encouraging revolution on the periphery and, thus, depriving the urban centres of their valuable resources. Once we empower the exploited peoples in the so-called Third World, we can finally slice off the tentacles of Capitalism one by one until the very core of political and economic power is completely eradicated. Destroy from within and create from without, that is the very essence of National-Anarchism.

But the centres of power are mainly in Europe and North America, so what will become of the West?

Who cares! The whole concept of Western civilisation has been built upon exploitation and greed. Moreover, it is an historical progression which has taken mankind away from its primordial condition and led to the
enrichment of the few at the expense of the many.

But surely this process will lead to technological regression? 

Of course. National-Anarchists are not opposed to technology per se - or at least those forms which do not harm the environment - but it remains a fact that once the internationalist system begins to wither away and people start to return to a more natural lifestyle, the factories will stand idle and therefore nobody will be on hand to produce computers, televisions and other luxury items. People will be forced to live without cars and supermarkets, chat shows and telephones, vibrators and central heating. Eventually this will lead to a more leisurely way of life, simply because on average hunter-gatherers work something like two hours a day in order to satisfy their basic needs. But it would be wrong to suppose that National-Anarchism is deliberately advocating a more primitivist lifestyle, on the contrary, we merely predict that it is inevitable and that people must face up to it. It remains to be seen just how far this process will go.

What is the way forward for National-Anarchists?

We will continue to forge links with other opponents of globalisation in the hope that, eventually, we will become one of the makers and shapers of the developing anti-Capitalist movement. So in this regard we extend the hand of friendship and co-operation to all like-minded peoples both in Europe and around the world. For more information on National-Anarchism, please write to: NA, BM Box LCRN, London WC1N 3XX, England.

You talk about race and someone said you’re Nazis, are you?

“Nazi” is a ubiquitous term to call a political opponent with usually no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, National-Anarchists do not under any circumstances advocate the form of government as represented by the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler, or Mussolini.

Are National-Anarchists racist?

Certainly not. Our vision comes from a love of our own kind and a genuine respect for others. This stance is totally at odds with racial hatred and is fundamentally based upon the realities of self-determination for all peoples. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to a white supremacist agenda or wish to enforce our worldview on others. National-Anarchists are racial separatists and wish to build links with like-minded individuals and organisations regardless of their racial or ethnic background. Racial miscegenation endangers mankind in the same way that hunting and pollution threaten both the environment and the animal kingdom. Together with our comrades around the world, we are seeking to preserve the natural condition of humankind.

So do you plan to outlaw mixed-race relationships? 

Not at all. These are issues which must be decided by those concerned, although we do remain adamant that such practices remain outside of our own communities.

Is National-Anarchism just smoke and mirrors?

Certainly not. It's very convenient for people to say that National-Anarchism is just 'fascism' under another name; but we are definitely opposed to centralisation and bureaucratic fascism in all forms. In fact the primary characteristic of National Anarchism is its anarchism, not race. Our racial separatist position takes second place to our anarchism, and is part of our anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, antiliberal
and pro-green strategy. Therefore National-Anarchism is a unique form of anarchism: it is not racialism dressed in anarchistic clothing.

So is race important to the National Anarchists ideology?

Race is less important to National Anarchists than cultural and ethnic identity. All communities have that identity, whether consciously or unconsciously. Heritage is something that people of all races should take pride in: it is the legacy we leave to future generations.

So that means that to National Anarchism some races are better then others?

No! National Anarchists recognize that races are different from each other and will always be different from each other— much like languages and culture. But no race is better, or worse, than any other.

Some National-Anarchists like Troy Southgate have allegedly used positive references to fascist movements of the 1930s and 1940s and has dismissed certain liberal values like unfettered free speech and liberal-Democratic governments. I’m somewhat confused as the Fascist parties believed the state can be a positive thing whereas National-Anarchists as I see it want to see the state crushed and not engage in political oppression of people that disagree with them.

We don’t think there is anything wrong with using criticism of liberalism regardless of the source. Some of what Marx said about Capitalism was accurate but that doesn’t mean we have to become Communists, let alone Marxists (much like Marx himself!). In short however, National-Anarchism and Fascist statism are completely incompatible. Although some of the organisational and aesthetic components are appealing, they are strictly 20th century developments and should stay in the 20th century.

So why is race so important to your ideology?

Race is less important to National Anarchists then cultural and ethnic identity. It is the basis of this identity that community, any community, represents itself, whether openly or unconsciously. Heritage is something that people of all races should take pride in and in the legacy we leave to future generations.

So that means you advocate that some races are better others, don’t you?

No! National Anarchists recognise that races are different from each other and will always be different from each other much like languages and culture. For us, races have no inherent better or worse value in themselves.

Then what’s your position on homosexuals?

National Anarchists do not believe in pandering to or persecuting individuals due to their sexual orientation. Each National-Anarchist has their own views about the subject. In general, National-Anarchists are usually opposed to the special treatment of gays and the militant pro-gay rights movement.

Where are you?

Currently our networks are all over the world, some groups and some lone wolves, although National-Anarchist supporters and activists in Britain can be found throughout the entire country also.

Where can I meet other National Anarchists?

A good place to start would be contacting us from our central website here, and one of our activists will get back to you as soon as possible.

There are also social networks and forums that National-Anarchists participate in on the web.


National Anarchism advocates decentralization. Smaller is better. Entirely too much power and far too much wealth rests in the hands of too few people. When in America alone, the top 1% own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent combined -- (the greatest level of inequality among all rich nations), and furthermore, the richest 20 percent of Americans own an overwhelming 80 percent of their nations wealth, something is drastically wrong. * - Source: Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000

National Anarchism aims to change this; through community building with like-minded people, through grassroots efforts, folkish socialism or distributism, and by turning our backs on the system and its corrupt ways. Only after we stop looking to ‘The System’ for support and protection, and start looking to our Community, can we then build a world far greater.

National Anarchism aims to create intentional communities which are not only self-governing, but selfreliant and are no longer dependent upon "government help," a term we believe to be an oxymoron.

National Anarchism aims to build a homogenous society where our peoples' cultural identity and the future of our children will grow unmolested.

National Anarchism is neither "Fascists" nor "Communists" but are instead the advocates of a brave new Third Way being neither left nor right-wing. Fiercely opposed to Capitalism and its bureaucratic and omnipresent State, we are advocates of a folk-centered agrarian society.

National Anarchism is staunch Anti-Imperialists, it aims to create a world in which people of all races are permitted to celebrate their own culture and heritage without outside interference. We believe that every nation has the inalienable right to a land of its own. In addition, that each land and people has a right to be ruled by leaders of their own choosing and to establish a system of autonomy and self-rule. It is not necessary for people to agree with us entirely, but we do demand the right to exist in our own communities and to be left alone.

National Anarchism strives to build a new future and society wherein the fruits of our labour will not be negated by the burdens of international Marxism and Capitalism; a society or community wherein our people’s future will flourish and be secure.

Official NA Movement Manifesto (Also in Russian) - At the end of each section of the Manifesto, their is a highly recommended reference list for further reading.

National-Anarchism: The Way of the Future

National-Anarchism: The Way of the Future
by Flávio Gonçalves

WHAT led me to write this short essay – through which I will try to explain how National-Anarchism first arose and what it stands for and why – was the fact that whilst involved in a discussion regarding the Unabomber with other comrades I came to realize that in Portugal, and in Portugal alone, there is a huge lack of knowledge regarding this vanguard’s ideological current, a current that at least from the perspective of those who run Wikipedia, although very reluctantly, has finally been included as a valid current of Anarchism.

It’s common for National-Anarchists (N-A) to be frowned upon with distrust by the whole political spectrum – both from the right-wing and the left-wing – and even fought back by both mainstream Nationalists (pro-State, supremacist and racist) and mainstream Anarchists (anti-State, egalitarian and anti-racist). Why? Because N-A, even though they agree partially with a few common goals, repudiates the majority of the dogma upheld by both movements. N-A stands out as a revolutionary third way.
The repudiated dogmas
State – N-A, like any other Anarchist current, does not uphold the existence of a ruling state; all decisions must be taken by the local communities, not by a central government and politicians that are not aware of the realities of the people. N-A is also anti-totalitarian, by extension that means it is anti-fascist and anti-communist.
Racial supremacy – N-A does not recognize the superiority of any race, whatever it may be, by doing so it does not uphold that Nationalist dogma. Races are different and cannot be compared nor labeled. What is good for one race does not necessarily mean that it is good for another race. What some consider as evolution and civilisation, others find to be abomination and barbarism.
Racism – N-A is not racist, it does not discriminate against anyone because of their race, creed or culture. N-A works with revolutionaries from all races, ethnic backgrounds and creeds.
Equalitarian – N-A is not egalitarian, it defends the fact that every person is different unto himself, meaning that if I am different from my own brother or my own family it’s only due to an act of imbecility that I would not consider myself to be different from members of other sexual, racial and cultural groups. Each person is an individual, with different capacities; equality does not exist in the real world. Nonetheless, N-A stands for the equality of opportunity.
Anti-racism – N-A, even though not being racist, does not uphold the anti-racist dogma that discriminates “positively”. N-A recognises that races exist and that their differences can and should not be fanatically eliminated, as most of the anti-racists believe.
Left/Right – N-A has attracted since it’s conception both former leftists and rightists, it is a third way ideology and as such it is beyond left and right, considering both concepts to be surpassed realities. Some of the N-A propaganda upholds that today it’s not an issue of Left versus Right but of the State versus the citizen, of people that support the System and people that fight the System.
What it stands for
N-A stands for something that many believe to be pessimistic and/or defeatist, and considering the degree of social degradation that is so deep and rooted we see no way of turning this boat around, if you will allow me to use an analogy from “Ship of Fools”. Drugs, alcohol, MTV and sexual degradation have affected our society in such a way that it is impossible to return to the old days, some even consider those things as a fundamental part of our society.
N-A stands for the termination of nation-states, has a necessity for survival and upholds the need of a rebirth of our tribal spirit. All national territories should be regionalised, fragmented, reduced to small territories and within those territories people with common ethnic or cultural affinities will gather together. Our notion of Nationalism is very strict: it covers solely the racial group closer to us (Azoreans, Galicians, Flemish, for example) and also covers the cultural aspects of that group (we also uphold autonomous communities for homosexuals, hippies, vegetarians, Muslims, pagans, etc.) or even the political aspects (autonomous communities for Anarchists, Ecologists, Social Democrats, etc.). N-A above all stands for the right of any individual to live among those whom he feels more comfortable with ideologically, racially and culturally, or by any other identitarian concept that may define him and his people as a group.
We should have autonomous and independent communities for each ethnic and cultural group. N-A believes that the racist formula upheld by most Nationalist parties, proposing the expulsion of all ethnic and cultural minorities from our territories is completely unrealistic and surpassed by the real world: there are millions of citizens from other races and cultures living in Europe and, believe us, they are here to stay!
So being, the regions where a large concentration of different populations live will have to right to create their own communities and that is nothing new, even the Greeks in old Hellas lived in this way, in autonomous city-states that had different cultures (let us compare Sparta to Athens, just to exemplify this example).
This N-A stance angers particularly the mainstream Nationalists, but we hope that they might gift us with any other more realistic solution, or would they prefer a total civil war or maybe even a policy of genocide?
This being said, you are free to consider National-Anarchism as an Utopian ideology. N-A is not an ideology for the present time, it is something that has been created to prepare the ground for tomorrow, when today’s System disintegrate amid all the wars and natural disasters that have started in the last few years. It’s not with joy that we behold today’s world, N-A may very well be the only valid future for the time when it all gets even worse and, believe us, it will get much worse. National-Anarchism, at least, tries to be a more realistic option.

National-Anarchism in a Nutshell

National-Anarchism in a Nutshell
By: J. Bates

National-Anarchism in a Nutshell is meant to act as a primer for those who are unfamiliar with National-Anarchism, anarchism in general and for those who might already be knowledgeable on anarchist philosophy but feel that there is just something else missing from the wide array of compartmentalized anarchisms out there. This small work is in no way meant as a substitute for the National-Anarchist Manifesto available on the National-Anarchist Movement’s web site. It is my sincere hope that after reading this the reader will find interest in delving into the details of National-Anarchism available in the manifesto.

National-Anarchism is Not an Oxymoron

There has been much debate on the nomenclature used in describing an anarchist philosophy that, while maintaining deep anarchist roots, also embraces racial preservation and rejects all forms of the Marxist cancer that has infested the anarchist movement since its misappropriation in the early 20th century. The most common argument the Establishment uses to try and disparage National-Anarchism originates from ignorance on their part of the origin, and thereby the true definition, of the term National.

The term nation, and thus national, has devolved into a watered-down, re-branded catch-all expression which is defined today as a collection of states or territories in which various ethnicities of people live and work. This modern definition completely disregards the original meaning of the term.  In fact, the term nation comes to us from the Latin root word natio meaning “that which has been born”, or “race of people”. Consequently, the term national is defined as “of or relating to the race”. As such, the prefix National works perfectly to describe a type of anarchism that serves a people with a common ethnicity. This point alone vindicates National-Anarchism’s choice terminology to describe the movement as well as part of its purpose. Nevertheless, those who disagree with the movement’s recognition of race as a vital factor for its existence will argue against it using the modernized definition of nation and thus categorize National-Anarchism as a right-wing attempt at appropriating the left’s Marxist-based flavor of anarchism to promote racism. This naturally brings about a common ad hominem attack, almost exclusively from the left, in that because we as National-Anarchists recognize race and wish to preserve it, we are not true anarchists. This is sheer hypocrisy on the part of egalitarian anarchists.

The term racism is another word used by the left to stigmatize and decry the efforts of racialists to preserve their own by twisting its meaning (a common tactic by the left to further their own agenda and add weight to their arguments). The left’s definition of racism is essentially the hatred of all other human races by a single race due to said race’s belief that theirs is superior to all others. This is completely without merit and could not be further from the truth. If we are to use the term then true “racists” are those who are simply concerned with the preservation of their own kind, not the hatred, destruction or repression of others. Nothing is more wasteful of valuable time and energy than blind hatred and violence. This energy is best spent in the preservation of one’s own and not the antagonism of others.

A simple example of the left’s lunacy on this matter would be if I were to say that I prefer Fuji Apples over other types of apples. By the Marxist-Left’s logic I would then be deemed a “Fujist”, but not only that, it would also be assumed that I must also hate all other apples. Does my preference for Fuji apples mean that I hate Red Delicious apples? Certainly not! It simply means that I prefer the taste of Fuji apples more than I do other varieties of apples. What sort of inferiority complex would discern that my preference for Fuji apples means that I must hate other apples? The same question can be asked of those who would say that because I prefer to associate, cohabitate, work, and procreate with my own kind, I must have a deeply rooted hatred for all that is not of my kind. This is illogical, absurd and demonstrates an extreme lack of reasoning and intelligence in those who would follow such thought.

National-Anarchist philosophy, then, is not the oxymoronic amalgamation of right and left wing political ideologies but a harkening to the original and true meaning of nation combined with a desire to preserve the natural races of man and the aspiration to free all people from the chains of both left and right-wing totalitarianism and imperialism.

Racial-Separatism and National-Anarchism

National-Anarchism attenuates to, and supports, the individuality genetically inherent in man and fights to unfetter him from the bonds of debt-slavery and state-worship forced upon him at birth by the Establishment. National-Anarchism rejects all forms of totalitarianism and goes a step further in recognizing multiculturalism as yet another transfigured form of it, and rejecting it as an anti-nature despotism. National-Anarchism consequently lives and breathes by the immortal words of Bakunin in that man 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.

It only follows, then, that National-Anarchism supports and defends the right of all races to preserve their blood, the very essence of that which defines them. The races of man exist for a reason, some of which are beyond our comprehension. Nature found utility in the formation of the various races of the earth. Each race upon the earth has its own unique culture that is born not just of its environment, but of its genetic makeup. If this genetic makeup is adulterated or annihilated then we are destined toward an inevitable bland mono-culture devoid of a history and any unique qualities all its own. Egalitarianism is a false philosophy, Nietzsche’s ‘end of justice’. It has reared its head in every generation since man became aware of its malevolence. It is the cry of the embittered underman who has refused to recognize his place in the world and yearns to destroy that which he can never achieve to. Marxist political-correctness and multiculturalism combined form his battering ram which he uses to tear down the doors of natural aristocracy* in order to rape it of the vital seed that distinguishes it. National-Anarchism rejects this forced abdication of racial solidarity as another form of tyranny.

National-Anarchism in Summary

National-Anarchism is a form of anarchism that embraces the very foundations of anarchism as penned in ink and blood by its earliest forebears, one that is against the state, be it a hyper-Capitalist Plutocracy or a Socialist/Communist Mediocracy, as well as against all tyranny in whatever form it may disguise itself including that of the Marxist anarchists. Unlike most other hyphenated anarchisms, National-Anarchism does not cling to the expression “Against All Authority” as it can be too easily misconstrued by those who do not yet understand the basic tenets of anarchism thereby causing them to believe that this slogan encompasses all forms of anarchism. In the minds of those unfamiliar with anarchist philosophy this phrase conjures images of masked youth wildly pitching Molotov cocktails, setting fires, breaking windows, destroying businesses and participating in other violent behavior for no other reason than a bizarre love of utter chaos. This is, however, what the Establishment would like you to believe so that you will find solace in the “protection” of the state. To further this point, any modern dictionary will define anarchism as lawlessness, chaos, mayhem and disorder. This is not anarchism’s true definition and is even further from the foundational standpoint of National-Anarchism. Simply put, National-Anarchism recognizes authority, but not that which would establish rule over others and so we remain ever vigilant of social conditions that might produce an avenue for those who would establish a ruling class. This, contrary to belief, actually creates order from the fanatical chaos that is the state.  Those anarchists that do not subscribe to the “Against All Authority” mantra believe that authority (without rule) is a natural manifestation of order in any society. In matters of authority, the anarchist world-view can be summed up in the combined words of our anarchist forefathers.

“Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.” -Bakunin

But that…
“He who lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant, and I declare him my enemy.” – Proudhon

Anarchism is often misunderstood to mean ‘without order’ when it in fact means ‘without rulers’. This is paramount to the understanding of any form of anarchism. If one understands this from the outset, then further study into anarchist philosophy makes far more sense.

For those wanting to learn more about National-Anarchism and anarchism in general we recommend the National-Anarchist Movement Manifesto located at

*The term natural aristocracy refers the natural distinctions formed amongst a group of people due to work, capability and intelligence rather than by birth, class, and privilege.

The Peasant Commune in Russia: Rural Anarchy and Feudal Socialism

The Peasant Commune in Russia: Rural Anarchy and Feudal Socialism
By M. Raphael Johnson

The Russian peasant commune was an example of a real rural and Christian anarchism at work. The commune protected the peasantry from want, alienation, poverty and tyranny. By the end of the 19th century, the nascent capitalist classes were screaming for the commune to be destroyed, for peasants could not be dragooned into the cities or to work on the railroads or factories while protected by numerous layers of communal obligations, immunities and rights. In England at the same time, the capitalist ruling classes had already succeeded in tearing apart rural society, turning it over to landlords to exploit for personal profit, eliminating the small holdings and self-sufficient communities that were a threat to the stage, as well as to capitalism. By the beginning of the 20th century, English and American working class kids were being mutilated in the robber baron factories in huge numbers, with no advocacy or protections of any kind. The formerly protected rural peasants were turned into miserable proletarians. In Russia, the trend was precisely the opposite, as the Russian royal state introduced even more protections to the commune and immunities for workers.
The institution of the peasant commune in pre-revolutionary Russia is one of the world’s unique institutions; and also one that is almost unknown. As Americans continue to work long hours for comparatively less pay, continue to see unions disappear, and see any kind of job security dissipate, maybe it is time to look at other models of economic organization.
It need not be said that the commune, for American historiography, is basically derided. This is largely for one important reason: the architects of liberalism and capitalism in Russia were the elite: the elite political and economic forces. For them, the commune was an irritant, a set of protections that permitted the average peasant a great deal of protections against exploitation. The destruction of the commune, then, was absolutely necessary for the Russian neo-Jacobins to impose constitutional capitalism on royal Russia. (cf. my The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy for a more detailed argument in support of this thesis.)
In the commune, the Church calendar was the primary medium for telling time. This meant that the work year was extremely short, for the calendar of traditional Christianity saw four fast period yearly as well as hundreds of feasts, either local, national or pan-Orthodox. One of the main reasons the liberal bourgeois in Russia hated the commune was that it sanctioned the traditional agrarian practice of only working about 2/3 of the year. The rest was made up in fasting, feasting and cultural pursuits. Therefore, the protections, immunities and traditions of communal life were absolutely incompatible with capitalism, “constitutionalism” and liberalism.
In a powerful and seminal article from Boris Mironov, “The Russian Peasant Commune after the Reforms of the 1860’s.” (Slavic Review, Vol. 44, Number 3 (Fall 1985)), is extremely important for the understanding of the peasant commune. Its significance lies in the fact that it takes its data from the survey of 816 communes between 1878 and 1880, sponsored by the Russian Geographical Society and the Russian Free Economic Society. Its results were astounding, and largely supported the claims of the pro-agrarian and pro-monarchist elements in Russia, then and now. The Russian peasant had it better in Russia than likely anywhere else in the world. This data proves it.
It is important to keep in mind the structure of the Imperial Russian state around the middle of the 19th century. The tsar’s power was basically limited to foreign policy and general taxation. He, of course, was the chief spokesman for the nation and the defender of the Orthodox church. However, at the agrarian level, where 90% of the population lived, royal authority was basically invisible. The peasant commune was the only relevant authority the peasant had to deal with.
Therefore, it is accurate to say that Russia was not a single, unitary state, but rather a collection of thousands of independent agrarian republics, held together by rather weak cords to the central monarchy. Professor Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia regularly, wrote in the 1925 issue of the English Review:
On closer examination we find the [Imperial] Russian state was a vast federation of fifty thousand small peasant republics each busy with its own affairs, obedient to its own laws and even possessing its own tribunals of starotsas (elders). The Russian state was not undemocratic, on the contrary if anything, there was too much democracy.
What makes the peasant commune such a unique institution is the power that it had. Each commune was a completely self-contained unit, answering to no other authority than its own body of elected elders. All police functions were discharged by the communal authorities, all legal matters were dealt with by the same. Any damage to property, any criminal offence whatsoever, was dealt with at the communal level. All public works besides were also within the jurisdiction of the commune. It maintained stores of grain during famines and assisted poorer members who suffered during the lean months of the spring. It controlled the cultural life of the people as well as all education. It even built its own parish churches and trained many of the rural clergy. The commune maintained all schools and hospitals. In short, it was absolute.
Now, the state’s interest in this was clear. For the commune to be self governing, yet still loyal to the monarchy, it was necessary for it to be completely independent of the state. Mironov writes “The government did not risk appointing its own people, who would have been independent of the peasant, to official positions in the commune; that would have been too expensive and ineffective at the same time” (445)
However, to make sure any village executive (specifically its chief executive) was loyal, he could be removed by the royal-appointed district governor. This, however, rarely occurred, largely because irritating the peasants, the great bastion of loyalty in the country, would not be in the interests of the royal state. Mironov continues in this vein:
If however, one analyzes how these officials actually functioned, it is clear that the government did not reach its goal: elected officials did not stand above the commune but operated under its authority, and all administrative and police measures in the commune were taken only with the consent of the village assembly. Only very rarely did elected officials become a hostile authority standing above the peasantry: they had to be periodically reelected, had no significant privileges, did not break their ties with the peasantry (elected officials were freed from taxes and other obligations, except those in kind, and continued to perform all forms of peasant labor), remained under the control of public opinion of the village (and in the event of malfeasance faced the threat of retribution), and shared the common interest of the peasants, not the interests of the state. As a rule the elected officials acted as the defenders of the commune, as petitioners and organizers. Frequently they emerged as leaders of peasant disorders despite the threat of harsh punishment. (445-6).
Many liberal Russia scholars might counter this by claiming that the elected village heads were required, after the 1860s, to faithfully carry out the will of the district authorities. However, though this is true, it was also true that no decree of the district authorities had validity in the commune unless it was approved by the village assembly.
According to the data collected by the Russian Geographic Society, the Russian peasant assembly consisted of all male heads of household. Decisions were not finalized until unanimity was reached, or, as Mironov has said, disagreement was brought to a level of silent sulking, which, at this level, was considered agreement. It is important to note, therefore, that each peasant had a specific stake in communal affairs as well as a corresponding voice. Any specific peasant, therefore, could not afford to be alienated from the community, as all decisions could be vetoed even by a relatively small group of disgruntled peasants.
In her “The Russian Peasant Family in the Second Half of the 19th Century” (Russian Studies in History, vol. 38, n.2, (Fall 1999)), Svetlana S. Kriukova sheds some more light on the structure of the family in the peasant commune. Now, though this article is not nearly as rigorous as Mironov’s (and is geographically limited to the black soil region), it is still very useful.
Because all legislation needed to pass the communal assembly, which was a function of direct democracy, the family became a far more important institution than the modern bourgeois understand. The structure of the peasant family was headed by the oldest male, though women would have that title if she was unmarried, and her sons were also unmarried (39). The wife dealt with domestic affairs and supervised the female members of the house. The wife had substantial authority in ordering marriages and the timetables concerning various economic projects. Now, the family acted as sort of a mini-commune, it was rational for the male to cast the deciding vote. However, a “mistress of the house,” that is, the mother of the wife, had relatively equal authority with the husband. Generally, disagreements within the family were solved by any elderly living within the neighborhood (41). But, regardless of who made the final decision, all functions of the household ultimately were under the scrutiny of the commune. Interestingly, the communal structure (at least in southern Russia), invented an innovation called “women’s weeks,” which were times during the year where the females of the household would be released from family or communal obligations in order to work purely for themselves. This was done both to raise more money and goods for dowries as well as provide the women in question with sufficient resources for old age or infirmity (45).
This, in many respects, was to maintain domestic solvency, for the assignment of tax duties made it imperative that each household maintained a proper standard of living. If the head of household was a drunk, or was incapable of keeping the family money properly, he was publicly berated by the communal authorities, often beaten and, in many cases, deprived of his status as head of household. It is clear that those who developed bad reputations as head of household either reformed quickly or lost their status. Many wound up in the army, with the commune then resuming care for the family until the minor male children came of age.
Those members of the family incapable of working, such as the elderly, the mentally ill crippled or sick, were guaranteed support. Whatever the family could not provide was provided by the commune. The communal courts rearranged debts and taxes, as well as the more important area of land allotment, for those families who dealt with sick or invalid members. No one was permitted to enter severe poverty.
If the state desperately needed the communes to pass certain forms of legislation, they were in no position to force the matter on them. Russian peasants are rebellious; they are fanatical traditionalists, the worst threat to any bureaucracy. The state, then, would resort to every sort of preaching and begging of the village males and elders in general to get things passed, largely in the realm of taxation. But even here, only the commune was capable of assessing tax burdens according to the ability to pay. The royal state, allegedly absolute, had no clue how much money each peasant was making or how wealthy any commune might be. All taxing decisions therefore, were made by elected elders and the assembly.
The commune, through its assembly and elected elders, decided on a periodic land redistribution, where peasant families with many children were granted more, while those with fewer were granted less. The point of work for the communal peasantry was to reach a balance, to maintain a standard of living that could provide all objective needs of the family itself. Profit was unknown, distrusted and, even until the revolution, scorned. Need was the key, and all forms of exploitation were condemned not only by law, but also by the common law of communal custom.
The communal system was based around basic subsistence agriculture as well as the periodic redistribution of land, tax duties and public works. All of this was done within the village assembly in respect to the state, the informal structure of older men in the village who exercised quite a bit of moral authority (men retired at 60 and all dues were forgiven at this time) and the elected executives. This constitutional structure permitted the wealthier peasants to pay the dues of the poorer, which was considered a moral obligation taken from Byzantine times. Poorer households were maintained in lean times largely due to the communal virtue of charity, a virtue maintained not necessarily by law, but by the strong hand of communal custom, which, if it might be said, was actually the basis of the constitution of any commune. In other words, if such ancient virtues were violated, it was not uncommon for severe punishments to me meted out by the people as a whole. Chronic violations were usually punished by banishment or, if the criminal was of the proper age, induction into the army.
As Mironov reports, one of the astonishing and revisionist aspects of communal life as the 19th century began to draw to a close was its amazing vitality. It is common in the Russian history literature in English to paint a picture of the oppressed peasants chafing at the commune (when they mention it at all) waiting to escape to take advantage of the money economy. This is nothing more than bourgeois, Whig history.
There is every reason to believe that the peasantry looked upon the bourgeois with disdain, as well as their competitive money economy. The date collected clearly proves this. When the reforms of Petr Stolypin made it easier for peasants to remove themselves from the commune and enter the bourgeois economy, very few actually did. According to the data, by the end of the 19th century, almost 90% of peasants were functioning within the communal structure. By Stolypin’s reforms in 1905-06, “only an insignificant number of peasants found an alternative to the commune in trade, industry or in the sale of their labor. As in the past, the great majority placed their hopes for a better life in the commune and a new agrarian reform. . .” (464). This shows, without question, that the peasantry had no use for the liberal capitalist parties, westernizers or western socialists. It was the commune that maintained the peasant’s loyalty to tradition and the tsar. It was only those at the extremes of the communal structure that actually left the community for the city. Those who became wealthy and sought even more wealth moved away, and those extremely poor who, for whatever reason, could not function were the two elements that left, but these never amounted to any more than 4 or 5%. Those that were criminal, slow or just plain uncooperative were inducted into the army where the famous harsh discipline of the Russian infantry would solve those problems.
The peasant commune is likely one of the greatest supporters for family liberty devised. But its superiority to western models exists not merely in the results of such organization, but also because it was no “devised.” It was perfected over 1,000 years of often hard experience. The communal structure, the tightly organized extended family and the traditional peasant love for communal and family liberty kept the state at bay right up until the revolution. The destruction of the communes, naturally, came immediately under Lenin’s rule.
The dishonest “radicals” saw the commune s a threat. Many Russian populists (narodniks), such as Alexander Herzen, believed the communal system to be the means whereby a native Russian socialism would challenge the western, Marxism brand. However, for these liberals, the communal structure was to be completely denuded of traditional culture and be largely a dependency of the New State. All that the socialists wanted had already been part of peasant life for a millennium, but the socialists simply lied as to what they wanted. They sought a non-Christian, secular state run by urban elites who treated communes as departments of state. Ultimately, this is largely the reason the Bolsheviks liquidated large segments of the peasantry. Comparisons of the peasant communal system and modern socialism are pedestrian, they have nothing in common. This is why the Russian New Men of the 20th century ultimately destroyed the commune while publicly professing devotion to it. The commune was a Christian anarchist collective, based around ethnic tradition, the church and the extended family, all interacting on the level of basic equality. Anarchists sounded ridiculous to the peasantry largely because their secular ideas, to be imposed by force, already existed, and where the virtues of charity and mutual self-government not only existed, but were part of the traditional mindset of the peasantry. The bizarre nature of Russian Masonic “radicalism” was that they were advocating what already existed. The catch was, however, that their new society was to be run by them, on secular and materialist principles with the state, of course, being all -powerful. Peasants then would be truly goyim, mere chattel, at the service of the New Men.