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.