Monday, 20 February 2017


Defence of Our Movement & Loyalty to Principles

by León Darío, N-AM Iberica
Author of An Evolution to National Anarchism (2017)

As the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) has been growing in militant quality, as well as quantity and therefore expansion, it has awakened the interest of many individuals from many and varied trends and sensitivities, almost all of them understanding and assuming the origin and the most elementary basis of our ideals. Many come to stay for just two or three months and they go just as they came; perhaps our Movement does not respond to their individual expectations? Many others have remained as a result of simple curiosity, sitting in comfort behind the internet barrier and as mere spectators of social networks. However, too many people - and they are the ones I'm going to focus on in this article - have tried to enter into the ranks of National-Anarchism, but in a way somewhat peculiar and rather more "private" and selfish. To be direct, I mean infiltrating elements seeking to lead National-Anarchism towards their own particular ideological terrain and usually to their individual position of supremacy, imperialism, chauvinism and Far Right sterility. If frequently, and according to our own ideological basis, we denounce Communist infiltration within Anarchism and the creeping influence of Marxism, then we must not lower our guard with respect to the proliferation of reactionary elements in the ranks of National-Anarchism, either.

Since I put my two feet into this Movement, with great pride, I was clear on what it stood for after reading, studying and reflecting on our series of ideological texts and especially our Manifesto in which our views are so perfectly set out. I felt very clear that I wanted to take part in an alternative that genuinely transcended both Left and Right. The National-Anarchist Movement has managed to pass a very turbulent stage which more or less is now calm after the expulsion of ultra-capitalist elements and self-confessed supporters of Donald Trump and Zionism. The unfortunate thing was that this attitude also came from those who were very active militants, and the most serious thing of all is that even acting on a purely local level it represented the product of a severe ideological deviation. These attitudes are clearly not acceptable since they arose among those who were activists or supposedly aware of our values and ideals and yet who strayed from those principles in order to make an attempt to take our Movement towards their own positions. We have reason, therefore, to be alert to possible infiltration by individuals who intend to bring to our Movement their own particular "ideological flavour" and thus positions of supremacism, chauvinism, imperialism, capitalism and reaction. We must not assume that an ideological line has been drawn by our Movement and that we are not susceptible to such an approach. However, the National-Anarchist Movement is what it has been since the beginning and not what they want it to be.

The N-AM is not merely something for the 'white man', but is also geared towards those of black and yellow extraction and stands up for all individuals and our respective languages, traditions and identities. National-Anarchism cannot be supremacist, because it works for all individuals and seeks to claim freedom and emancipation for all races against the common enemy: globalisation. If, as I have said on previous occasions, I was convinced by anything at all from National-Anarchism, it was its sense of individual and communal freedom and the fact that National-Anarchists can be grouped into future hypothetical communities on this very basis: anarcho-environmentalists, anarcho-socialists, anarcho-individualists, Pagans, Christians, Gnostics, atheists and much more. But it is also quite clear and logical that we have a strong base opposing capitalist positions and those of supremacism, chauvinism, authoritarianism, imperialism and racism. We oppose all forms of extreme or excessive racial exaltation, but, at the same time, we cling to the protection of those ethnic differences as important factors in the world's great wealth of diversity. We advocate the freedom of all from the old European nation-states (and worldwide) who are living under the asphyxiation of their respective statist oppression. This corresponds directly to the task of National-Anarchist activists to highlight, unmask, reject and isolate these reactionary elements, making it a work of neutralization before it can, like a tumour, begin to infiltrate, confuse, intoxicate and destabilize.

Wednesday, 8 February 2017


image host

Tuesday, 17 January 2017


Wikipedia Launch Deceitful Propaganda Attack on Troy Southgate

Our founder, Troy Southgate, recently became the victim of a Wikipedia smear campaign when someone using the name 'K. e. Coffman' completely destroyed his Wikipedia entry. We have no idea who wrote the original page, but the reason for Coffman's malicious action is due to the fact that, on October 6th, Troy added a new book title to the bibliography section. Coffmann deleted the entry, set about destroying the rest of the information on the page itself and then posted lies about Troy personally. The chronology, as you will see, makes that perfectly clear. Compare the detail on the old page with the page as it is now:

Page BEFORE October 6th, 2016:

Page AFTER October 6th, 2016:

As you will see, it has changed from being a professionally written and extensive account of Troy Southgate's life and activities to something that now demonises him as a 'neo-nazi'. Meanwhile, to prevent him replying or trying to revive the old version of the page, Troy's account was blocked. If any of you would be willing to help fight Troy's corner and help to expose this unwarranted distortion of his beliefs and activities, the issue is being discussed here:

Thursday, 8 December 2016


Trump and Goldman Sachs

by Sean Jobst
December 2, 2016

No "anti-Establishment" figure would ever appoint Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and Rothschild banking crooks to positions of prominence over the economy. No "anti-Establishment" figure would ever embrace the slavish pro-Israel subservience dogma of the Neocon/Neoliberal foreign policy establishment. No one doing either of these things could ever "Make America Great Again." Period. Those of you who fell for it, dismissing people like me who from the beginning merely pointed to Trump's own statements and actions, and the advisors who were shaping his economic and foreign policy, because we had the foresight and common sense to see that opposing Hillary Clinton's lying, criminal, murderous enterprise need not translate into support for the establishment's controlled opposition clown with the funny orange wig....what say you now? Would anyone who was truly anti-establishment and bucking the system, EVER have anything to do with the following two, much less appoint them to oversee the entire U.S. economy?....

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross....the billionaire who spent 25 years running Rothschild Inc.'s bankruptcy practice in the United States. (<>)

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin....Who worked for Goldman Sachs for 17 years, rising to oversee trading in government securities and mortgage bonds. (<>) After leaving Goldman Sachs in 2002, Mnuchin founded the hedge fund Dune Capital Management, and started investing in Hollywood. (<>)

From 2003 to 2004, Mnuchin worked as chief executive of SFM Capital Management, which was and is funded by George Soros. Mnuchin also worked directly for Soros Fund Management LLC. (<>) He also worked for the Soros-funded OneWest Bank, which threw out thousands of tenants after robbing them of all they had while itself taking the government's welfare bailout to the tune of $814.2 million. (<>)

With the subprime mortgage crisis and the crash of vulturous banks such as IndyMac, while millions of Americans were clearly being affected and lives ruined, Mnuchin saw his opportunity to profit personally to the tune of hundreds of millions dollars from the predatory lender IndyMac. (<>)

Neither Ross or Mnuchin have ever condemned or repudiated any of their actions. Mnuchin has never repudiated Goldman Sachs itself or any of the profits he made off that or the enterprises funded by George Soros. Trump rightly condemned the Goldman Sachs links of his opponent, but that was simple campaign rhetoric given his own personal profits from Goldman Sachs and the platform he gives to the likes of Mnuchin and Bannon.

Wednesday, 30 November 2016


Fake It Til You Make It

by Richard J. Levy

The phenomenon of fake news is really nothing new. The news as we know it has always been fabricated, by which I do not mean broadcasts of the prankish Orson Welles alien invasion variety. The news is something made, not simply transmitted. It is not just a set of facts or raw data but, like reality, a haze of perception and perspective that has to be ordered into a logical and believable narrative. Like a testimonial, it is meant to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is the freedom to tell the truth for none but the truth's sake. It is the very antithesis of propaganda. Or is it?

Aldous Huxley argued that there are "two kinds of propaganda — rational propaganda in favour of action that is consonant with the enlightened self-interest of those who make it and to whom it is addressed, and non-rational propaganda that is not consonant with anybody’s enlightened self-interest, but is dictated by, and appeals to, passion." Could the same not be said of a broad swathe of contemporary media, especially the sensationalist, deliberately biased and downright manipulative and hyper-emotive journalism that has become normalised, especially in the US, for the best part of three decades? And where did all this start?

Back in the mid-19th Century when independent news sources became a popular medium, a newspaper was in fact a journal (from which the profession of journalist takes its title, name and provenance). Sensationalism existed but there were no big, bold eye-catching headlines or suggestive photographs. Articles were compact, dense and cerebral, its sources carefully compiled by authors and editors who had to interpret facts largely from a distance. There was no army of reporters on the ground to feed the buzz instantly back to HQ. There were correspondents who dispatched stories written for an educated audience, usually the wealthy with the time, leisure and inclination to consume these journals as an academic would read a peer reviewed article. In 1852, a certain Karl Marx was a regular correspondent for the New York Tribune, a publication that set high standards for content and credibility.

All this changed when one William Randolph Hearst acquired the New York Journal in 1895 and transformed it into what was pejoratively known as "yellow journalism." Hearst introduced bold headlines coupled with alluring photographs, celebrity gossip, comic strips, crime stories but also stories about ordinary Americans that could be described as general interest and would sell to a wider populace, thus attracting a new and very lucrative market. The effect was to simplify, package, domesticate and commercialise the news in ways that made it entertaining, provocative and broadly addictive. Hearst was also editor in chief and had the final say on what went to press. While much of the content was serious, it was the presentation that changed everything. He was by no means the first to sell advertising space, which was another major source of revenue that would later have a considerable impact and even influence on content itself. Hearst was an ambivalent figure, a tycoon with a magnanimous and philanthropic side but also a ruthless cut-throat businessman hellbent on pursuing media consolidation against rivals like Joseph Pulitzer. He also had political ambitions, was elected to Congress and ran for president. The power and extent of his empire literally knew no bounds.

In 1898, Hearst took yellow journalism to a new level, dispatching reporters to Cuba in order to persuade President McKinley to go to war with colonial Spain. Stories of Spanish oppression and atrocities were obtained second or third hand and exaggerated for maximum effect. Many of these reports were pure propaganda relayed via local political agents and transmitted unfiltered and unchecked to galvanise war fever. It could be argued that Hearst was the Murdoch of his day, another media mogul who transformed much of the world's press into brash entertainment, crass sensationalism, lurid voyeurism, openly unabashed bias and unscrupulously invasive hacking. Contrast reporting of the Vietnam War to that of the two Iraq wars. War fever is far more contagious when the contagion is spread, not by media blackouts, but by the "free press" itself.

As the last American election showed, it was not just the conservative press that was rabidly opinionated. CNN, normally viewed by some as a trustworthy source of on the ground reporting, displayed a foolhardy preference for the Clinton campaign, relying on polls that were clearly inaccurate to further their cause in ways that are analogous to Huxley's definition of rational if not non-rational propaganda.

Is it any wonder then that in an age of social media where fewer and fewer people read newspapers, where news is cannibalised, dismembered and shared across multiple platforms and where everyone's opinion can count, that we are caught in the ever descending maelstrom where truth and falsehood are as the wood to the trees?  It has always been assumed that objectivity and impartiality are the essential ingredients of a free press. But a free press, whether owned and run by politically motivated moguls or streamed from makeshift backroom studios, represents the liberty to lead as well as to inform, to educate or manipulate, to disclose or to veil.

Today, news and opinion have become inseparable, bias is automatically assumed and the alt media is something tribal, relying on hardwired loyalties across the political and cultural spectrum. If you're alt-right, you hold a preordered set of beliefs by which the facts are interpreted accordingly. Ditto for the alt left. It is deductive as opposed to inductive reasoning, to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, a medium that controls the message.

Truth has always been a difficult and elusive phenomenon. We experience the world through many lenses and filters. We often don't see the blinkers as we are led to the water or a mirage of the water. Truth is a sphinx with a riddle, as the ancient Greeks understood all too well. Orson Welles proved that people could be easily fooled and his Martians are the contemporary equivalent of yellowcake, false flags, trolls and alpha shit lords. Truth is to power what power is to truth, an opportunity to subvert, debunk, shame, mock and abuse. Truth is a virtual boot stepping on a virtual face, not for eternity but for an ephemeral thrill. The choices we make to lap up what is served to us has become addictively involuntary but, like the proverbial horse, we can still choose not to drink and move on to the next watering hole. Some are less toxic than others and your Guardian may still be your friend but who to trust is often a matter of opinion and opinion is the poorer cousin of truth. Therein lies the conundrum.

RICHARD LEVY (aka Richard Leviathan) is the singer-songwriter for Ostara. He was previously in the duo, Strength Through Joy, and has toured extensively over the years with Death in June, Boyd Rice, Sol Invictus, Fire and Ice and others, as well as independently. He has contributed to Troubadours of the Apocalypse: Voices from the Neofolk, Industrial & Neoclassical Underground (2015), is the author of Odes (2015) and continues to release new music. For more information, please see

Wednesday, 23 November 2016


The Collapse of the System

by Leon Darío, N-AM Ibérica

There are compelling reasons why I think that we have to believe in the National-Anarchist Movement and that this is the only ideology which offers a realistic and perfect alternative for the modern times that surround and threaten us. The N-AM offers a proposal that relates to the more than foreseeable collapse that this system will suffer and to which we can arrive by means of the following three factors:

1. Collapse of the system that devastates the natural environment, in fact this has already happened in the Amazon where the mining and logging industry is wiping out a good part of the forest mass and threatens many ancestral tribes. Add to this polluting factories and their filthy discharge into mountains and rivers.

2. Economic collapse that will self-destruct and thus affect your own economic potential due to the blindness of amassing fortunes and savage speculation. This is something that is also beginning to happen in the case of Detroit, a site once known to the world for its enormous potential in the automobile industry and now in total bankruptcy and leaving many of the city's families in a state of social exclusion.

3. Collapse of the system in its technological aspect. Today the new generations are being educated by portable computers and "smart" phones, therefore IT seems to be an essential element of our lives.
Cards with electronic money, video surveillance cameras, email, databases or social networks have become essential components of modern life. All of them will be in serious danger and we will have to learn to live without them in the event of a strong solar / geomagnetic storm. If a solar explosion happens (something that scientists are increasingly evaluating as something that is getting closer over time), only those who are rooted in the countryside can survive and maintain land where they can cultivate and self-sustain themselves, producing their own energy (solar panels, firewood, etc.).

The happy slaves of the system, who cannot live without technology, will suffer greatly and be unable to survive. In fact this will surely lead to suicide and looting on a massive scale.
It is our task to prepare and anticipate this collapse of the system... whatever its mode.

Friday, 21 October 2016


In Memory of Muammar al-Qadhafi

by Sean Jobst
October 20, 2016

On this day five years ago, 20th October 2011, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi was brutally murdered by a fanatical mob of Wahhabi barbarians, who were armed and financed by the governments and intelligence agencies of the U.S., Israel, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in a phony "revolution" financed by the "Open Society" networks of billionaire financier George Soros through the phony "humanitarian" interventionism of "Avaaz", along with the Zionist-Neocon Bernard Henri-Levy. And this slaughter under the guise of "human rights" was eagerly pushed by the Obama Administration and Clinton's State Department, complete with cheerleaders from both political parties and including even oligarchs as varied as Trump. Mercenaries were found from among extremist Wahhabis and backed by the different branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, to form this new phony army of "revolutionaries". Even Russia, Iran and Hezbollah were complicit in the bombing of Libya and the overthrow of Qadhafi.

Why was Qadhafi overthrown and murdered? Because under his reign Libya was absolutely Debt-Free. He kept the vast gold resources of Libya within Libya, not making the same mistake as other countries in handing it over to private international banks in New York or Geneva where they quickly "disappear". The international bankers had absolutely no control over the economy of debt-free Libya, and its a telling fact that the first act of the rebels in their new state in Benghazi was to establish a central bank open up to private banking interests for a looters' free-for-all. After his death, the previous prosperity of Libya sunk into a new state where feuding warlords and fanatic religious extremist gangs run the show, where the women rights guaranteed and protected by Qadhafi are now in full decline, where tribal and ethnic minorities are once again being persecuted.

Qadhafi was overthrown and murdered because he was harnessing the water resources deep under the desert into a monumental project called the Man-Made River. This was itself a model for the "Third World," but another was his efforts to institute a debt-free, commodity-based currency across all of Africa. This was a threat to the control of the IMF, World Bank and Multi-National-Corporations, whose control is based on crippling entire nations with the compound-interest loans, and looting the natural resources - including even something as basic as water - through "privatization" which is a primary condition of these loans, themselves sold to these nations through the false euphemism "development."

Geopolitically, he was able to deconstruct the same political events in this world that look one way on the outside, but when you truly examine them you see a very different reality. He was able to see the financial interests and globalist think-tanks orchestrating so many of these phony "revolutions" and rebellions. The world is now facing the consequences, as it was the same rebel groups backed against him in Libya, that were soon after sent and turned against Syria, and these formed the nucleus of ISIS. He walked in that Arab League hall and spoke truth after the hanging of Saddam Hussein, telling other Arab leaders they would be next, only to be laughed at by those without his foresight.

And Europe itself is facing the consequences of the bombings against Libya, with the current Zionist/Globalist-engineered migration crisis into Europe, itself the stated goal of certain anti-European, mostly-Jewish social-engineers for the Kalergi Plan, combined with the results and blowback of the Neocon/Neoliberal bombings and invasions of countries across the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia. His murder caused many of the Africans living in Libya to flee for their lives, as the Wahhabi and tribalist mobs were whipped up into an anti-Black racism that even led them to murder indigenous blacks of Fezzan. He knew that Globalism ultimately wants to destroy and eradicate all cultures and ethnicities into some global state where we are all reduced to economic identities with some vague consumer/debt-based monoculture.

No politicians are completely free from excesses, but one thing that is very clear is under him Libya was a very prosperous country. Education, health, literacy, personal income - all of Libya's high standards were beacons not only for Africa but for the entire "Third World." Women had so many rights and their rights protected by Qadhafi. In his character, he was far more humble, accessible and honorable than all the gangs of political and media criminals who slandered him. As a political philosopher, he had much wisdom about the Global system and parliamentary politics. The world made a huge mistake and a crime when it overthrew and allowed the mob to brutalize and murder Muammar al-Qadhafi like barbarians. Justice is ultimately served and everyone will answer for their crimes.

"The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments." - Muammar al-Qadhafi (1942-2011)


Thought on the Bush E-mails
by Sean Jobst
October 14, 2016

I should preface this by first saying this doesn't excuse Hillary Clinton's own email issue, but it does show the hypocrisy of those who attack her primarily for that and not the issues themselves (like I do), knowing that their boy Donald Trump and their entire movement is just as complicit as the Democrats in the actual substance of the emails - what they reveal in policies - and not merely in the act itself, which is as much a distraction as the carefully-calculated recent release of the 2005 "lewd" Trump tape. The way the media frames these issues are carefully-calculated distractions, meant to polarize the two sides of the system to their respective cults (and it IS the "lesser of two evils" cult no matter how partisans on each side may try to justify their support for one over the other) while distracting minds away from the real issues.

There is a pattern here between ALL these administrations. Its actually a continuity, because if we go back to political science the State and its bureaucracy remains the same - only the outer facade called "government" is interchangeable. There are certain financial and Big Business interests which are the real power behind the throne, no matter if they choose a Democratic or Republican puppet, or a Hillary or Trump this year. I'll save more details about that side of the story for future posts. As for the emails....

The emails which have leaked out from Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department reveal much deeper than the Benghazi attacks which Trump cultists and fellow-travellers like to get bogged down into. No, what they reveal is that both sides are complicit and he is just as much as she is - they are both complicit in the foreign policies that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, in the rise of Daesh (ISIS) and the blind subservience towards Israel....they are both complicit in the domestic banking policies which have further delivered up our country - just as other countries have likewise been bought and sold - to the international financiers and Big Multinational/Special Interests.

I could only wish the Bush emails were likewise exposed, but if I had to take a guess I'd say they reveal where the trillions of dollars that went up missing from the Pentagon before 9/11 went; how the Neoconservatives were already implementing broad warmongering plans going back to the Oded Yinon Plan and the Clean Break document they previously wrote on behalf of their true master, Benjamin Netanyahu - the blood and treasure of American "goyim" and the blood of Iraqi and other "goyim" being of no concern at all to the Neocons; and I'd say they reveal the shift in policy called "The Redirection" of 2006/2007, whose results we are clearly seeing in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and other countries right now.

Just like the Hillary Clinton emails reveal such facts that we, who are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists," "isolationists," or even much worse than that (for example, "anti-Semites") were saying all along: That the Obama administration, Hillary State Department, and the complicit politicians on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and House of Representatives, were illegally arming, training and financing the rebel groups in Syria (including ones that have since openly linked up with ISIS), on behalf of a pro-Israel agenda of overthrowing the Syrian government and isolating Israel's enemies of Iran and Hezbollah. THIS was and is the main driving force behind the Western governments' meddling in Syria - it goes back to the Oded Yinon and Clean Break plans which BOTH called for the destabilization and ultimate division of Iraq and Syria so that Israel can then expand its control and influence over the region.

And the emails that have been released by WikiLeaks also reveal how Hillary Clinton was using her office in the State Department on behalf of her Big Business friends from Boeing and Raytheon, to ensure they were able to sell fighter jets and other weapons to Saudi Arabia which have now been used to slaughter thousands of Yemenis in that country's barbaric war against an impoverished yet culturally and architecturally-rich country. And the emails that have been released by WikiLeaks likewise reveal the extent to which her own campaign raised and grew the spectre of Donald Trump in this staged political charade.

And before Trump fans and Republicans agree with my attack on Clinton like their own side is saintly, let me point out Trump has likewise been slavishly pro-Israel (with a record as such going back WAY before he was even running for President), he was an eager supporter of the wars in both Iraq and Libya - and so just as complicit in the current situation with ISIS - and has his own Wall Street financiers and oligarch friends I can likewise name, complete with the exhaustive sources of everything I write and expose.

Finally, as an aside - while I attack the financial interests and their puppet politicians and their murderous policies over the government in my own country - I will say that likewise Russia and Vladimir Putin is not innocent or bloodless either, with their own history of imperialistic policies and false-flag attacks, and that WikiLeaks has its own political agenda that isn't always consistently devoted to the truth (why does it never expose Israeli leaders, for example?). Nevertheless, I will say that NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden whom BOTH Hillary and Trump have pledged to prosecute or even kill, is a HERO for exposing what the U.S. government does that we the people are not privy to, and that it is the politicians who are guilty of treason and not Snowden.


The Oligarchy's Staged Hillary/Trump Charade
by Sean Jobst
October 12, 2016

WikiLeaks recently uncovered an email from April 2015, which seems to expose how the Donald Trump phenomenon was actually much promoted by Hillary Clinton. "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously," wrote Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta.

Specifically naming Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson as the three "Pied Piper" candidates, Podesta also wrote: "In this scenario, we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party."

This information is significant for two reasons, both examples of the staged charade called the two-party presidential election: First, those who are Trump supporters and like to pretend their candidate is somehow "anti-Establishment" and "persecuted" by the media, when it was the media that promoted him and gave him all this publicity in the first place. Second, those who are Hillary supporters because they are more offended by Trump's words than Hillary's actual policies, should realize the Trump spectre was largely created by their own presidential campaign to begin with. Both groups who buy into  "lesser of two evils" should realize they're ALL being played for fools in this entire charade staged by the Oligarchy.

Anyone familiar with Public Relations would know that any publicity is ultimately good publicity. This may sound strange except for those who recognize just how the game IS staged. The masses are polarized into two competing factions, obviously controlled by the same financial and special interests at the top (i.e. the intersecting power-elites of Zionism/AIPAC, Wall Street/international banking houses, the Military-Industrial-Complex, Globalist secret societies, and their neocon/neoliberal think-tank fronts).

Its no accident that Public Relations really took off when corporations hired Edward Bernays, nephew of the famous psychologist Sigmund Freud. PR is psychology, and the strategies created by presidential campaigns are no exception. Neither is anything which the mainstream media "reports" on or covers; ALL is calculated and staged for certain ends, intended to set up the discourse to which one or the other side react in different ways.

The majority of the mainstream media clearly prefers Hillary Clinton, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean they really fear Trump, whom they frame as the "opposition." The entire discourse which has been framed by the MSM is one of two "choices", around which the people are conditioned to rally around either because they like one or they hate or fear the other.

The Trump campaign has been made by the MSM, simply because it compelled him out of nowhere in politics and gave him 24/7 media coverage as the mirror to Hillary. Controlling the discourse, they then make carefully-calculated and timed attacks of Trump so those on that side can then rally more around their "anti-establishment" candidate, even though they wouldn't even know of his "opposition" to the "establishment" which is Hillary except from what they're even told by the MSM discouse in the first place.

Donald Trump is only too happy to play along, as he laid out in his book, The Art of the Deal: "One thing I've learned about the press is they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational, the better. It's in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you. I've always done things a little differently. I don't mind controversy, and my deals tend to be somewhat ambitious. The result is that the press has always wanted to write about me."

Behind the scenes, while their groups of followers and fans may fight and argue against each other, the likes of Trump and the Clintons are actually quite close with each other - laughing it up in their oligarchic cackles at the naivete of the masses who keep falling for the very same game every four years, and then wonder why things keep getting worse and the status quo remains the same. As it relates to these two political clowns, the record is there for anyone with a mind and common-sense:

In 1999, President Bill Clinton appointed Donald Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, to a U.S. Court of Appeals. The Clintons were honored guests at Trump's wedding to Melania on his Palm Beach, Florida compound in 2005. According to The Clinton Foundation's own records, Donald Trump has donated at least $100,000 to this non-profit he now attacks; he also has donated to Hillary's senate and presidential campaigns. (<>)

In 2008, Trump told CNN: "Hillary's a great friend of mine. Her husband is a great friend of mine. They're fantastic people. She's a very nice woman, and he's a very nice guy." (<>)

Trump wrote in a blog post on his "TrumpUniversity" site, dated March 13, 2008: "I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great President or Vice-President." He followed this up with an October 2013 interview on the Larry King show: "I know her very well. They're members of my club, and I like both of them very much, and he was with you one time and he said he likes me. And I do like him." (<>).

This is in addition to the "friendly" telephone conversation between Trump and Bill Clinton in May 2015, just weeks before he announced his run for the presidency. (<>)

In addition, Trump shares many of the same corrupt links to Bill Clinton, which reveal some about the entire game and the REAL powers behind the thrones, links that include the infamous NYC real-estate mogul Larry Silverstein (<>)(<>) and convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein (<>).


"Make Oligarchy Great Again": Donald Trump's Zionist Oligarchs
by Sean Jobst
October 7, 2016

Trump himself is an oligarch - and it has nothing to do with being "rich" or whatever. Oligarchy goes deeper than that. He is financed by a number of oligarchs and financiers: the likes of the Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who has funded his super PACS to the tune of over $100 million. The CEO of his campaign is the former Goldman Sachs banker Stephen Bannon (also a leading light of the controlled-opposition Alt-Right movement).

His economic advisors include the ruthless "corporate raider" Carl Icahn, named among "the world's 50 richest Jews" by the Jerusalem Post, who Trump has already said would be appointed Treasury Secretary. And they include the ruthless banker and apartment slum lord Steven Mnuchin, who worked at Goldman Sachs for 17 years and, as head of the Soros-controlled OneWest Bank, stole millions from people he cruelly threw out on the street because their ends' meet wasn't enough to satisfy his greed.

His team of economic advisors also include John Paulson, CFR member and former hedge-fund manager who made billions speculating on the housing market; Stephen Calk, founder of the Federal Savings Bank who previously worked for Chase Manhattan Corp. and the infamous Bank of America; Wilbur Ross, the billionaire who spent 25 years running Rothschild Inc's bankruptcy practice; and Steve Feinberg, co-founder and CEO of the hedge fund Cerberus Capital Management, L.P..

Another Trump backer is the billionaire Stewart Rehr, who made his fortune in Big Pharma and who is the 183rd richest man in America. And they also include Bennett LeBow, who made a fortune off a luxury hotel deal in the Ukraine with close connections to Jewish mobster Vadim Rabinovich and with his business partner being Ronald Lauder, who was simultaneously heir of the cosmetics company Estee Lauder, U.S ambassador to Austria and president of the World Jewish Congress.

As for the Neocons, then they have split. While Robert Kagan, Max Boot and Victoria Nuland have been close foreign policy advisors to Hillary Clinton, including during her time in the State Department, Trump has earned the endorsement of the "father of Neoconservatism," co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) Norman Podhoretz. Other Neocons are among Trump's foreign policy advisors: Joseph Schmitz, former Blackwater executive and fellow at the Centre for Security Policy, the rabidly Zionist think-tank funded by war-profiteers Raytheon and Lockheed Martin; and Joseph Keith Kellogg, former Chief Operating Officer (COO) at the war-profiteering Oracle Company and COO of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq from 2003 to 2004.


Divide and Rule
by Sean Jobst
October 7, 2016

The truth about this election, as with every other election, is that two parties controlled by the very same financial interests, ultimately serving the very same agenda with only the minor details differing, pick their respective puppets for the American people to "vote" on, so that they can continue to have the illusion of "choice." The media creates a spectacle, distracting us with non-issues while giving both puppets a platform. This polarizes the people into "right" and "left", so that each side can attack the other for the very same things that their candidate does. Lest the people begin to wake up, they are inundated with the latest distractions and bombarded with soundbytes and preselected images/stories 24/7.

The truth is neither of the Republican or Democratic candidates represent any of you, the people. They represent Zionist special interests and the Wall Street/international financiers. Each side has their own favored oligarchs. These financiers funnel millions into the PACs representing both candidates, by this way getting around U.S. election laws. These politicians are nothing but whores of the worst kind, selling themselves out to the highest bidder because the State (different from "government", which is merely the interchangeable outer trappings) is nothing but the political service industry of the Big Banks.

Their system is one of profits for the big bankers, and debt for the masses. In return for their blood money donations, the politicians then ensure that the status quo remains the same for the financiers. To finance their own operations, the State borrows from these private bankers to make money out of nothing. Then they pass along the debt to the masses, creating this fiction of a "national" debt when you, me and none of us aren't party to any of their agreements. Yet we're supposed to play their games and pretend they have our "consent"?!

Monday, 26 September 2016


I have been forced to take action over a problem that has been fermenting for some time and must inform National-Anarchist supporters that NATA-NY is no longer part of the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM). When Craig FitzGerald became involved with us several years ago, he wanted to (a) get rid of the hyphen in 'National-Anarchism', and (b) take a non-racial approach. This was not in line with N-AM principles, of course, but in the spirit of unity and having respect for the work being done in New York, I tolerated it. In fact I ended up defending NATA when Josh Bates tried to cause problems and divide us back in 2015. I am perfectly happy, therefore, for people to adhere to the N-AM if they do not share our beliefs about Race, but what I will not tolerate is people trying to change the N-AM itself or distort our views. As some of you already know, Craig was recently involved in a discussion about the so-called 'Alt-Right' on his timeline and insinuated that "scary anarchists" were part of it. At one point, somebody called Jack Neison wrote to say "there are no anarchists who are part of the alt-right." Craig replied by saying "wrong, ATS, & NAM etc are both associated with Alt right." Steven Saragian later appeared on Craig's thread and said "I have seen Troy Southgate and others distancing the NAM from the alt right." Saragian is correct. Despite our mutual opposition to Leftism and political correctness, the N-AM has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Alt-Right'. Indeed, when the N-AM Manifesto was written the 'Alt-Right' did not even exist and we have always made it perfectly clear that we stand beyond Left and Right altogether. Not simply the Left and Right of the Centre, but the Extreme Left and Extreme Right. Over the last few months, NATA members have become increasingly more involved with the Right, but instead of bringing people from that side over to our way of thinking, through entryism, NATA itself is being subsumed into the Right and gradually moving away from National-Anarchism. Let's be perfectly honest: if you support Trump or any other statist - regardless if the other politicians seem worse or you are sick to death of the drones on the Left, as we all are - then you cannot possibly be N-AM. This is basic common sense. We are neither Right nor Left and will not be pigeon-holed to suit the Kosher-Nationalist agenda. Commenting on the N-AM group's 'burkini-on-the-beach' thread in early-September, meanwhile, Craig said to me that "our anti Zionist efforts over the years have done more for Islam than any crying about this lady will ever do." I was disappointed by this statement. Not simply because I care very little about the woman herself, but due to the fact that I was clearly defending the wider principles of identity and personal liberty. My reasons for opposing the actions of the police, therefore, are quite different to those people on the Left and I am surprised that wasn't obvious from my accompanying comments. Meanwhile, what Craig said about anti-Zionism sounds like something your average Zionist would say. I have never actively worked for the Islamic religion in my life, in fact whilst I oppose ISIS with a vengeance many of the victims of Zionism happen to be non-Muslim and it would be completely ridiculous to ignore it on account of being unable to contain one's anger at economic migrants who, themselves, are mere consequences of capitalism. Craig also referred to a "Muslim take over". That simply isn't happening and the banks, corporations and mass media are controlled by Organised Jewry, not Muslims. In conclusion, the N-AM and NATA have now gone their own separate ways. We have a clearly-defined Manifesto and that is what attracts people to the Movement in the first place. It's the first port of call. Once people cease to honour the Manifesto or try to include us within someone else's analysis of what constitutes a political umbrella group, then the situation obviously becomes untenable. I bear no ill-will towards Craig, Gabriel or anyone else from NATA and write this with a heavy heart. Unfortunately, however, all the time they are unable to see that every politician is working for the Zionist system and willingly accept the terminological parameters set by others then it seems there is very little basis for a working relationship and their actions are undermining what we are attempting to achieve. As I said, working alongside the N-AM is one thing, but telling people we are 'Alt-Right' or actively promoting the likes of Trump and Putin sends out a completely wrong message and is unacceptable for those of us who reject the Right as much as the Left. ~ Troy Southgate

Wednesday, 31 August 2016


Over the last few years, National-Anarchists have built up a good following on the internet and we now have a strong presence and a principled reputation. We also have some very good activists around the world who have taken part in demonstrations, propaganda exercises, regional meetings and cultural events. However, now that thousands of people have joined our Facebook groups and read about our ideas and activities, perhaps even joining in the discussion, it is now time for some of you to think about ways that you can help promote the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) in your own areas. We need people who are prepared to act as regional contact points, to start up co-operatives and box-vegetable schemes, invent alternative currencies and black markets, run home-schooling networks and form music projects, establish regular study groups and poetry clubs, and begin self-defence and survivalist groups. It is time to take things to the next level and to do that we need YOUR help. If you want to turn ideas into reality, then please get in touch.

Friday, 26 August 2016

DEATH IN JUNE - Last Europa Tour 2016

DEATH IN JUNE - Last Europa Tour 2016











13.X.2016 - ROME, ITALY @ CUBE



Sunday, 29 November 2015

RADIO INTERVIEW: Josie the Outlaw - Anarchism: Speaking Out Against Tyranny

Josie the Outlaw is an anarchist, activist and promoter of the ideas of voluntarism, self-ownership and a stateless society. Her YouTube videos have reached more than 200,000 viewers in just a month. Her philosophy states that "Living outside the confines of unjust laws is necessary to living a just life." We'll discuss her work partnership with Larken Rose, their current project and the rise of true anarchism across the globe. She explains her philosophy of being an outlaw. We also question why there are so few outspoken female anarchists. Other topics we discuss include law, taxes, gun control and police brutality. As an anarchist, she shares her approach to mandatory licenses, insurance and permits. Josie explains why it is our duty to speak out against tyranny. We'll also discuss the ridiculous notion of the "greater good" and the rise of socialism. Only a stateless society is logically or morally compatible with non-aggression, self-ownership and voluntaryism because government is always coercive and violent.

RADIO INTERVIEW: Attie Schutte - Post-Apartheid South Africa & Afrikaner Self Determination

Attie Schutte is an Afrikaner blogger and political activist who lives and works in Johannesburg, South Africa. His interest varies from self-sufficient localism and Ethno-Nationalism to Austrian economics and the various schools of Anarchism. He’s a member of the Orania Movement. We’ll discuss never spoken of events in South Africa that concern colonialism, Apartheid and post-Apartheid life. Attie also shares some history of early Europeans in South Africa. What is life like in South Africa’s “rainbow nation” How is the White minority treated in South Africa Attie tells about violence against White South Africans and why the media doesn’t report it. We’ll discuss healthy segregation verses government intervention and how government is always a force behind genocide. Attie speaks against government policy involving discrimination and race based conflicts. Government always creates more problems. We’ll talk about one Afrikaner self determined community called Orania that refuses to be part of South Africa’s “rainbow nation” and how they’re labeled racists for propagating Afrikaner culture in solitude. Orania is the only hope of survival for the Afrikaners wanting their own government, in their own territory. We talk about the healthy aspect of separate homelands for every ethnic group and how it can bring the most amount of peace. Later, we discuss the current colonization of Europe, the failure of democracy and the idea of Free Market Nationalism.

SEE ALSO: Reggie Yates: Extreme South Africa - White Slums (S01E01)

RADIO INTERVIEW: Cody Wilson - 3D Printed Guns, PC Hacktivism & Cultural Terrorism

Cody Rutledge Wilson, a student of law, political philosophy, and social theory, is a USA crypto and free-market anarchist. He is best known as a founder/director of Defense Distributed, a non-profit organization that develops and publishes open source gun designs, so-called "Wiki Weapons," suitable for 3D printing. USA Carry named Wilson one of America's "30 Influential Pro-Gun Rights Advocates," and Wired Magazine's "Danger Room" has named him one of "The 15 Most Dangerous People in the World." 

Cody speaks of his conservative southern Christian upbringing and what brought the power of anarchy to his awareness. He explains his impetus for creating the world’s first 3D printable gun and the State Department static he has encountered since making the plans available on the worldwide web. Cody touches on the filament modeling process and the printing of bullets, and we talk about these schematics getting into the wrong hands. We also consider the European migrant invasion that is bringing with it firearms into unarmed countries. Then, we discuss the potential for anarchism to embrace primordial traditionalism in breaking from hegemonic modernity. We get into the changing demographics of the US and what a majority minority means for politics in the country. Cody talks about how certain forms of new technology are being suppressed by the SJW political system and likens this conformist catering to an outgrowth of the Cold War. We discuss hacktivism, alternative payment processing, and the obstacles in separating from the capitalist banking system. Later, Cody gives his take on Trump, who he calls the “avatar of anti-politics,” and he shares what it’s like to live in the racially realistic south as neo-liberals fight to whitewash Confederate history and eradicate southern culture.


RADIO INTERVIEW: Keith Preston - 21st Century Anarchism: Anarcho - Pluralism, Radical Localism & Effective Resistance

Keith Preston received a B.A. in Religious Studies and an M.A. in History with additional graduate study in Sociology and Criminology. He is a former instructor of sociology, a former regional delegate for the Industrial Workers of the World and a former member of the National Committee of the Workers Solidarity Alliance. He is the founder and director of American Revolutionary Vanguard and the chief editor of He is also the host of the "Attack the System" online podcast series. We’ll discuss what Keith calls Anarcho-Pluralism and Pan-Secessionism. He’ll talk about the core strategic efforts for the pan-anarchist movement. The idea is to work to abolish the central state and give every political interest group its own territory to create whatever kind of society it wishes. How do we go about dissolving the state? What are the methodologies for practical implementation of anarchism? What are the problems perceived in the mainstream of the anarchist milieu? How has mainstream Libertarianism failed? Keith explains how various types of anarchists can work together to crush the state and become an effective resistance. He will explain the real threat currently facing anarchism: totalitarian humanists, liberal humanism, progressive imperialism, cultural authoritarianism, tolerance of repression and political correctness have waged war on freedom. We speak more on how “radical localism” is the best possible method of avoiding tyrannies and abuses of Leviathan states. Anti-statism sentiments in America are becoming the norm. Will 21st century anarchists succeed in their efforts, or are we destined for tyranny?

RADIO INTERVIEW: Craig Fitzgerald - NATA & Multicultural Madness

Craig Fitzgerald is one of the founders of the National Anarchist Tribal Alliance of NewYork. We’ll discuss the national anarchist movement and how it can be a solution to the problems we’re facing. We’ll discuss what a nation is and how it has nothing to do with government. As multiculturalism is being forced onto the west, we’ll talk about the madness of mass immigration, cultural genocide and the government’s involvement. Who is out to destroy western civilization? Craig elaborates on the culture wars and talks about radicalized extremists out to destabilize Europe. In the days of diversity being pushed down our throats, we’ll talk about how true diversity comes with de-centralization and voluntaryism. We’ll talk about the need for Europeans to move beyond the eastern Abrahamic religions and find their true heritage and roots found in Europe. Craig presents the idea of forming local communities and sovereign enclaves with like minded people to combat globalization, homogenization and government tyranny. Later, we talk about government infiltration of White nationalist groups. We’ll also talk about the violence and hypocrisy of Antifa, a collective of militant so called anti-fascists. We’ll end the hour on suppressed American history and megalithic sites that are hardly spoken about.  

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Anarchism: Its Rational Basis

Anarchism, far from being irrational and naively optimistic, may be our only hope.

Mikhail Bakunin, the founder of modern anarchism, though unsystematic, was a most prescient thinker.

Long before Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek Bakunin warned that no “group of intellectuals no matter how great their genius” could “understand the plethora of interests, attitudes and activities” needed to centrally plan and administer the rational allocation of preferences in a modern industrial economy.

The anarchist origin of this critique of central planning is just about universally ignored precisely because its neoliberal variant, which is crucial to the legitimacy of contemporary economic policy, claims a monopoly on rationality and efficiency.

It is often said that anarchism is an irrational way in which to organise a modern industrial society, and this argument is presented by serious minded critics as the most forceful against anarchist arrangements.

Anarchism is a doctrine for the warm hearted romantic, not the hard headed rationalist, we are told by those who possess the cynicism of the sophisticated.

One of the more well known dismissals of the “naive optimism” of anarchist thought and practice, that due to James Joll, observed that “mass production and consumption and large scale industry under a centralised direction, whether capitalist or socialist, have, whatever one may think about them, become the characteristic forms of western society and of the newly emergent industrial countries elsewhere.”

Anarchism swims against the tide for “the basic assumptions of anarchism are all contrary to the development of large scale industry and of mass production and consumption” so “for this reason, much anarchist thinking seemed to be based on a romantic, backward looking vision of an idealised past society of artisans and peasants, and on a total rejection of the realities of twentieth century social and economic organisation.”

The argument is an intriguing one for it presupposes that there is a necessary correlation between rationality and centralised modes of economic and political organisation, and the only defence offered for this presupposition is that is how matters are currently arranged.

The mere existence of centralised modes of organisation imply their rationality.

The reality, and necessity, of centralised modes of organisation is one of the charges that some Marxists continue to make against anarchist thought. Certainly Marxists would not disagree with Joll regarding present realities for, as related in The Communist Manifesto, capitalism “has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization.”

Marxists, crucially for our present purposes, have tended to argue that this centralisation is an historical stage that civilisation must traverse for the advent of production for surplus, and its underlying productive basis, make communism possible in a modern setting.

One of the reasons why the Bolsheviks ruled via the iron hand of the state was because they sought to amass capital, especially at the expense of the peasantry, so that Soviet society could pass through this necessary stage of industrial development upon the road to communism.

One may accuse Lenin and Stalin of many a thing but surely “naive optimism” be not one of them.
The last thirty to thirty five years has witnessed a one sided class war waged against the working classes by the corporate elites and the states to which they are tightly connected.

This attack on the population, dressed in the garb of neoliberal theory, has to no small degree been justified on grounds of rationality and efficiency. From “free trade” to labour market deregulation the market has been unleashed for the mantra has it that the market can ensure the rational production, allocation and distribution of resources. Behind the scenes, in the meanwhile, corporations derive benefit from state tutelage whilst the working classes are subject to its disciplining rigours.

A key argument made by neoliberals, following on from the socialist calculation debate, is that market based societies alone are rational or efficient allocators of resources because of their highly decentralised nature. The panoply of buyers and sellers operating in markets incorporate all available information needed to ensure the rational allocation of preferences. That information is reflected in market prices.

The most graphic, and most intellectually bankrupt, application of this doctrine is the efficient market hypothesis which asserts that capital market prices incorporate all available information regarding future capital earnings. This means that market prices are rational and based on economic fundamentals, rather than manias, irrational exuberance and the like. Given that it is via capital markets that investment is made in capitalist society there exists a strong tendency toward the rationality of investment and the allocation of capital.

The link drawn here, intriguingly, was one between rationality and decentralisation, yet it is the decentralised aspect to anarchism that makes it “naive optimism.”

The reality of financial market instability, most especially the manic driven cycles of boom and bust, demonstrate that capital market prices cannot be reflective of the rational processing of all available information regarding future earnings. This fact is of no small moment as the Chernobyl scale meltdown of financial markets and the resulting misallocation of capital sits at the core of the global financial crisis.

We all know that investors and speculators spend a great deal of time hunting for information prior to taking a position in capital markets. If capital market prices incorporated all available information such activity would not be necessary so the fact that it occurs, and that upon a large scale, suggests that markets in fact are quite inefficient.

The purported rationality of markets, despite the grim reality, is neither utopian nor naively optimistic. To the contrary, neoliberal policy making continues to frame our age.

A centrally planned economy cannot possibly incorporate all available information, the neoliberals told us, and we are told that only they told us, for the central apparatus of the state cannot possibly possess the information needed to ensure a rational allocation of goods and services.

Mikhail Bor, a Soviet central planner, observed in the 1960s that “the planned organisation of the economy in the USSR allows for the rational use of labour in the interest of the whole of society.” Similar sentiments applied to other sectors of the economy.The expectation was raised that advances in mathematical modelling, made by possible by supercomputing, linear programming and cybernetics, would make central planning yet more rational.

Such be a species of “naive optimism.” But one of no small moment as the travails of the Soviet economy were used to buttress the case made for the rationality of markets in the advanced industrial societies. The failure of Soviet central planning added impetus to the next, post cold war, phase of the neoliberal offensive on society. Alternative critiques, to the extent even addressed, could be dismissed as naïve optimism.

Ours is a society dominated by large corporations whose highly hierarchical and centralised systems of management plan the production, allocation, and distribution of goods and services. As Alfred Chandler observed “in many sectors of the economy the visible hand of management replaced what Adam Smith referred to as the invisible hand of market forces.”

It should be stressed that these visible hands are quite centralised and hierarchical. Ours is an economy composed of strategic alliances between connected islands of centralised economic and political power.

Interestingly Chandler argued that in the domain of consumption market dynamics still apply, but even here one must be cautious. The vast public relations industry, through highly crafted propaganda, plays a very important role in shaping the pattern of consumption, and this is done from cradle to grave twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Information asymmetries are endemic to corporate dominated societies for there is much that the visible hand of management knows that other hands do not. When there exist asymmetries in the possession of power so there must exist asymmetries in the possession of information. When asymmetries of information exist within markets then the misallocation of resources follows, and so we get, often colossal, market failure.

Markets have the tendency to encourage the central agglomeration of capital as they evolve with respect to time so this is an inherent tendency to any market based society.

Anarchism, at least its traditional left wing variants of anarchist communism and anarchosyndicalism, is a vision of a modern industrial society that is highly decentralised.

The vision is of a society that consists of a decentralised federation of worker owned and managed enterprises and that, for anarchist communists, distributes and remunerates production upon the basis of need.

The planning decisions of these enterprises would account for the production, distribution and allocation of resources.

These enterprises would be non hierarchical and non authoritarian. That is, their management would be based on principles of participatory democracy so therefore all economic agents would be managers involved in the framing of economic decisions. There would, thereby, exist a robust degree of equality among the participants of such an economic order.

One of the main arguments for democracy is epistemological. Democracy, unlike other systems of governance, has epistemic virtue for when all participate in the framing of decisions it is possible through free and equal deliberation to incorporate all the accessible information needed for a relatively rational allocation of preferences.

There is nothing inherent to economic governance that renders less force to this argument as when applied to the political domain.

A decentralised federation of worker owned and managed industries would be best at incorporating all accessible information needed for a relatively efficient production, distribution and allocation of resources because it would be thoroughly democratic. That is not to suggest that such a society would be a rationalist heaven in some absolutist Laplacian sense for such a society would be required to confront the pervasive effects of uncertainty like any other.

So we might say that of Marxist centralised systems of planning, corporate dominated society, free market nirvana, none would be more rational than anarchism for none is nearly as participatory.

Feel free to call this naïve optimism if you like. To paraphrase Princess Leia, it's our only hope.