IT may sound hard to believe, but there was a time when ordinary people had more control over their own lives and inhabited a world in which the vast majority of individuals were able to live in close-knit communities with their own kind, pursue a more rural existence away from the shallow environs of the average shopping mall, hunt or grow food for their own consumption, make conversation and music in a society without television or computer games, and even pass on traditional values to their own children without the pernicious influence of Establishment schools and the mass media. So what went wrong?
Between 500 and 850 CE, not long after the despised Roman occupation of Britain came to an abrupt end, the incoming Germanic tribes settled down and gradually began to add their own flavour to the island. Before long, it became comparatively decentralised and was eventually broken up into seven distinct kingdoms. Things were far from perfect, of course, but as a result of this crucial balance of power the Angle, Saxon and Jutish tribes were able to enjoy a large degree of self-determination. When the Normans arrived in 1066, however, the newly-created English nation was transformed into a land of serfs and, as the Domesday Book proves beyond any doubt, ruthlessly exploited for its valuable resources and things were never to be the same again.
By the time the Middle Ages came along, imperialistic adventurers like Edward I and other monarchical warmongers across Europe were borrowing huge amounts of money from Jewish financiers and plunging the country into mounting debt. But whilst Edward himself found a convenient excuse to deport these usurious individuals from England’s shores, thus saving himself from almost certain bankruptcy, by the sixteenth century events were changing dramatically as the Protestant Reformation swept away the existing socio-economic infrastructure and inevitably caused thousands of people to be expelled from the monastic hospitals, religious almshouses and other places of refuge which, at that time, were maintained by the Catholic Church. According to the radical social commentator, William Cobbett, prior to the Reformation the word ‘poverty’ had not entered the English language.
Along with the great religious changes of the sixteenth century, came the artistic flowering of the Renaissance and the less positive values of the humanist Enlightenment. Whilst Christianity had served as the prevailing current in England for many hundreds of years, the new ideas sweeping into England from the rest of Europe now positioned man firmly at the centre of the universe and therefore it was inevitable that spirituality – let alone Christianity – would rapidly decline and be replaced by the materialistic values of a new mercantile order. These profound changes, which led, in England, to the seventeenth-century Civil War and the triumph of Cromwell’s parliamentarians over the monarchy of Charles I, soon paved the way for the French Revolution.
In 1789, the French monarchy came under attack from a resentful bourgeoisie and Louis XVI fell victim, like many others, to the diligent blade of the guillotine. Once the pseudo-revolutionaries of the late-eighteenth century came to power, the lives of ordinary French people soon worsened and the transient values of the brutal regime were shown to be entirely false. Indeed, following the inauguration of a new ruling class the organic ties of the past were completely extinguished as racial, cultural and spiritual bonds were considered obsolete and thoroughly discouraged. This, of course, was the first step towards the globalisation process of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and the ideas of the French Revolution went on to lead to the growth of many destructive ideologies such as nationalism, communism and liberal-democracy.
Meanwhile, back in the British Isles, an explosion of scientific technology allowed a combination of aristocrats and nouveau-riches to harness the indomitable force that led to the Industrial Revolution. This resulted in the displacement of the country’s rural communities, as millions of people left the land and moved to the expanding cities to work in the soulless mills and factories. This strategy of mass enslavement saw people forced down mines and up chimneys to make profits for the fat-cats at the helm. By the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the gap between rich and poor had widened considerably and, if you found yourself at the wrong end of the class spectrum, you inevitably ended up in the workhouse. The capitalist disease had spread across Britain, and the world, like a cancer.
Throughout this period, wealthy banking families like the Rothschilds and others were able to seize control of the purse-strings of various European countries, as well as to foment wars and revolutions for their own ends. Various protest movements attempted to fight for justice and better conditions, but in 1917 the communists took power in Moscow and were hailed as a powerful ‘alternative’ to capitalism, despite going on to murder and repress hundreds of millions of people in both Russia, Eastern Europe and the Far East. The reality, of course, is that whilst capitalism exploited ordinary people for private gain, communism was simply a form of state-capitalism administered by a new ruling class. To make matters worse, communism provided the capitalists, as well as the national-capitalists of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, with a new impetus and thus smoothed the way for the victory of liberal-democracy and the economic trading bloc known as the West. The rest, as they say, is history.
What you are about to read is designed to give you a taste of what life could be like in decentralised, National-Anarchist communities. Bear in mind, however, that this is only a very brief outline and that we have provided a series of reading lists to help you explore the various topics in more depth. Our job is to offer you a vision of a brighter future. If you like what you see, you can help us make that future a reality.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face: forever. – George Orwell
ALTHOUGH people around the world are quite aware of the disproportionate influence of Jewish pressure groups within the various governmental and mass media appendages of Europe and North America, most of which are completely under their control, few are prepared to come out and say so for fear of persecution or incurring the usual threats of ‘anti-Semitism’. It is a fact, however, that ever since ambitious European monarchs first plunged us into the financial vortex of the burgeoning international debt system, an elite coterie of Jews and their allies have effectively manipulated world events for their own interests. This was achieved, not simply through usury, but also as a result of Jewish involvement in the bootlegging and criminal racketeering of 1930s America, something which eventually went on to finance the Zionist takeover of the Hollywood film industry and, by 1948, brought about the establishment of the bandit-state of Israel. But Zionism is not Jewish nationalism, as some like to claim, it is Jewish imperialism.
National-Anarchists do not ‘hate’ ordinary Jews and neither do we wish to undermine them as a people with their own unique religious and cultural identity, but what we will not tolerate, however, is the ongoing enslavement of our people by a minority of vampiric parasites intent on carving up the world’s resources in an attempt to create a single, global market. We believe that the way to combat Zionism is to continue to expose the hypocrisy of those who, on the one hand, use the Nazi ‘holocaust’ to evoke sympathy, and, on the other, brutally repress the long-suffering Palestinians in their own land. Over 90% of modern Jews are descended from a semi-Turkic people who, faced with the sectarian intolerance of their encroaching Christian Orthodox and Muslim neighbours, converted to Judaism en masse when they were part of the old Khazar empire that spanned the area between the Black and Caspian seas during the eighth century. Indeed, they have no authentic racial or territorial connection with the Middle East at all. National-Anarchists support the Palestinian intifada, as well as Jewish groups like Neturai Karta and various other opponents of Zionism who are seeking to expose the multifarious lies and distortions perpetuated by the Israeli regime, as well as its intelligence wing, Mossad, and the organisational nerve centre which continues to operate at the very heart of the United States Government. Zionism is an enemy of all peoples and must be vanquished.
The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual. – Mikhail Bakunin
I must create a system or be enslaved by another man’s. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create. – William Blake
Society seeks order in Anarchy. – Pierre Joseph Proudhon
IN the eyes of many people, the word ‘Anarchism’ conjures up lurid images of a scowling Johnny Rotten waxing lyrical about unleashing chaos and destruction upon contemporary society. Anarchists are supposed to be anything from long-haired nihilists and hedonistic drug fiends to happy-clappy utopians completely out of touch with the real world. The nineteenth-century representation of the average Anarchist, at least according to those who set out to lampoon or vilify it in the controlled media, was that of a stereotypical madman, invariably bearded or bedraggled, clutching a bomb or stick of explosive. But real Anarchism has nothing to do with decay and degeneration, or with mindless violence and terror, it can actually provide a real and tangible alternative to the ongoing decline of Western civilisation.
Anarchy originates from the Greek term an archos, means ‘no rule’ or ‘without rule’. This should not imply, however, that Anarchists believe in disorder, because in this case the term ‘rule’ is associated with the manner in which a society is organised in accordance with a specific form of behaviour or conduct. So to suggest that a community should have ‘no rule’, therefore, does not mean that it should descend into utter chaos, because the rule itself relates to an appreciation of the natural order and refuses to acknowledge the constitutional, man-made laws or customs laid down by empires, states and other forms of administrative or governmental control. But this does not mean that Anarchist communities are incapable of adhering to a set of beliefs, values or principles, on the contrary, it simply means that natural order takes precedence at all times. Indeed, natural order is the most organic form of social organisation on the planet, because it allows man to live in the way that nature itself intended. Not as wild animals or in blind ignorance, because man finds himself in possession of a superior intelligence, but certainly as far as satisfying our most basic needs, instincts and desires are concerned. Laws and systems seek to enslave us, but within a more natural and conducive setting we can fulfil our true destinies and rediscover that long-forgotten bond with the environment.
Instead of labouring beneath a system in which ‘rule’ is forcibly imposed, National-Anarchists believe in natural authority. Hierarchy is a basic fact of nature, but something which is quite different to the artificial class system that can be found throughout contemporary Western societies. Leadership, for example, should be encouraged, but it also comes with responsibility and within an Anarchist or tribal context the chief or alpha male is only as strong as the community. In the words of Rudyard Kipling, ‘the strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack’. Unlike the huge gulf between those who govern and those who are governed today, the two are inseparable and necessarily complimentary.
When Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1848, the workers and peasants of Europe believed that they had at last found an answer to the greed and ruthlessness of capitalism. But Marx was advocating a crude form of totalitarianism which he called ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, something which merely led to the creation of a new ruling class and, thus, the perpetuation of mass wage-slavery. But the communists were not the only ‘opponents’ of capitalism, around the same time a Frenchman by the name of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had launched an attack on both capitalism and communism, firmly believing that the latter undermined human individuality. Consequently, several Russian Anarchists, among them Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, also tried to expose the futility of Marxism and, instead, wrote of a future decentralised world of collectives in which people could have more autonomy and express their own identity. During the twentieth century, however, the ranks of Anarchism were infiltrated by communists and what began as a noble ideal characterised by a belief in freedom and identity degenerated into Left-wing bureaucracy and the kind of political correctness that we are so familiar with today. There is no question that the Left has dragged the proud banners of Anarchy through the mud and that Anarchism’s image has been severely tainted as a result, but this is precisely why the world is now ready for a brand new ideal: National-Anarchism. But what distinguishes National-Anarchism from the wider Anarchist phenomenon and what does it have to offer?
Our vision, in a nutshell, is one of small village-communities in which people occupy their own space in which to live in accordance with their own principles. These principles depend on the nature of the people forming the community in the first place, because the last thing we wish to do is impose a rigid or dogmatic system of any kind. In theory, therefore, National-Anarchists can be Christian or pagan, farmers or artisans, heterosexual or homosexual. The important thing, however, is for National-Anarchist communities to be self-sufficient. They should also be mutualist, rather than coercive. In other words, people should be free to come and go at all times. If you are unhappy with the unifying principle of one National-Anarchist community, then simply relocate to another. On the other hand, communities must be respectful of their neighbours and be prepared to defend themselves from outsiders.
Finally, contrary to the increasingly desperate smears of our enemies on both the Right and Left of the political spectrum, we are not using Anarchism as a convenient tactic or to conceal a secret fascistic agenda of any kind – we are deadly serious. In addition, as mutualists we abide by the ‘live and let live’ philosophy. People are different and have different values. In modern, pluralistic societies, those values tend to conflict and it is inevitable that some values will override or perhaps even eradicate others. We think certain values are worth preserving for future generations and this is why we wish to create a climate in which this is possible. National-Anarchism, therefore, is Anarchism sui generis. An Anarchy of its own kind.
FAILURE OF THE LEFT
The only economic difference between a herd of subservient Russians and a mob of free Englishmen pouring into a factory of a morning is that the latter are exploited by private profit, the former by the State in communal fashion. The motive of the Russian masters is to establish a comfortable bureaucracy for themselves and their friends out of the proletariat labour. The motive of the English masters is to increase their private fortunes out of proletariat labour. But we want something different from either. – Hilaire Belloc
Karl Marx, who spent most of his life in the reading room of the British Museum Library, probably came as little into contact with nature as it was possible to do and still stay alive. The result was that his philosophy ignored everything not human absolutely completely. He was aware (just) that food came from the country. He was aware that there must be some people out there somewhere who grew it. It was his object to rescue these imaginary people from what he called ‘the idiocy of rural life’. What is that to the idiocy of spending all your life in the British Museum Library? – John Seymour
THE theories of Karl Marx that had appeared in the mid-nineteenth century, eventually came to fruition during the 1917 Russian Revolution. Across the course of ninety of the most brutal and bloodied years in human history, the murderous communist experiment centred in East Europe and the Far East became just as hated and despised as its capitalistic twin in the West.
Modern Leftists allege that after the death of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1924, their revolution was hijacked by Josef Stalin. However, it remains a fact that the ever-popular hero of the anti-Stalinist brigade, Leon Trotsky, had been funded by Wall Street financiers. The common ground, of course, was not ideology but ethnicity. Wealthy Jewish bankers in New York had few qualms about assisting their Bolshevik counterparts in Tsarist Russia, especially when it meant there was a chance of removing the Russian monarchy and creating new markets ripe for exploitation. The racial link between capitalism and communism is irrefutable. In 1918 the Bolshevik Party was controlled almost entirely by revolutionary activists of Jewish (Khazar) extraction. According to Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent for the Times newspaper,
out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State, there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 1 Czech, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews. If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of the assassination of the Russian Imperial Family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration. [Les Derniers Jours des Romanof, Thornton Butterworth, 1920, p. 29].
Wilton’s remarks are validated by Hilaire Belloc, who, in 1937, wrote that
As for anyone that does not know that the present revolutionary Bolshevist movement is Jewish in Russia, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppressions of our deplorable press. [G.K.’s Weekly, February 4th, 1937].
Winston Churchill also noted the decidedly Jewish character of Bolshevism in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8th, 1920, when he said:
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.” [Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8th, 1920].
Despite the fact that early Anarchism had so much to offer those living beneath the heel of the old European monarchies and, consequently, the new capitalist class that emerged from the Reformation and Enlightenment, the growth of the Left soon led to Anarchism being completely infiltrated. The groups that direct the anti-capitalist ‘movement’ are usually led by Left-wing dogmatists and control-freaks who like to claim that National-Anarchists are trying to subvert Anarchism for their own ends. But this is false. As we have said elsewhere, time and time again, we are not ‘racists’ or ’white supremacists’ with some kind of secret agenda, we have formulated a programme to combat the continuing degeneration of Western society and ensure that things like diversity, identity and cultural heritage survive the impending collapse.
Sadly, however, most people on the Left will not rest until they can organise every minute aspect of people’s lives. It is a self-perpetuating disease. This is why Leftists talk of the ‘right to work’, when – as Bob Black rightly points out – the real problem is work itself. The Left, just like the totalitarian Right, refuses to tolerate anyone who tries to opt out of its vision of an all-inclusive society. Some of us, however, want no part of this and will only ever be ‘socialists’ among ourselves and with our own kind. In this respect, we are an elitist Movement holding firm to the notion of meritocracy. What we do not accept, however, is that everybody is ‘equal’.
The issue of egalitarianism is one of the main stumbling blocks of the contemporary Left and stems from John Locke’s ill-conceived theories about the tabula rasa. This is the ludicrous idea that humans enter the world as a ‘blank slate’ and soak up everything around them like a sponge. But we are not merely influenced by environmental factors or the impression made upon us by our immediate surroundings, we also inherit many genetic traits from our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. To some extent, then, we have already been shaped before we even leave the womb and that can have a big impact on the kind of people we eventually become. The socio-economic climate in which someone is born can have an impact on the way they develop, of course, but genetic factors far outweigh the environmental considerations and should not be ignored.
To suppose, therefore, that humans are somehow ‘equal’ is quite ridiculous. On the other hand, this does not mean that people who are less intelligent or physically handicapped should be treated with disdain or cruelty. Those who display a superior ability in certain areas have a responsibility to those who exhibit less. Humanity – like the rest of nature – is hierarchical and the Left’s progressive fantasies about a world in which everyone acquires the same rank, inevitably manifests itself as a levelling process in which oppressive laws are used to drag the strong down to the level of the most weak and resentful. National-Anarchists believe in encouraging people to express their full potential, not in forcing them to sink to a common denominator.
Left-wing politics inevitably descend into barbarity and totalitarianism and this is why capitalism has been allowed to prosper to the extent that it has. Whenever the Left ascends to power, it simply administers capitalism in a slightly modified form; through the bureaucratic organs of the state. Left-wing strategy, however, has often been highly effective and there is no reason why tactics such as entryism, industrial sabotage, picket lines, fund-raising and community action should not be used by National-Anarchists. This is why we have also recommended several texts dealing with Derek Hatton’s Militant and other organisations that have successfully infiltrated both local councils and the ranks of their opponents.
To conclude, National-Anarchists reject both state and private capitalism and wish to ensure that power begins at the grass roots and is channelled upwards. This vision is a long way from the dehumanisation of the Left-wing ‘workers state’, in which people are portrayed, not as individuals, but as economic units ripe for exploitation. Make no mistake, the Left does not offer an alternative of any kind and should be rejected.
THE COMMUNITY AGAINST THE STATE
There will be a qualitative transformation, a new living, life-giving revelation, a new heaven and a new earth, a young and mighty world in which all our present dissonances will be resolved into a harmonious whole. – Mikhail Bakunin
A good man and a good citizen are not exactly the same thing. – Augustine
WE don’t have to rely on ministerial expense scandals, corruption in high places and lying politicians to convince us that parliamentary democracy is a sham; the system itself is rotten to the core.
In the past, the political process involved small groups of chieftains, warriors and holy men, each of whom would get together at regular intervals to discuss the needs and aspirations of their respective communities; particularly in relation to security and wellbeing. Politics has always been open to abuse, of course, but the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) tradition of the Witenagemot – also known as the Witan – was one of the more decentralised examples of how our ancestors would exert a form of political authority that had been channelled up from the grassroots. Those involved felt a sense of duty and responsibility to their people, quite unlike the politicians of today with their noses firmly stuck in the trough.
The Witenagemot began as a distinctly tribal phenomenon and even the meeting place for these folk gatherings were pretty indeterminate and sporadic. Unfortunately, however, in the wake of the Norman invasion of England in 1066 the Witenagemot was transformed into the more elitist Curia Regis, which served as an advisory body to the monarchy and soon became the first parliament. This subtle change made it very convenient for the Norman establishment to centralise power in the hands of an ever-diminishing number of people. After the English Civil War of the seventeenth century, the power of the monarchy was curtailed and parliament became more powerful. But rather than make it easier for ordinary people to express their opinions on the issues of the day, it became a tool for the landowners and the ruling classes.
The main problem with parliamentary democracy is the fact that it is representative. Indeed, whilst it is possible for people to vote for a political party and elect a politician from their immediate locality, that individual cannot be recalled or replaced for several years – depending on the country concerned and the parliamentary system in question. However, as we know only too well, politicians are not very good at keeping their promises and tend to get elected and then make a series of treacherous U-turns. So whilst a politician claims to represent your interests he or she actually represents the interests of a party. The term ‘party’ relates to a part of the whole, so despite a Member of Parliament supposedly representing people residing within a specific area, only a mere section of the community – i.e. those who voted for the MP in the first place – is able to have its wishes expressed. And that’s without taking into account that a minority of people even bother to vote in the first place, let alone the fact that politicians rarely bother to fulfil their promises!
Instead of representative democracy, through which politicians serve their own interests at the expense of the community on behalf of the state, National-Anarchists believe in participation. In other words, instead of voting for politicians every few years and then allowing them to go on and act precisely as they wish, we believe that people should take an active role in politics themselves. Not on a national scale, but within their own localities. Instead of politicians, National-Anarchists favour delegates, people who must either reflect the wishes of the people or be replaced immediately. This process would safeguard against corruption and unaccountability and make sure that people had a real say in the running of their own areas. This will mark a return, if you like, to the old Witenagemot system. And whilst National-Anarchists do not believe in applying centralised ‘rule’ we do accept that the actual form of decision-making is something that will be particular to each community. And community is the key word.
The fact that people have put so much power in the hands of the state has meant that the traditions and values of our communities are becoming eroded at an alarming rate. National laws and constitutions are a relatively modern phenomenon and to suppose that humans are incapable of organising themselves into close-knit communities is to hand over total responsibility to the state. Think about it, do you really wish to leave things to the businessmen, the politicians, the councillors, the judges, the bailiffs, the tax collectors, the landlords, the soldiers, the police and the teachers, or would you prefer to see power, wealth and arms restored to the community where it belongs? The less we depend on the state and its institutions, the more irrelevant it will become. Once that happens, of course, it will become superfluous to requirements and will be swept aside. We fight, therefore, for the community against the state.
RACIAL SEPARATISM OR MIXED TRIBES
The struggle of our time is to concentrate, not to dissipate; to renew our association with traditional wisdom; to re-establish a vital connection between the individual and the race. It is, in a word, a struggle against liberalism. – T. S. Eliot
AS far as the Left is concerned, National-Anarchism is simply a form of generic fascism or, according to some of the more paranoid theories, a Right-wing conspiracy devoted to the subversion of the Left itself. Needless to say, this interpretation is incorrect and National-Anarchists are vigorously opposed to statism and reaction in all forms. At the same time, the ‘national’ component of the term National-Anarchism centres on the fact that some of us are racial separatists. Needless to say, whilst we wish to form Anarchist communities that are ethnically organic we also oppose negative and counter-productive attitudes that encourage racial hatred or mindless violence. Race-based politics have nearly always been the domain of Right-wing organisations. But the fact that National-Anarchists are prepared to address this thorny issue should not cause people to wrongly dismiss us as yet another Right-wing organisation committed to promoting ‘white supremacy’, because National-Anarchism itself transcends both Left and Right. We are not supremacist, racist, statist or totalitarian. In addition, the German National-Socialists and Italian Fascists of the twentieth century allied themselves with large banking interests and betrayed the more ‘socialistic’ aspects of their original programmes. We are genuine Anarchists and proud of the fact.
Right-wing organisations that recommend either a tightening of current immigration laws or advocate that people of non-European descent be repatriated to their countries of ethnic origin, inevitably try to play the system at its own game and therefore always come off second-best. The reason for this is simple. Not only do they become seduced and then corrupted by the parliamentary establishment and end up having to compromise in order to make electoral progress, they also reinforce the nonsensical realities of the modern nation-state by completely failing to understand the important difference between citizenship and ethnicity. As we mentioned in the Introduction, the 1789 French Revolution transformed a nation of monarchical subjects into citizens of a new republic, but aside from the fact that the jingoistic watchwords of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ were never put into practice, it did become possible for individuals to become part of the nation through citizenship alone, rather than it being a result of their French ethnicity. This subtle change has now smoothed the way for modern capitalists to bring in economic migrants from the Third World who, allegedly, are just as ‘French’, ‘English’ or ‘German’ as those of us with a blood-lineage stretching back thousands of years. The ‘nations’ of today, therefore, are completely false. By giving credence to these artificial entities, the Right actually reinforces the liberal-democratic myth. However, due to mass immigration and shifting demographics, the populations of contemporary Western ‘nations’ are changing all the time and therefore the establishment makes a determined effort to constantly redefine the whole concept of nationhood. For many people, the multi-racial populations of Europe and North America can no longer be regarded as ‘nations’ at all. People of non-European extraction may well be national citizens and hold a valid passport informing them that they have become ‘naturalised’, but, in reality, true nationhood is based on ethnic considerations. Names like ‘England’, ‘France’ and ‘Germany’ were once related to specific tribes and they were hardly Moorish, Bedouin or Zulu, so the fact that modern nation-states no longer reflect the ethnic identity of those original Indo-European tribes – or at least not entirely – makes the whole thing a total farce. Is northern Paris, with its large African population, still French? Are the Turks who have settled in Deutschland still German? Of course not.
For some National-Anarchists, Race defines who we are and provides us with an identity and exists for a damn good reason. Without maintaining this essential diversity, something you can find throughout nature, the world will become increasingly drab, standardised and monotonous. National-Anarchists wish to preserve the different races of the earth and believe that enforced multi-racialism ends with the dissolution of races themselves. For some of us, therefore, racial separatism is the only way that the organic balance can be restored. We realise that it is impossible to separate people in the large cities and towns, many of whom have racially-mixed children or wish to live among foreign populations, and neither should we attempt to do so. Indeed, we believe that the nation-states of the West are likely to collapse in the next few decades and that our respective countries will begin to fragment along racial and cultural lines. So there is clearly no need to treat people inhumanely by herding them into camps or deporting them in the way that the Nazis and Soviets did in the last century; something which ended disastrously for those concerned. National-Anarchists must form new communities based on their own values. The maxim of the future will be respect for others and unity in diversity.
Finally, it must be understood that the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) is not a racial separatist organisation per se and neither do we believe that it is essential for everyone to accept this principle. We adhere to the principle of ‘live and let live’ and, if people wish to establish multi-racial communities whilst retaining the ‘National-Anarchist’ label, then they should be permitted to do so. In other words, we believe that supporters of both mono-racialism and mixed tribal communities can work together for the wider promulgation of National-Anarchism in general. The most important thing of all, however, is for each of our communities to be established with a unifying vision; be it racial, cultural or spiritual. Separatism for some, mixed tribes for others.
If you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit. – Sir Josiah Stamp
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws. – Meyer Amschel Rothschild
Less and less, then, will the juggling of finance have power over us; for it does not matter what they call the counters when you are exchanging hams for handkerchiefs, or pigs for pianos. – G.K. Chesterton
THE last few years have seen the international stockbrokers and high street banks become increasingly materialistic, even going so far as to swallow one another up in a rapacious war of all-against-all. There is no sentiment in business, of course, but money was not always used for person gain and began as a means of exchange. At one time, of course, people would barter – or exchange – various items without using money at all. Since then, however, money has become a commodity in itself and the money-grubbing speculators and middle-men have devoured our communities like financial piranha. By lending money at exorbitant rates of interest, the modern usurers, loan sharks and creditors have tightened their vice-like grip around the throats of our national economies. But whilst the money-lenders can create their own finance with the mere stroke of a pen or just a few taps on the keyboard, their clients have to pay it back in real terms – including interest. Regardless how much real money or gold bullion they have hidden away in the vaults, the banks simply hand over a paper cheque and then expect you to pay them off with hard cash over an agreed period of time. If you lose your job, on the other hand, or find that you are unable to keep up the repayments for any other reason, the bailiffs arrive to seize your possessions or, in many cases, your home.
The usurers also manipulate entire governments by shackling them to the national debt. This is incurred by those countries which have borrowed money to go to war or prop up their flagging economies, but it has to be repaid through rising taxation and this leads, inevitably, to a decline in public services and affects the poorest people in society. So what are the economic alternatives?
We have long predicted that the internationalist system will collapse under its own weight, but you can help us hasten that process by making sure that you operate outside the present economic infrastructure as much as you possibly can. There has always been a black market, of course, but there are more legal ways of avoiding the banks, the loan companies and the tax men. One way this can be achieved is through bartering or by setting up local exchange trading services (LETS), which enable people to trade skills and services. This operates by creating a credit scheme that is rather similar to the way money used to function before the system became corrupted. If someone cuts your hair, for example, you may wish to use the barter system and return the favour by mowing their lawn or giving their daughter piano lessons. With the LETs idea, on the other hand, you may receive a haircut and find that you are not currently able to offer anything in return. Perhaps your job is seasonal, for example. This problem can easily be surmounted by appointing a community book-keeper who makes a note of all transactions. If somebody owes somebody else for receiving a service of some kind, the person who provided the service receives either a credit note or form of local currency. But there is no interest involved. In London, for example, there is the ‘Brixton pound’, and thousands more communities around Europe and the world each have their own local versions of the exchange trading system. Alternative currencies drive government bureaucrats and tax-collectors alike wild with fury, because people are operating outside the official economic parameters and thus strengthening the community at the expense of the state.
National-Anarchists can also establish alternative businesses. All it takes is for a group of people to grow their own food or make their own goods and set up a co-operative and participate in a trading scheme as a means of exchanging goods or services with other National-Anarchists in the community. Rather than pay with national currency, however, the purchasers should use an alternative currency or provide a service or skill in return. These schemes can become so highly successful that very often money rarely changes hands at all and everybody benefits from the economic freedom that this creates. Remember: we don’t have to involve ourselves in the current economic structure, see what you can do to withdraw from the fraudulent money system and live a more independent and self-sufficient life.
THE GREEN REPLENISHMENT
An avenue of trees had stood there. They were all gone. And looking with dismay up the road towards Bag End they saw a tall chimney of brick in the distance. It was pouring out black smoke into the evening air. – J.R.R. Tolkien
One day the sewage of the cities will cease to be poured into the rivers, and will be returned to the land, to grow fine food for the people. One day salmon will leap again in the clear waters of a London river; and human work will be creative, and joyful. One day the soul of man, shut in upon itself during the long centuries of economic struggle, will arise in the light of the sun of truth. – Henry Williamson
WHILST the modern world appears to be in a state of great disarray, the perpetual relevance of nature both as a guide and a source of inspiration continues to invite our utmost respect and admiration. Sadly, however, the vast majority of people have become alienated from their origins, detached from their racial and cultural heritage, and cut off from their roots.
In the past, man had an inextricable bond with the soil. Not only was his racial heritage of great importance, but he also knew how essential it was to carve out and defend a territory in which to express his own values and aspirations. Sadly, however, due to the immense destruction that has been wrought on the environment today, not least in the overpopulated countries of Europe and North America, it is impossible to live in harmony with nature without moving away from the cities and out into the countryside.
There have been many ‘back-to-the-land’ movements down the centuries, some religious and others politically idealistic or even disastrously utopian. But the National-Anarchist vision of a rural revolution is not utopian, unworkable or unrealistic in the slightest. We realise that any attempt to set up and maintain National-Anarchist communities will be extremely difficult, but we have to start the process now before it’s too late.
Life in our modern cities and towns is incredibly fragile and people are wholly dependant on exterior resources. Gas, electricity, food and water all have to be brought in from outside. In the event of a major catastrophe, however, or a situation in which the state decides to withdraw or cut off the supply, it will not be possible to pop down to the local supermarket for a tray of diced pork or expect water to come out of the tap when you turn it on. Modern existence and its throwaway culture is based on convenience, but this makes people extremely weak and in times of crisis they soon find that they have lost the ability to perform the most simple and basic tasks that will help them survive.
National-Anarchists wish to end this passive dependence on the state and reintroduce people to the real, organic world. For some people, this will be completely impossible and many are incapable of getting to grips with the environment. But at one time, people in rural villages were utterly self-sufficient and had no need for outsiders or to support a government that obtained its wealth and power by constantly declaring war on Third World countries and stealing their resources. The natural environment contains all the resources we are ever likely to need.
The economic collapse that is likely to take place in the West will result in complete panic and disarray. Millions will perish as a result of their reliance on the state. We have to make sure that we are included among those who can withstand such an emergency, but unless we begin to construct our own village-communities now we will simply go down with everyone else. The first step is to move away from the urban areas and begin to downsize. Try to think about the things that will really help you and your family survive, rather than what is perhaps unnecessary or too extravagant. These things are often a question of scale and many of the things you consider to be important at the present time will become obsolete in the future. Survival, on the other hand, is never obsolete, it is absolutely essential.
Relocating to the countryside is just the first step in helping to replenish the natural order and live in accordance with the environment. The next step is to become economically self-sufficient and that means finding a source of income that will allow you to remain in the countryside and avoid being sucked into the centre, which is what happened during the Industrial Revolution. In other words, by setting up the kind of economic alternatives discussed in the previous section – bartering, local exchange trading schemes, co-operatives etc. – you will begin to empower both yourselves and the local community. This may sound a little scary to people who have had little or no experience of the countryside, but there are already hundreds of Anarchist and other alternative communities around the world that have become self-sufficient. It all depends how serious you are and whether you can learn to prioritise.
Habitation in the contemporary world often involves taking out mortgages from banks or renting expensive property from exploitative landlords, but National-Anarchists believe there are other ways to make homes for ourselves and our families. By pooling their resources, some Anarchists have bought small plots of land and constructed their own alternative dwellings. Houses can be made, not simply from bricks and other expensive building materials, but also from rammed earth, straw bales and recycled materials. Indeed, whilst the interior design of such houses are just as functional and attractive as modern houses, they are made from very cheap materials and this opens up immense opportunities for people operating on far smaller budgets and who wish to be economically independent. Dwellings of this nature can also be built underground, or utilise power from wind, water or the sun.
The National-Anarchist Movement is also committed to re-establishing our rural crafts and what used to be known as the ‘cottage industry’. At one time, country crafts and folk traditions flourished throughout the whole of Europe and included weaving, cobbling, stonewall construction, pottery, home-baking, blacksmithing, herbalism, woodcraft, thatching, pickling, book-binding, dressmaking, brewing, tanning and hundreds of other methods which relied on the resources people had to hand. Many of these things continue to exist in rural areas today, but to a certain extent even they have become dependant on outside suppliers and it is debatable whether or not they are completely self-sufficient. Some of these examples may seem rather quaint and old-fashioned, but this is because they have been submerged beneath a barrage of over-production and commercial junk. Economic independence makes you stronger.
Other benefits include a busy social life. National-Anarchists are keen to promote an alternative music industry and encourage more leisure time in which people can organise sports events, perform music and make their own entertainment. It seems incredible that some of the most natural things in the world now need to be revitalised due to the modern individual’s dependence on the more voyeuristic pastimes like television, video games and computer networking.
Until those of us who are involved in the ecological struggle can learn to appreciate the spiritual reality which binds man to his environment, reactionaries, liberals and leftists alike will continue to delay the replenishment of the natural order. We revolutionaries can only revitalise and reclaim the natural world from the clutches of capitalism once we have discovered that which lies within ourselves. It is vital for us to come to terms with the fact that we sprang from the soil and are destined to return to it at the end of our brief sojourn upon this earth. So without a recognition of our inherent racial qualities and a territory in which to express our tribal identity, some of which may have to be forged elsewhere, we will remain as much a threatened species as the white rhino, the giant panda and the large blue butterfly. As Europe and North America struggles to cope with the catastrophic results of inner-city habitation and suicidal race-mixing, National-Anarchists must never forget that we humans are the natural guardians of the soil and our extinction would be possibly the greatest ecological disaster of all. This is why we must seek to re-establish ourselves in the heart of the rural countryside.
Men had better be without education than be educated by their rulers; for this education is but the mere breaking in of the steer to the yoke; the mere discipline of the hunting dog, which by dint of severity is made to forego the strongest impulse of his nature, and instead of devouring his prey, to hasten with it to the feet of his master. – Thomas Hodgkins
He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils. – Roger Bacon
ONE of the main reasons people choose to become involved in political activity, is due to a growing concern towards the kind of world our children will be forced to inherit in the future. As opponents of private and state capitalism we would all like to see a new generation of young people become instilled with our own healthy values, but for a System which allows its moral and intellectual standards to be fixed by the mass society – so that individuality and non-participation are discouraged – this becomes a rather subversive demand. Are we fighting a losing battle or can we somehow ensure that our message of political, social and economic decentralisation is passed on to the youth of tomorrow?
It is our view that the political and economic objectives of the National-Anarchist Movement must be preceded by a spiritual revolution which begins in the hearts and minds of individuals and then spreads by example. If we cannot change ourselves, then we cannot ever expect to encourage others to share our world-view and thus help build alternatives to the present system. Furthermore, if we do not set an example to our children then we will inevitably lose them to the prevailing anti-culture of television game shows, abortion-on-demand, gangsta rap, drug-addiction and conformist apathy. The only way that we can succeed, therefore, is by rejecting the system itself and making the education of our own youth a priority.
Ever since the second half of the nineteenth century and the gradual expansion of the proletariat, parents no longer have the task of educating their children and most are deposited into State-run or grant-maintained schools. But is it right that a mother who is opposed to wage-slavery and economic servitude should be thrust into the workplace whilst her children are indoctrinated by the very system that she and her spouse vigorously oppose? Of course not. Picture the scene as a fifteen year-old child is taught by her parents that hunter-gatherer societies on the periphery are being undermined by the exploitative fatcats at the industrial core. Before long, the same child is being informed by her teacher in the classroom that the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution are responsible for the betterment of society as a whole and that she must write an essay on Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations by next Tuesday. Short of marching up to the school every two or three days, to complain to the headmaster that a certain teacher is contradicting their beliefs, there is very little the child’s parents can do in such a situation. The only alternative is for parents to take their children out of school completely and educate them at home.
According to one source, “there are two broad groups of home educators: those with a philosophy and those with a problem.” But whilst many children are constantly exposed to bullying and various other problems, we should be primarily interested in how our children are developing ideologically. With the gradual decline of academic standards in modern society, many parents are exploring the option of home-schooling as a means of securing a sound education for their children. This idea is becoming very popular amongst religious groups, particularly Pagan and Muslim parents who have come to realise that the safest way of ensuring that their children receive an education based around their respective traditional and ethnic values, is to teach them first-hand. We must ensure that those of us with children make full use of this vital option.
Home-schooling is certainly not a new concept. After all, before the advent of schools or educational systems it was considered perfectly natural for parents to educate and nurture their own children, with many of them viewing it as a sacred task. Nowadays. many parents are waking up to the fact that whilst people vary and have different needs, the National Curriculum merely demonstrates how a bureaucratic educational system is unable to cater for all tastes. Indeed, all curricula are heavily steeped in propaganda and those parents who believe in independence and creativity are becoming anxious for their children to have an opportunity to explore an alternative set of political or spiritual issues. It is also a fact that the less we depend upon the institutions of the state, the more freedom we can have over our own lives.
Once you start exploring the options, you will discover that there are many self-help groups out there who can give you important advice about how to proceed. Few people are aware that home-schoolers do not have to follow the National Curriculum. In fact they do not have to take tests or exams, do not have to have a timetable, do not have to have a qualified tutor to teach them, do not have to work during the usual school hours and do not have to work any particular number of hours a week. Parents themselves can provide their own teaching syllabuses and materials, not least because in most countries the state refuses to give them any financial assistance. Whist this may suggest that home-schooling is a costly business, especially for working class folk, teaching materials are not really that expensive. There are a wide range of preparatory textbooks which can be ordered from libraries. Alternatively, second-hand bookshops can often enable you to pick up a variety of useful encyclopaedias and other basic study aids for very little cost. If several National-Anarchists living in one area wish to organise a teaching environment for their children, books, stationary and other resources can even be shared. The proposed environment can simply be a room in a National-Anarchist household, one which has been set aside for a blackboard, a small collection of educational literature and some painting, drawing and modelling materials.
Research has shown that many home-schooled children are two years ahead of those educated in schools and considerably more self-motivated. Parents are able to build up interesting programmes for their children using a wide range of sources, from selective school broadcasts on television to local museums. The choice extends to formal lessons, computer programmes, reading, playing, music, cooking, craftwork, sports and outdoor activities. Some parents may be concerned that home-schooling will result in their children being excluded from universities and colleges when they approach the official school-leaving age, due to the fact that it does not gear them towards tests and examinations. However, universities welcome application from home-schooled students and believe students educated primarily at home possess the passion for knowledge, independence and self-reliance that enables them to excel in intellectually challenging programmes of study. So schools will undoubtedly fade into the background as the whole community becomes a network of learning centres with people themselves taking full control of their family’s education.
One argument used by the liberal opponents of home-schooling is that children raised in such an environment will somehow grow up ‘sheltered’ or ‘socially naive’. However, this accusation can easily be refuted by pointing out that home-schooling essentially protects the innocence of childhood from the ravages of the mass society in which we find ourselves. Indeed, why shouldn’t parents seek to defend their offspring from the trappings of liberal-capitalism? Another favourite contention put forward by those who favour mass educational methods relates to the issue of socialisation. But whereas children do need to socialise with other children, this is not the reason why they attend schools, anyway; schools should be there to educate children, not force them to adhere to a specific pattern of behaviour. Parents who home-school their children already ensure that their youngsters come into contact with other people through clubs, societies and associations. Home-schooling enables children to socialise within their own communities, rather than be subjected to the forced tyranny of the adolescent peer group. According to the March 1996 issue of Child Education magazine (p.68):
Several studies of home educated children have found that they have better social skills and are better socially adjusted than children of the same age who are educated at school. Home educated children tend to have more experience of relating to people who are both older and younger than themselves. In addition, they have had the particular benefit of learning through conversation and close personal contact. How often are children in a class of thirty or more listened to individually, talked to personally and praised and encouraged?
High praise indeed from a journal produced by the educational establishment!
If National-Anarchist parents are able to introduce their children to like-minded families in the same area it is possible to prevent ‘outsiders’ from having any influence upon their lives whatsoever. Indeed, by herding thirty or forty children of the same age group together in one room, schools inevitably create an artificial environment. This process hardly prepares young people for the harsh realities of life outside. In addition, the school is designed to turn youngsters into a ready-made workforce and far from acquainting them with their historical and cultural traditions, adopts a production-line approach in order to prepare them for the boring servility of the factory floor or the computer terminal. Parents feel that there is plenty of time to get to grips with the grim realities of boring, repetitive jobs. Indeed, they may choose home education because they do not want their children to accept such limitations. They may hope instead to foster resourcefulness and individuality which will prepare them for more adventurous, interesting lives.
Finally, many of us are already involved in such initiatives and, in the future, hope to build an alternative home-education network. The growing distrust parents have towards the incompetence of state schooling is a crack in the enemy’s amour that is waiting to be exploited. Conscientious parents instinctively know that something is wrong with the system and are looking for a way out of it. Such people need our example and incentive, and there is no reason why National-Anarchists cannot become one of the leading proponents of home education. We must establish practical learning centres, where tools and equipment will be available for those who wish to borrow them; we must install alternative libraries where children can gain access to alternative books, tapes, films and exhibitions; we must create Community Centres to involve local people in sports activities, music, drama and social events; and we must set up family advice groups, where parents and children can meet up to discuss useful teaching methods and, if necessary, air potential problems or difficulties. In the meantime, if you are a parent who is unprepared to see your child force-fed a daily diet of ‘political correctness’ and ‘positive discrimination’, then you should seriously consider the educational alternatives which are gradually becoming available. We must never lose sight of the fact that our alternative future lies in its youth.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. – Robert A. Heinlein
NATIONAL-ANARCHISTS do not suppose for one moment that alternative communities which have made a break with the system can remain immune from attack on a permanent basis. Human nature is such that, inevitably, there will always be potential outsiders wishing to cause trouble or steal our resources. Whilst we may be decentralists ourselves, many others are not and therefore our land and property will have to be vigorously defended like any other community. We reject utopianism and believe that we must always look at these things realistically, because our village-communities will have to arm themselves appropriately in order to survive. This does not, however, require the existence of a standing army or police force.
According to John E. Pfeiffer, writing in The Emergence of Man (Harper & Row, 1969), “when a group exceeds 500 persons, it requires some form of policing”. The reason being, 500 is the maximum number of people that a single individual can know personally and therefore if people in National-Anarchist areas are comparatively more familiar with their neighbours it will result in a more settled and peaceful community. Unlike the anonymous, atomised, urban societies of today, where most people rarely ever communicate with their neighbours, or try to avoid doing so as much as possible, crime will be reduced as a result of the fact that residing amongst one’s extended family (aunts, uncles, grandfathers and grandmothers etc.) tends to keep the peace through a process known as ‘shaming’. In other words, people are naturally discouraged from committing crimes against their neighbours if they are known to the community at large and therefore likely to face a degree of shame and embarrassment if caught. It won’t make crime totally non-existent, obviously, but it will make such incidents far more isolated. This means that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for police, because National-Anarchist communities will police themselves in the way that villages used to before the establishment of a police force in the Victorian period. And even that came about as a result of overpopulation and a lack of street lighting which led to disorder in large cities and towns. The moment when a policeman puts on his uniform is the very instance when he divides himself from the rest of the community at large and that must never be allowed to happen.
The same goes for a standing army, because whilst National-Anarchists will clearly need to defend themselves by networking with like-minded communities, this can be achieved through good regional co-operation rather than by keeping arms in the hands of a centralised body. On the contrary, we propose that National-Anarchist communities form a confederation of loosely-organised militia comprised of individuals who have other roles in society but who are also highly trained in the methods of self-defence and, if necessary, warfare. In Medieval Europe, for example, farmers and artisans would serve in their feudal overlord’s private army for a certain number of days each year. We are not suggesting that people serve a local baron or member of the nobility, obviously, but our system will be fairly similar in that ordinary members of the public – especially young people – will be operating in a dual capacity and thus be able to provide some form of military service on an intermittent or infrequent basis. This will require good communication and training, but with the right determination and commitment it will be possible to provide an effective defensive force in a more decentralised context. Finally, it goes without saying that arms will be held in the hands of the community itself. This system has been operating very successfully in modern-day Switzerland for many years and whilst gun ownership comes with great responsibility gun crime itself is extremely rare. National-Anarchists also believe in providing help and advice on survivalism, martial arts and other forms of self-defence, all important skills which are becoming increasingly vital as contemporary society continues to slide into chaos and the streets become more and more dangerous.
Nothing, nothing but war, war without mercy, will lead to any solution. – Peter Kropotkin
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. – Mikhail Bakunin
That which is falling, should also be pushed. – Friedrich Nietzsche
The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands dirty. – Joseph Tommasi
THE precise meaning of the word ‘revolution’ is often highly contested. It can mean a violent overthrow of the existing order, or perhaps a sudden break with current trends. The fact that revolution contains the root word ‘revolve’, meanwhile, indicates that it also relates to a return of some kind. Think of the way that a compass takes a pencil back to its original starting point, for example. For us, there are several definitions surrounding the word ‘revolution’ and each of them have an important role to play in their own right.
Most revolutions that have taken place throughout history have led to a cruel and systematic betrayal of ordinary men and women. Millions have lost their lives and many others cynically used to overthrow a crooked ruling class on behalf of an equally corrupt and jealous bourgeoisie. National-Anarchists are vigorously opposed to the artificial injustices of the enforced class system and believe, not in Marxist ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism’, but in a natural meritocracy that adequately reflects the true nature of the individual and his role in society.
There have been many positive examples of revolutionary activity, among them the Luddites of 1812, the Swing Riots and Tolpuddle Martyrs of the 1830s, the co-operative movement established by the Rochdale Pioneers, Robert Owen’s communal experiments in both Scotland and America, the French Commune of 1871 and the agricultural co-operatives which were set up by Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War of the mid-1930s. Those on the Left try to claim these revolutionary currents for their own, but they do not have a monopoly when it comes to fighting against capitalism and, as we discussed earlier on, they often bring about capitalism in a slightly modified form. The examples mentioned above are part of a long tradition of struggle and National-Anarchism is the latest in a long line of genuine revolutionary currents that seek to bring about political self-expression, economic freedom and social justice.
Although we have already discussed various ways in which National-Anarchists can engage in revolutionary activity within the belly of the beast, so to speak, right here in the West, we also support the strategy of revolution on the periphery. In other words, we believe that revolutionary groups in the Third World are leading the way in the struggle against capitalist greed and exploitation. We therefore offer our critical support to all groups and organisations that fight on the frontline against the so-called New World Order and who seek to retain or reclaim their economic independence or racial and cultural identity. It is important to remember that revolution in the West is an extremely risky affair, at least if people try to arm themselves and take on the Establishment at this stage in the game. Direct armed resistance in the Third World, however, helps to weaken the globalist core because it either prevents or slows down the export of crops, minerals and various other resources to the West. At present, the West is able to buy off the corrupt leaders of Third World governments – many of whom have been plunged into debt through war and excessive borrowing – so that African and Asian resources are sent abroad at the point of a gun. This obviously results in starvation and misery for the indigenous people. But if the West finds it increasingly difficult to extract what it wants from the countries on the periphery, it will begin to wither and die in the way that the old Roman Empire began to collapse as a result of being overstretched in a perpetual quest for foreign territory, manpower and natural resources. Anything which weakens the West, therefore, must be good for those of us living beneath the jackboot of international capitalism and who desire real change.
The task we have set ourselves is a great one. The fight for culture, identity and economic self-determination is a cause that gives us a great sense of purpose and destiny. And yet, for those who are called to this fight in the immediate future, we can only offer a long and difficult road which is often characterised by disappointment and pain. Due to the fact that the path of the revolutionary is so difficult, many who join us simply fall by the wayside, unable to live up to the ideals. Such people inevitably cite a multitude of reasons for dropping out; from family problems to the fear of being ‘exposed’ as a National-Anarchist. But behind the excuses lies just one reason: the fact that they are not prepared to make even the smallest of sacrifices within their own lives to help us gain victory. Needless to say, we can well do without such people. In place of people such as this we seek a new type of individual, someone who is prepared to put his or her ideals before anything else. Here is the mark of a true revolutionary; an activist in the unselfish service of race and nation. And rest assured, never has our vision been in greater need of such individuals.
In this modern era the concept of sacrifice is anathema to virtually everyone. Modern man laughs at the idea of sacrifice. He proclaims: ‘If I do a job I want paying for it. I never do anything for nothing.’ Such a man has no understanding of higher ideals and knows even less about how to fight for them. It is because of such people and their selfish egocentrism that our civilisation is in such decay. One notable exception to this decline in idealism is that given to us by Hamas fighters waging a war of liberation in Zionist-occupied Palestine and, in particular, the men within their ranks who are prepared to die for their beliefs. Such heroism in the face of overwhelming odds is inspired. It shows us that the concept of personal sacrifice in pursuit of a political goal is not dead. It also shows that where such an ideal is harnessed and used it becomes a deadly force that cannot be beaten. Zionist Jews know all about the consequences of the Palestinian uprising and, make no mistake, they fear it.
If we are to win then we must follow such a example, an example born of purity of thought and action. We must endeavour to go down this road because it is the only road that will lead us to victory. Our ideals must inspire in us the same level of dedication and fanaticism, they must give us the same inner strength which breeds invincibility. Only if we can achieve this will we become a force capable of confronting and beating our enemies. In working towards this aim there are two immediate goals that must be achieved by everyone. Firstly, we must not be like other men and women, people who are solely the product of corporate advertisers, media propagandists, the liberal agenda and the materialist ethos. We must set ourselves apart and become true followers of the revolutionary way. Only when we are ideologically free of the System can we attack it with the clarity of vision needed to defeat it. Secondly, our goal must be to fight. Always to fight. If we are fighting, then we are winning. If we put down the sword, then we have already lost. This fight demands loyalty and it demands commitment. If we are not prepared to give our blood, sweat and tears then we will achieve nothing. There will be no advance and no victory. Nothing is more certain.
The ideal of sacrifice is not new. We revolutionaries have been pushing both it and the relationship between sacrifice and victory for a number of years. But whilst in the past these words seem to have fallen on deaf ears, they are now being taken seriously by dedicated revolutionaries. It is testimony to the strength of the National-Anarchist revolutionary that after all the betrayals and sell-outs of recent years, there has emerged a new mode of dedicated and dogged fanaticism. It is in this atmosphere, cleansed of compromise, that the possibility exists for moving the revolutionary cause into a new and more threatening position. For the sake of our future communities and their people this opportunity must be seized.