This essay is included and first published in the recently released 2013 publication, National-Anarchism: Methodology and Application, edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.
by Neil G. Hiatt
“In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a
revolutionary act.” - George Orwell, 'Nineteen Eighty Four'
This
article has stemmed from a question posed by an enquiring mind and the
conversation that developed in response on the National-Anarchist Movement
(N-AM) Facebook group [1]. It was a reasonable question, for the only 'stupid'
question is the one that is not asked, as long as it is posed in a respectful,
civil and constructive manner, and one that arose due to the misunderstanding
(either genuine or because of the lies spread by our detractors with an
ulterior fascistic motive) of the National-Anarchist 'ideology'. That is,
specifically, in regards to National-Anarchist communities and how they would
relate to people of 'mixed heritage' and whether or not they would be accepted
into an above mentioned community, or for that matter, which community they
would be 'placed' into.
However, important as it is, this article will not limit
itself to those solely of mixed ethnic background, but all manner of individual
characteristics and how they would relate to acceptance within a
National-Anarchist community. Some characteristics of the individual, whether
relating to cultural, sexual orientation, gender, or by any number of
distinctions, may not be mentioned due
to the overwhelming number alone, but I trust the gist of what I am saying will
be clearly understood nevertheless.
I thought it a question that, as it rears its head every now
and again, deserved to be put into article format for the benefit of others
that may have similar questions, if only reiterating the points and various
views made elsewhere by myself and others – a sort of bringing it all together
in one place if you will. Yet, I do not claim this to be the final answer on
the topic and welcome others to elaborate upon it if the desire is felt.
The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that
National-Anarchism is for every race, and not the 'white race' or any one race
alone (however you may define race) as is sometimes believed, and more-so that
National-Anarchism has supporters of many racial, ethnic, cultural, and
religious backgrounds, and from all over the world. Indeed, it must also be
pointed out for those that are not familiar with National-Anarchism in general
or from a non-hostile perspective, that there is far more to National-Anarchism
than mere race! This can be seen by anyone with an open and unbiased mind with
the willingness to learn the truth and not have their opinions subject to, and
tainted by, smears – often by so called 'Anarchists' that have far more in
common with fascists and that act like Nazi-Stormtroopers. This is often the
case with dogmatic leftists stuck in their political cages, unable to view
anything or anyone from outside of their own narrow minded and ideologically
restrictive shackles. And, of course and not forgetting, the first port of call
for many in the internet age with the significantly flawed and biased Wikipedia
article. But as Voltaire is quoted as stating, “Our wretched species is so made
that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who
are showing a new road." And, I think, followed up nicely by Henry Louis
Mencken when he stated, "Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas
must be prepared to see them misunderstood."
I once read an eloquent comment, so poignant in its avowal
narrative contextually and directly, that regrettably it escapes me from whence
it came or of its original form, that went something to the effect: There
really must be a resilient viral strain, an endemic of psychosis in prodigious
scope here in the western world, that makes it decidedly insurmountable for
anyone to have such an imagination necessary to evaluate objectively anything
at all from another context than their own. After-all, having the eyes to see
and ears to hear mean absolutely nothing without a mind to think.
I urge those truly interested in learning the truth to view
the numerous articles and radio interviews on the National-Anarchist website,
read the manifesto, the various discussions on the National-Anarchist facebook
groups, and specifically the books on National-Anarchism put out by
National-Anarchists. [2]
As I have stated before, regardless of what you may or may
not believe, nor how strong you hold on to whatever convictions you might have,
it is an eternal truth that to hold a valid, intelligent, and educated opinion
on any subject or matter, and to make any decision based on such, you need to
always, and regardless of consequence, look at both sides of the story. Equally
important is that you delve into any issue of debate or interest with an open
and unbiased mind. This is, I am afraid, the only way to truly hold an informed
and edified sentiment in any area, that is reasoned, rational and sophisticated
and equally impartial, non partisan and realistically fair. Without such you
can never hope to be taken seriously, by others, nor importantly I might add,
by yourself. To have any hope of holding an educated opinion you need to listen
to both sides of the story and then, and only then, can you truly decide for
yourself on your stance in such a way as laid out above. You need to do
research and one should always look at all angles from all possible roots in an
open-minded manner, regardless of any particular area of study, without bias,
prejudice or personal preference. This is the only way to get an unbiased and
balanced point of view. That much is fact.
The question of 'race' and the confusion over the term
'National' (and its alleged oxymoronic status when when linked to 'Anarchism')
and various lies spread about the National-Anarchist Movement have been the
subject of a number of articles and discussions [3], addressed and thoroughly
refuted by writers far better than myself, because, as Mark Twain is credited
as stating, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is
still putting on its shoes." So, that need not be discussed here. However,
that being said, the question of communities, race, and acceptance, does.
So, where to start? Well, let us begin here...
If one was Black, Asian, Jewish, White, or mixed, etc,
racially speaking, would they be accepted into a National-Anarchist community?
The short answer is yes, even if that community has to be started by that
person, or persons, themselves. By extension, if one was homosexual, Muslim,
Christian, Odinist, environmentalist, vegan, etc, they too would be accepted
into a community, even, as I have stated above, that community has to be
started by that person, or persons, themselves. Having said that, they may also
be accepted into another already existing community, and one that isn't formed
on the basis of homogeneity - racially, religiously, or culturally speaking. Like
I said, the short answer is yes, but there are also many a letter between the
Alpha and Omega, metaphorically speaking. And, to illustrate this, that is
ultimately up to the parties involved themselves to decide, freely, and
respectfully.
At the end of the day, whatever community accepts you, and
you agree to their standard of living and operating, is that which you are a
part.
The key to understanding this concept of communities within
a National-Anarchist framework, is that of non-coercion, free-association, and
mutual respect. But also not forgetting autonomy and decentralisation from the
state.
And, it needs to be made perfectly clear that there is no
vision or secret plan for an all-powerful oligarchy that will decide and force
people into certain groups and areas like pawns on a chessboard. Indeed, that
would go against the very concept of Anarchism itself. Anyone thinking that has
a fundamental misunderstanding of National-Anarchism in general, and Anarchism
overall.
Village-communities will spring up based on whatever
criteria those involved agree upon (as I have pointed out is already happening
in another article [4]), whether it be any of the above or otherwise. We
certainly do not wish to place anyone, individual or group, into any assemblage
whatsoever – that would be so far from the truth and reality of
National-Anarchism that that opinion would be like a dot to us on the
proverbial horizon. It must be made clear, that association is the sole
responsibility of each individual to decide for themselves who they wish to
affiliate with, and conversely, the decision of the existing group as to who
they wish to let into their tribal village-community.
For example, and for arguments sake, I am white, and I come
across an already existing National-Anarchist community that is based upon
Odinic principles, spiritually speaking. That community may be based on
spirituality alone, or also incorporate racial separatism into the mix, or not
as the case may be. Now, I am an Odinist anyway and the community accept me,
but I may not agree with the fact that they are racially separatist or that
they are not vegan like I am. So, what then? Well, it is rather simple when
looked at from an Anarchist perspective, based upon 'non-coercion,
free-association, and mutual respect', or common sense for that matter. That is
a community that developed with a group of individuals with shared opinions,
and ideologies, that are not interested in what anyone else is doing as long as
it doesn't affect them and they don't force anything upon anyone else. It was
created entirely out of mutual understanding and agreement, so I either accept
their stance, or move on. Now, I can either find a group of others that share
my view of a community or I can form one myself, or work on my own for that
matter. But like I say, it is down to, and I stress again, non-coercion,
free-association, and mutual respect. It is actually very simple when you look
at it.
For me to come into a group, that has come together and
mutually agreed upon what they want their community to consist of or ideals
based upon, and start saying that they're wrong, or things should be done
differently, or that we should exclude homosexuals (if that existing group
welcomes them or is a homosexual community to begin with), or we should only
consume vegan food, or that my way works best, is rather fascist in and of
itself, and unless it was a respectful discussion in which we all came together
to discuss freely, and I accepted the outcome, I'd rather be acting, for fear
of repeating myself, like a Nazi-Stormtrooper.
Tribes or groups, whichever term you prefer, may have any
number of criteria as to how their communities are formed and to what extent
they are ultimately based upon. Yes, some may use race or ethnicity as a separator,
and race is a reality to National-Anarchists, but race is not the be all and
end all of National-Anarchism, and National-Anarchism extends far beyond such
limitations, and into many diverse, yet interconnected areas, as the Manifesto
makes apparent. This makes perfectly clear, and is obvious to me at least, that
there is simply not just a singular ideal for a National-Anarchist community,
but room for any number of them based upon whatever criteria is chosen by those
involved.
Race, religion, spirituality, culture, ethnicity, heritage,
sexual-orientation, etc, are only some of the components with which different
individuals and various groups will choose to come together on in a mutually
agreed manner and form a village-community or autonomous-zone out of such
cooperatively.
And, of course, as there are now already within the
National-Anarchist Movement, groups active that are not based on any of the
above, where all are free and welcome to join. But that is the key thing...
freedom - the freedom to choose and to associate with whomever you wish, so
long as you don't force your opinions and requirements upon others, and
equally, others don't force their feelings, persuasions, and sentiments upon
you. It is very much live and let live as the saying goes. This ultimately
leads to pure and true self-determination and individual autonomy, for those
that can mutually cooperate upon whatever criteria they choose, either within
the community, or two separate communities based on differing criteria being
cooperative and respectful with each other.
If you want to live within a black separatist, homosexual,
or raw-food diet only enclave, then so be it! If you want to subsist within a
mono-racial or multi-racial community then good for you! If you want to have
cohabitation within a naturalist environment with like minded people, then go
for it! Any combination of the above or more? Then knock yourself out! The
possibilities are endless as long as it is freely and mutually agreed upon.
Others should respect you for that and not bother you unless you mutually agree
to cooperate for whatever reason, and equally, those separate groups should not
bother each other, unless as I state, you mutually agree to cooperate.
As Nathan Wild has said, and I agree, National-Anarchism “is
a recognition that communities of different cultures/ethnicity want to be
separate to achieve their collective potential. If anything I feel that that is
a refreshing honesty or realistic appraisal of reality.”
The point is that autonomy of the individual is paramount,
and each person has the unalienable right to associate freely with anyone he or
she chooses and sees fit, or, of course, with no-one at all.
As should be apparent by now, National-Anarchism itself
doesn't set the boundaries by which communities are made or in any way that
individuals should associate, but the communities of individuals themselves set
the markers for how they wish to live, freely, and without interference.
Ultimately, the individual nor the group should tell any other individual or
group how to live or how to think, so long as each individual or group actions
do not impede those of others.
To paraphrase Mr. Southgate, non of what is proposed by the
National-Anarchist Movement is to be forced upon anyone at all, and is entirely
voluntary, with no one being goaded. Furthermore, it is certainly not for the
entire country either, whatever country you may reside in. In effect, it is for
those that choose it, and, to quote, “must be very gradual and designed to meet
the needs and aspirations of those people who wish to preserve their own
identities in the face of increasing globalisation. It has more to do with
seceding, dropping out or breaking away, than with trying to drive a wedge
between people.”
Of course, there are those that enjoy multiculturalism that
are not of mixed race, and there are those that are, and that is absolutely
fine. What is more, as I have tried to express, is that if a community based
upon this is wanted, then so be it, as long as it is voluntary. But,
conversely, if there are those that want a community also but are not
interested in multiculturalism, then this is fine also, and what is there to
stop them cooperating? And, even if they don't want to cooperate and want to be
entirely separatist, then this is perfectly fine also. It is all about freedom
and respect. I fail to see why anyone would think hate would come into it, that
is totally nonsensical. Of course, there are those that hate, but they would
have no place within the National-Anarchist Movement. But for those interested
in looking deeper, you will find that race is only one element of
National-Anarchism, but sadly for some, it means removing their blinkers to see
as much.
It really isn't that difficult to understand, and far from
how our detractors like to portray us. And, as I have read elsewhere and fully
agree, 'anyone that claims the title of
'Anarchist' yet seeks to deny others the right to form communities and
associate with others with whom we see fit, based on whatever criteria we
mutually agree upon, are not only the furthest removed from true Anarchist
principles, but are in actual fact the only real fascists and Nazis left.
Furthermore, it is high time that the Anarchist title was reclaimed, and in
comparison to typical Right Wing Hollywood Nazi's and Left Wing Marxists,
National-Anarchism is indeed a breath of fresh air.'
The childish shouting of the nasty little smear words 'Nazi'
or 'Fascist' at us (in effect used to frighten others from talking to us and
taint their opinions), rather than engaging in debate in a respectful and
constructive manner, is the last line of defence for those without an argument
or the ability to converse in a civil way. As Samuel Adams has said, “Mankind
are governed more by their feelings than by reason.” These people are not
Anarchists, and nor are they shining examples of the humanity they claim to be
a part of and astonishingly, represent. They can be seen for what they truly
are, hate-filled fascists and puppets of the state, whether they know it or
not. Much of it is projection, coupled with their inability to participate in
polite dialogue.[5]
See, for example, these far more rational comments on the
subject of 'Fascism' within National-Anarchism, with Michael Schmidt, founder
and ex-member of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) of South Africa,
stating that:
"On balance, in his [Gandhi] völkisch nationalist
decentralism, I would argue for him to be seen as something of a forebearer of
“national anarchism,” that strange hybrid of recent years. Misdiagnosed by most
anarchists as fascist, “national anarchism” fuses radical decentralism,
anti-hegemonic anti-statism (and often anti-capitalism), with a strong
self-determinist thrust that stresses cultural-ethnic homogeneity with a traditional
past justifying a radical future; this is hardly “fascism” or a rebranding of
“fascism,” for what is fascism without the state, hierarchy and class,
authoritarianism, and the führer-principle?" [6]
And, commenting in the National-Anarchist Movement facebook
group, Troy Southgate observes:
“National-Anarchists are also opposed to Fascism. On the
other hand, we prefer to avoid using the term 'anti-fascist' because we are not
interested in suppressing free speech or free association as many other so-called
'anti-fascists' do, although we are most certainly anti-fascist in terms of our
hostility towards fascist centralisation and state dictatorship. In fact our
manifesto makes it perfectly clear that National-Anarchism and Fascism are
diametrically opposed.”
Indeed, as Noam Chomsky has stated, “If we don't believe in
freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”
Labels simply do not have any meaning these days, and using
them as smears in some adolescent way to somehow silence someone either shows
that person’s lack of understanding of the terms real meaning and association
or their complete inability, as mentioned, of being able to hold their own in
the civil and respectful conversational manner. Only the immature and foolish
mock and scorn that which they have absolutely no knowledge or understanding,
nor indeed for that matter, the intellect to grasp such given the opportunity
to do so. Mediocrity of the mind, no matter how well one tries to conceal it,
will always reveal itself to be as such. Of course, not everyone that
childishly disagrees with you is simply not understanding the self evident and
logical, but it is on purpose and with an ulterior agenda. Having said that, I
fully acknowledge and agree that there are going to be those with genuine
questions, and to those we are more than willing to explain and take any and
all criticism, and take the time to converse. One thing is for sure, is that we
will give far more respect, civility and constructive discussion to those that
wish to silence us, than they give us.
I write these words in response to the sick and rotten root of defamatory accusation that will, when nurtured, grow and
spread its disease like an incurable cancer, watered and loved by those with
fragmentary circumstantial beliefs, vindictive mindsets, and simple and hateful
yet ill-conceived agendas. But, ever the ready gardener will rise above such
mediocrity of mind and look to his blessings with honour, respect and decency
and move forward with pride and honesty in his heart.
Indeed, who am I to tell others how to live and who to
associate with? I certainly wouldn't be an anarchist if I did, more-so a
fascist dressed in anarchist clothing. Which, oddly, is what I have come to
discover many of the dogmatic leftist 'anarchists' are, fascists in anarchist
clothing. Let it be said, we as National-Anarchists are above the fascism and
dogmatism of the right, and beyond the dogmatism and fascism of the left.
This movement encourages liberty, justice, autonomy,
agorism, self-sufficiency, trade, bartering, environmental deference,
non-coercion, free-association, mutual respect and cooperation, and the freedom
from interference from the state. Ultimately, it sets you on the path to
self-determination and true freedom. But you need to take the first step!
Professor Noam Chomsky has commented that, “If we choose, we
can live in a world of comforting illusion.”, yet for an anarchists this should
not be an option, so, in summary, I will leave you now with the words of
Britain's first Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, to ponder:
"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step
to knowledge."
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Josh Bates,
Justin Gillespie, Nathan Wild, and Troy Southgate, for without their valued
input and inspiration, I may never have decided to put this article together in
the first place, which with respect, incorporates some of their openly
expressed opinions, some in paraphrase, that, as a National-Anarchist, I
wholeheartedly share.
NOTES
1]
2]
3]
* 'National-Anarchism: Setting The Record Straight' by Troy
Southgate, featured in the third volume of
National-Anarchist publications,
'National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice' (2012, Black Front Press)
4]
See note 3 in the article 'It Can Be Done, But We Have Too
Wake Up' by Neil G. Hiatt which featured in volume three of
National-Anarchistpublications, 'National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice' (2012, Black Front
Press)
5]
* The BF Debates
here or alternatively
here.
6]
-----------------------------------------------
Posts
