Friday, 12 May 2017


As many of us already know from experience, those on the Left and Right of the political spectrum have a marked tendency to hijack certain political issues for their own ends. Rather than truly empathise with a given cause, therefore, such people seem more concerned with advancing the narrow interests of their own party or organisation and, if things like genocide or police brutality provide them with an opportunity to promote their own agendae, then all well and good. The blinkered manner in which both Left and Right view the world occasionally finds its way into the ranks of the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM). We have to come to expect that people who have only recently discovered our ideas will inevitably have retained some of the negative ideological baggage of the past, but unless people are willing to discard all traces of their former political allegiances then they have absolutely no place in our Movement. National-Anarchists do not support Trump, Putin, Assad or Le Pen; National-Anarchists do not endorse racist behaviour or misogyny; National-Anarchists are opposed to fascism and neo-Nazism; National-Anarchists do not defend imperialism and colonialism; and National-Anarchists are not anti-communist to the extent that they forget about the capitalist ruling class or ignore the fact that the historical roots of our struggle can be found among those who have always fought against injustice and oppression. The list goes on. Ironically, there are people on the Left who seek to demonise us by associating us with the Far Right, something which can then lead to members of the Far-Right gravitating towards National-Anarchism itself in the mistaken belief that we are simply 'playing' at being Anarchists or using Anarchism as a convenient means of advancing fascist objectives in a more covert and surreptitious manner. Sometimes, of course, it is deliberate and there are people on the Left who fully realise that we are genuine but who also recognise how much of a threat we present to their dishonest stranglehold on the anti-capitalist movement as a whole. Similarly, there are people on the Right who have tried to use National-Anarchism as a vehicle for their own fascist views. Let's get one thing perfectly straight. We National-Anarchists, above and beyond all else, are Anarchists. The clue, after all, is in the name. As free-thinkers who adopt a decidedly non-coercive attitude, however, we also welcome people of various races, cultures, religions and sexual orientation and remain strongly anti-fascist in the sense that we completely reject both the overt fascism of the Right and the violent Left-wing hypocrites who gather under the counter-productive banners of Antifa. So, remember, if you wish to become involved with the National-Anarchist Movement then you must (a) learn what it means to be an Anarchist, and (b) discard the remaining vestiges of those bankrupt ideologies which have already resulted in the death of millions of innocent people all over the world. Have some respect, both for yourselves and for us. We are not playing games here. ~ Troy Southgate

Wednesday, 26 April 2017


Thoughts On Russia

by Sean Jobst
April 8th, 2017

There are two current extremes when it comes to Russia. One extreme is that pushed by the liberal mainstream media, and Establishment politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as similar parties in other Western countries. They scapegoat the Russian government as having interfered in or determined elections in the U.S. or other countries, or hypocritically accuse it of the very same things their own governments are guilty of. BUT, there is another extreme and this is one of excessive Russophilia and Putin-worship, very present (and I need go no further than the FB newsfeed to see the innumerable examples from several of you).

The principled writer and investigative journalist in me is disgusted by any hypocrisy or lack of consistency, so I will now call out these trends. I don't care about any popularity contest, and I know several of the same people who applaud whenever I - as an American citizen - speak out against the policies or actions of the U.S. government, will suddenly get defensive that I dare challenge their worship of Putin or their Russophilia because what some are opposed for, others should be opposed for the very same policies. Yet, those people will be unable to challenge anything actually written in the following post since I have only gone wherever the evidence takes me without making excuses for some and not others.

It goes without saying that I oppose the clamouring for war against Russia by the liberal and Neocon establishment, and the trends which oppose Putin solely for the very same policies (like invading other countries or interfering in other countries' elections) they are themselves guilty of, or those which oppose Putin's Russia because it goes against the liberal social values and standards prevalent in the modern West. Just like what I experienced during the U.S. elections, whenever I would write or post against one side they would accuse me of being with the other side - even if in the very same post I also spoke out against that side. People have too much of a visceral and emotional reaction, especially online, throwing consistency and principles to the wayside whenever it runs contrary to their own personal bias. Both the mainstream media and the governments are this way, but so are large segments of allegedly anti-Establishment or alternative media outlets, who cling to their own fundamental assumptions and ignore any evidence challenging these.

First, Putin is not to be commended for his actions in Syria. The Russian government - just like the governments who have been supporting the other side, the rebels - are out for their own interests and care nothing about Syrians. There is no altruism when it comes to the actions of politicians and governments, no matter what side they represent. He ONLY got involved in Syria after four years, when the country had already been devastated and divided beyond any foreseeable redemption. Even then it was largely to protect Russian bases, in the same way that the U.S. government interferes in other countries to protect their own bases. And in the beginning of the war, Russian negotiators were more than willing to sell out Assad in their negotiations with U.S. and NATO diplomats - at meetings where the fate of Syria was being discussed but no Syrians present. The negotiations fell apart, but nevertheless Putin's government was more than willing to sell out their "ally" Assad.

Why would this surprise anyone? They never used their Security Council veto power when it came to NATO's aggression against Qhadafi and Libya (a war where even Iran was championing the same Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups they now decry in Syria). There were no Russian bases in Libya, and Qhadafi was more independent, so they were more than willing to throw him to the NATO and Gulf Arab wolves just as their Western counterparts threw the Chechens to the Russian wolves in 1996. Whenever the two have spats, they bring up these crimes of the others but that's only for later propaganda purposes because they were complicit when those crimes were being committed.Putin's Russia is NOT free from international banks or from IMF/World Bank debts - it’s very much part of the same global economic system. Nor did Putin "free" Russia from the oligarchs - he had disputes with SOME oligarchs but is very close and was actually groomed into power early on by other oligarchs, such as Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovitch. These are all matters of fact to anyone who cares to investigate and research with an honest mind without merely repeating baseless slogans, as will be Putin's close ties with the Jewish supremacist Chabad Lubavitch movement and its representative in Russia, Berel Lazar. Ironically, some of the same people who rightly condemn such connections of U.S. or other politicians will completely give their idol Vladimir Putin a free pass. For his links with Chabad and these oligarchs, I have provided a link to my article complete with sources, in the comments section below.

In foreign policy, Putin has pursued the most pro-Israel policy of any Russian leader in recent years. He is a close personal friend with Netanyahu and is very popular among the Russian-born communities within Israel, many of whom have direct connections with the most extremist settler Zionist movements. Anyone who knows about history will know that during that great proxy "war" called the "Cold War" (when the two countries never actually fought directly), the Soviets would give sub-standard equipment to "Third World" countries with a lot of strings attached. So, it is with Iran and Syria, with the Russian government now giving just enough technical aid to keep it afloat so Russia can continue to benefit from it, but not even close enough to bring it to parity with Israel. Is it any accident that Israeli planes have repeatedly flown freely above Syria, killing Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces alike, without any direct reaction from Russian planes? There is an understanding between Putin and Netanyahu, that is why! Nor has Putin ever done anything against the Zionist slaughter of Palestinians, including many Orthodox Christians (allegedly Russia sets itself as a defender of Orthodoxy).

Nor am I one to simplistically claim Putin's Russia is the same as the Soviet Union, as several dinosaur Cold Warriors-turned-Neocons and Neoliberals may assert. BUT, it is also true that Putin regularly praises and holds celebrations in honor of the same Soviet Red Army that raped and pillaged across large areas of Europe, committing many atrocities in the process. He has not disavowed this legacy, just as Western leaders have not disavowed their own imperialist or colonialist legacies either, because the very moment German forces (including my great-grandfather, who was in the Wehrmacht Gebirgsjäger and was killed by the Soviets) invaded Russia during Operation Barbarossa, Joseph Stalin began appealing to Russian nationalism and even scaled back some of the Atheistic campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church, because he knew the power of "Mother Russia" is what would rally people behind his government and not heady, cosmopolitan, and foreign concepts like dialectical materialism or international Marxist revolution.

Harnessing many of these same Russian imperial forces, Vladimir Putin has stamped out on any separatism and self-determination from different nationalities who wish to be free from Russia, such as the Finnish Karelians or most notably the Chechens - and just because he has installed a corrupt puppet in Chechnya (Kadyrov), does not mean the typical Chechen has abandoned the desire for freedom and self-determination. If Western governments are to be condemned for invading and colonizing other countries, and installing puppet governments, Putin should not be given a free pass. These puppet rulers - whether Kadyrov in Chechnya or his pro-Western counterparts in other occupied countries - are simply corrupt politicians who want to carve out personal power for themselves on the backs of occupying forces. I support freedom and self-determination for all peoples, and oppose imperialism in any forms no matter who practices it.

As for Ukraine, I did NOT support the meddling in that country by the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton and her Neocohen advisors, Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan. But I recognize that BOTH the Russian and U.S. governments were fighting a proxy war in Ukraine just as they did so in Syria - NEITHER care anything about Ukrainian or Syrian sovereignty or the lives and future of the Ukrainian or Syrian peoples. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Ukrainian history, going back to when the Tsar would side with usurers and corrupt landlords who exploited Ukrainian peasants and farmers, or to all the barbarism and atrocities against Ukrainians during Bolshevism, including the forced collectivization and Stalin and Kaganovich's man-made famine which murdered 7 million Ukrainians during the early and mid-1930s, will know there are legitimate grievances held by Ukrainians against Russia - and this is neither an excuse or support for the Western puppets of Ukraine, who want to tie the Ukraine to NATO and Western multinational corporations to loot the country (like the bankster schemes of Soros). Both sides merely want their own puppet governments in power in the Ukraine, so they can loot and plunder the country for their own benefit.

We should care more about being consistent, judging all with the same standards and not making excuses for some because it may not be "convenient truths". Principles and objectivity, any sense of honestly and justice, demand that politicians and governments the world over do not care about the masses or any interests aside from their own personal ones or those of the banking and financial interests which stand behind their governments. If you're ready to condemn one side for doing something, but all of a sudden defend or excuse another side for the very same actions, then your criticism of that other side is insincere and shows you care nothing about the justice behind something - just personal bias or ideology.

Thursday, 9 March 2017


I was glad to hear Jason and Shane discussing National-Anarchism so open-mindedly and objectively, without any of the leftist hysteria that often greets our ideas. Not only did I enjoy some of the more light-hearted moments but it was also very encouraging to hear that our thoughts on decentralist economics, home-schooling and defensive militia were looked upon favourably and that they rightly conclude that we are neither 'racist' nor 'fascist'. You can listen to the radio broadcasts by clicking on the following two links, but in order to clear up a few misconceptions my own response will appear beneath the links themselves.

Part One

Part Two


* Being An-Caps, Jason and Shane took issue with our use of the term 'capitalism' and implied that we have no real understanding of what capitalism really means. Whilst National-Anarchists are not opposed to private property and free trade, the capitalism we oppose is the one set out in the commonly accepted definition of the term, i.e. that which represents 'an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state'. Similarly, we agree with Marx (!) that a capitalist is someone who actually controls the means of production. As Jason and Shane rightly observed, rather than adopt a state-socialist position we are very much predisposed towards mutualism.

* The fact that the show's participants take issue with our claim that capitalism is a form of 'mass enslavement', as it says in the Manifesto, is quite incredible. Their own counter-argument is that during the Industrial Revolution people simply took up jobs 'voluntarily' and 'were not held at gunpoint', but in reality, they actually had no choice in the matter and it was a case of work for the capitalist machine or die of starvation. An-Caps, it seems, take a very naive and revisionist line towards the issue of capitalism itself.

* Their argument is also that 'capitalism creates wealth' and that 'communism creates genocide', but it is clear that the former also acquires its wealth through genocidal means.

* The suggestion that our criticism of the left's failure to provide an adequate solution is 'hypocritical' on account of allegedly failing to provide a solution of our own is, naturally, very subjective.

* The Manifesto's views on electoral participation were unfortunately misinterpreted in that Jason and Shane thought that we were advocating a kind of proto-government, but what we are really advocating is basic day-to-day decision-making and not something that could evolve into a government in the future. Indeed, they make the error of assuming that we want representation, but that is precisely what we are rejecting. The Manifesto's use of the term 'delegates' has more to do with a village-council or Anglo-Saxon moot, than a proto-government of any kind. We are not talking about decisions affecting whether we should go to war with China, but whether a festival should take place on a particular weekend or whether a tree should be cut down. It is a question of scale and both tribal societies and alternative communities have to make these decisions all the time.

* It was interesting to hear them speculating about the N-AM's 'target audience', but as we said in one of our memes we provide a kind of rehabilitation programme for sincere ex-leftists and recovering fascists. We welcome anyone, as long as they are prepared to put their past behind them and - first and foremost - embrace Anarchism.


* Whilst Jason and Shane have no interest in racial issues, which is fair enough, the Manifesto's use of the term 'racial suicide' is not an over-reaction, but an observation of what is actually taking place in multi-racial societies. Again, I respect their opinions, but is it not a fact that when a puppy is born to two pedigree dogs from different breeds, that the original two breeds are lost? The term 'racial suicide' is therefore not designed to insult or diminish the worth of people from racially-mixed backgrounds, but to highlight the fact that two forms of racial identity are undoubtedly relinquished when miscegenation takes place. National-Anarchists have no problem with people who wish to mix with those from other races, but it is important to point out that the process itself leads to an irreversible biological change. Some believe that it leads to 'enrichment', others the loss of diversity itself.

* At one point during the show the pair found the Manifesto's use of the pronoun 'we' very humorous, but it was not designed to speak on behalf of others at all. When the Manifesto says 'we must' do this, or 'we must' do that, it is talking about those who support our values and principles. It certainly doesn't relate to the nation - or the world- as a whole.

* Much was made of the Manifesto's fleeting reference to a 'New World Order', but it would be unfair to infer that National-Anarchists believe that a NWO is actually in place at the present time. We are talking about the possibility of a globalist administration in the future, rather than expressing some form of paranoia that one already has the entire world under its control. I do think it's fair to assume that this is the ultimate objective of the internationalists, after all.

* When the Manifesto speaks of helping to encourage the collapse of the West by supporting revolution on the periphery, we are not talking about the collapse of authentic 'western' culture, necessarily, but the trading bloc that operates under that name ('The West'). It would clearly be very narcissistic to want to destroy everything we have, so we make a firm distinction between 'western' (i.e. European) identity and the economic monolith that has appropriated the term for itself.

* Finally, towards the end of the end of the podcast it is said that National-Anarchism is a type of 'collective movementism' that relies on forming a 'critical mass' and therefore requires help from 'outside influences'. That simply isn't true and (a) we will never be a mass movement and (b) neither do we have to rely on the support of the masses themselves. In fact, what we are proposing, at least in terms of the actual form our communities will take, involves such a vast plethora of different tastes and sensibilities that it has far more to do with the spirit of 'live and let live' than a collectivity of any kind.

Saturday, 4 March 2017


Establishment Drones

by Sean Jobst
February 27, 2017

I've seen the same tired claims about the "entire Establishment" and the Deep State allegedly being "against" Trump. Such people fail to explain how a well-connected billionaire whose campaign was made and hyped by the media in the first place, how he was promoted by the mass media over 16 other Republican candidates because of the attention given to him by this media; one who has always been close to such political insiders as the Clintons - whom he has always praised as "terrific people" even while pandering to his followers and their "hokey" (his own words) talk of "Lock her up!"....

One who supported the same wars of the very liberal and Neocon elites these supporters claim to be arrayed against him - Iraq and Libya, when opposition to those wars would have counted...And who has consistently followed the pro-Israel dogma that controls all foreign policy and the puppets of both parties....who regurgitates all the same talking points as the Democratic/Republican and Mass Media elites alike, such as warmongering against Iran which has dared defy Israel (Zionist and not American interests being the measuring stick of US government policies towards other countries)....

One who, while yes there were a host of Zionist, Neocon and liberal elites behind Hillary, had his own support from some of these same elites - the billions he got from his Zionist sugar daddies Adelson and Bernie Marcus; the fact that while the Kagans, Nuland and Kristol preferred Hillary, other Neocons supported him - Norman Podhoretz, Michael Ledeen, various Neocon fellow-travellers.....The support he got from many other assorted Zionist media clowns, like Ezra Levent, David Horowitz and the Breitbart News which boasts of being "conceived in Israel"...

One who, as President, has given control of the economy over to two Goldman Sachs bankers (Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn) and another who worked for the infamous Rothschilds 25 years (Wlbur Ross)....One who has given over other positions to a host of corporatists and political insiders....Who has his own criminal links including to Larry Silverstein of 9/11 fame (whom he has praised as "terrific", one of the most-repeated words in his lexicon and which he has likewise heaped upon the Clintons and Netanyahu)...

The reality is that the Deep State continues, but some of you who get too caught up in distractions and partisan squabbles, are too duped to recognize there are at least two competing factions within the Establishment who are united around the same core issues but only differ on certain social issues that are often engineered by the elites in the first place and promoted to polarize the people around either the ruling party or controlled "opposition" (both of them interchangeable).

Every four years, the duping and manipulation continues with phony "outsiders" pretending to be against the same Establishment from whose ranks they've risen and profited from in the first place - and the very same lame excuses are repeated by each respective group of drones while the other group of drones are selectively outraged, even though their idol would prepare the foundations and even the same policies which the "devil incarnate" who succeeds their idol simply continues.

Case in point: Trump has recently justified his unprecedented number of Executive Orders this early on because he "inherited a mess." Funny, this was the very same excuse used by Obama drones well into his second term even for why the corporate welfare for Wall Street and wholesale corporatization of the economy occurred (while expanding the Police/Surveillance State and waging more wars than his predecessor even). The irony is many of those protesting against Trump are protesting over things they were silent about when their idols Obama and Hillary were doing; and those who idolize Trump do so for the very same things they were attacking Obama for these last eight years - in each case it's all selective outrage, no consistent principles....

I can go on and on, but the drones have already traded in their critical thinking skills and their consistency either way. So, anyone who can keep their principles grounded no matter who is currently managing the State, who can transcend this false dialectic beyond the limited groupthink of each side, calling out the hypocrisy, misdirection and disgusting selectiveness of each side of human ostriches.... will unfortunately remain in the minority in this age of universal deceit.

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