Counter-Currents
Pushing the System:
Troy Southgate’s National-Anarchism: A Reader
Juleigh Howard-Hobson
1,853 words
National-Anarchism: A Reader
Ed. Troy Southgate
London: Black Front Press, 2012
“That which is falling, should also be pushed” — Nietzsche, as quoted by Troy Southgate
This is a very well organized book. This is an interesting, enlightening, and autodidactic book. This is a much needed book. While I don’t recall when I first heard about National Anarchism, I do know that I have never really fully understood it. Until now.
Troy Southgate’s own words regarding National Anarchism capture the essence of this book:
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 neighbors and be prepared to defend themselves from outsiders.
Finally, contrary to the increasingly desperate smears of our enemies on the both the Right and Left of the political spectrum, we are not using Anarchism as a convenient tactic t 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. I 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. (pp. 43–44
Troy Southgate has put together an ambitious tome: a reader that holds the essential text of a revolutionary political movement inside its simple black, red and white covers, while remaining clear, to the point, and amazingly approachable. Southgate’s collection of 23 essays is deceptively easy to read, and collectively deep to ponder.
Combining the talents of contributors such as Keith Preston (attackthesystem.com), Welf Herfurth (A Life in the Political Wilderness [Finis Mundi Press, 2011]), Flavio Gonçalves (of Finis Mundi Press), Brett Stevens (of the Amerika.org blog), Andreas Faust, and Josh Bates as well as Troy Southgate, National-Anarchism: A Reader represents the best of a new cycle of visionary thinkers.
From the very first sentences of the foreword, Southgate pulls no punches regarding the ideological underpinning of this book:
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 traditional values to their own children without the pernicious influence of Establishment schools and the mass media. So what went wrong? (p. 1)
This book offers both the answer and the antidote to that question. Kicking aside the shallow left and right sidebanks of history, National Anarchism “seeks to transcend the superfluous and obsolete ideologies of ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’” (back cover).
It is refreshing — in an age where the typical answer to that question would have been full of backward glances, romantic hand-wringing, and pessimistic doom and gloom predictions concerning the outcome of the challenges we are up against as a folk and as a people — to read the words of those who look straight ahead, critically and with sound plans for a continued undimmed and undiminished existence. Our continued undimmed and undiminished existence, and the rest of the sane world’s as well. Hope is here. More than hope — here we see a presentation of vision, a collection of thought, experience, reason, and will combined with a testament of faith from those who have obviously been digging deep and thinking hard about the future we face as our past crumbles away.
The book opens with a historical overview of the movement. Part educational, part who’s who and what’s what, this chapter is essential reading as a refresher or as a crash course, depending on your level of knowledge. Either way, it gives a great amount of detail and background succinctly and clearly, without condescension.
This chapter is followed by Brett Stevens’ interview with Troy Southgate which expands the overview of the movement in an interesting and personable manner. This feeling of personal presence, of the book having been written in the authentic voices of real men, coming out of real experience and practical reflection, is a quality that sets this book apart from most political texts. It is extremely readable (without being ‘dumbed down’); the chapters build with seeming effortlessness upon each other like conversations that take place when great minds meet.
Troy Southgate’s essays act as the central ‘voice’ alternating with and connecting the other ‘speakers’ in this conversation.
Chapter 3, aptly titled “National Anarchism in a Nutshell” is just that. Josh Bates does a great job of distilling the movement to its vital essence: “National-Anarchist philosophy, then, is not the oxymoronic amalgamation of right and left wing political ideologies but a harkening to the original and true meaning of nation combined with a desire to preserve the natural races of man and the aspiration to free all people from the chains of both left and right wing totalitarianism and imperialism” (p. 28).
Flavio Gonçalves’ essay, “National Anarchism: The Way of the Future,” which makes up Chapter 5, defines further what National Anarchism stands for in light of the movement’s repudiation of dogmas of state, racial supremacy, racism, anti-racism, equalitarianism, and the whole left/right concept.
N-A stands for something that many believe to be pessimistic and/or defeatist, and considering the degree of social degradation that is so deep and rooted we see no way of turning this boat around, if you will allow me to use an analogy from “Ship of Fools”. Drugs, alcohol, MTV and sexual degradation have affected our society in such a way that it is impossible to return to the old days, some even consider those things as a fundamental part of our society.
N-A stands for the termination of nation-states, has a necessity for survival and upholds the need of a rebirth of our tribal spirit. All national territories should be regionalized, fragmented, reduced to small territories and within those territories people with common ethnic or cultural affinities will gather together . . .” (pp. 37–38).
Keith Preston’s essays comprise chapters 7, 11, and 13. These vary from his brief 4 page “Anarchism of the Right” which presents core ideas: “White libertarians and anarcho-capitalists tend to be economics-oriented, anarchists of the Right prefer to emphasize the particular, and champion the sovereignty, autonomy, and preservation of the unique cultures, regions, ethnicities, identities, faiths and tribes against the homogenizing and universalizing forces of the global economy, technology and imperialism” (p. 47) and core names: “De Benoist, Nietzsche, Jünger, Evola, Schopenhauer, Belloc, . . . Proudhon, Bakunin, Tolstoy, Stirner and Kropotkin. Its leading current proponents are Troy Southgate, Flavio Gonçalves, Hans Cany, Peter Topfer, Andrew Yeoman, Welf Herfurth, Chris Donnellan and, at least peripherally, myself” (p. 46) to his 103 page “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire,” an essay which is, as he notes in his preface, “an effort, however humble, to apply traditional anarchist theory to the world situation we contemporary radicals currently find ourselves in, particularly the emergence of the New World Order, the ongoing dilemma of the Leviathan state, and the uniquely subtle form of totalitarianism that has caught the fancy of the elites of the First World nations, so-called “political correctness” (p. 126). Heady, heavy stuff, written in clear and accessible language free of multi-syllabic words that sound clever but are devoid of substance.
Along with essays that cover stances on everything from alternative education, economic autarky, and environment all the way to addressing and examining anarchism itself, National-Anarchism: A Reader includes essays that deal with components that should be part of every emerging and existing movement’s normal operations. Andreas Faust weighs in on the power of pranks and hijinks as promotional tools, looking at ways activists can use and manipulate the media in his essay “Humour as a Weapon,” and Welf Herfurth offers examples, pointers and truisms concerning the positives of political confrontation in “The Strategy of Tension.” Again, as with every piece of text in this book, the essays are logical, understandable and worth reading.
As an editor of a book that is destined to become the defining text of a movement, Troy Southgate lives up to his role. Not only are his essays well written themselves, and balanced adroitly throughout the book, the chapters are arranged intelligently, each leading up to, complementing or building from the others that come before it. The individual voices of the writers are not lost in an overall mix, yet the book keeps to its single note – that of being a National Anarchist Reader—with no jarring or discordant elements. Apt quotations (“A good man and a good citizen are not exactly the same thing.—Augustine” (p. 74)) head up some of the essays, while handy lists of further reading suggestions follow others. The font is easy to read, the paper stock bright and the margins wide enough for note making.
While no one ought to judge a book by its cover alone, a well-designed cover is no small advantage in giving a book appeal; National-Anarchism: A Reader is beautifully designed—from the glossy black of its background to the stark red of its lettering to the well sized and well placed NAM Star-in-circle symbol presented in eye-catching white in the center of the front cover. The back cover is as well laid out as the front, albeit less stark and more textual as befits its place.
The first real words in the book are from the finest of all English poets, John Keats: “The only means of strengthening one’s intellect is to make up one’s mind about nothing; to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts” (unnumbered fourth page). The last word printed in this book is “victory.” It concludes a final sentence: “In the long-term, it is the only possible road to victory” (p. 306). I don’t know if Mr. Southgate realized that he began and ended his reader this way, but I find that he chose (however he chose) perfectly — with a fitting opening quotation, and a fitting final word that make two perfectly fitting sentiments. National-Anarchism: A Reader makes a great case for the complete and utter sensibleness of its positions, thoughts, stances, attitudes, agendas, and, ultimately, its victory.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
10 comments
I’m all for diversity of opinion, but I still don’t see NA “working” in the real world. “Small village communities”, “live and let live” – so what happens when the next village over outstrips its resources? What happens when the bellicose village of warmongers lives adjacent to the peace-loving vegan yoga village? What’s going to happen is what has always happened – the strong will conquer and enslave the weak; those who outstrip their own resources are going to take someone else’s; empires and states will form and grow. You will get the same kind of world we already inhabit. There is a driving force pushing us into this particular equilibrium; why fight against it?
Why bother to eat…. death is inevitable.
To address your comment, regarding the ‘might is right’ outlook–as I quoted from Mr. Southgate’s own words, in the review:
“On the other hand, communities must be respectful of their neighbors and be prepared to defend themselves from outsiders.”
“regarding the ‘might is right’ outlook”
That isn’t what he said. He referred to the natural tendency of communities to overuse finite resources and seek them elsewhere at the expense of others. This is a phenomenon so well-known and unavoidable as to approach banality in having to establish it in conversation each time someone blithely presumes that a collection of genetically unrelated autonomous communities can exist side by side or in the same biosphere, peacefully, forever.
Community x can be as peaceful as lambs, but community y, on the other side of yon hill, will become fed up and take over community z for their wealth (soil, trees, animals, women, etc.)
So now we have a compound community y/z which must in a shorter time-span turn its attention back to community x.
I will be happy to read Southgate’s book if he would be so generous as to send me a free copy, inscribed, with a lock of his hair between the pages. But communities aren’t formed by fiat.
“Why bother to eat…death is inevitable.”
Normally I don’t have the patience to address absurd comments, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized (your intentions aside) your comment isn’t completely absurd, and I should respond.
Why eat? Because hunger drives us to eat. Our instincts are stronger than we like to admit. Yes, they can be overruled, but when hunger consumes us, we will do anything to satiate it. In both the Ukraine and in Jerusalem (during the Roman siege) mothers butchered and ate their own children. That’s what human beings red in tooth and claw are capable of doing. You think they aren’t willing to attack their neighbors when instincts like hunger drive them to do so?
Anyway, Mr. Southgate’s quote doesn’t adequately address my concerns. So war is justified when it is defensive, but unjustified at all other times? Says who? Who’s going to stop me from overstepping the bounds? The community I belong to values war and valor. We’ve had a bad harvest because we spent all our time making weapons and learning how to fight. You (our neighbors) see what’s happening from the next village and, naturally, grow concerned. Are you going to attempt to intervene while we stockpile weaponry and prepare to invade your village and take your food? Perfect. That’s exactly what we want – a casus belli. Either way, you have pre-emptively begun a war or we have wiped out our competitors, both of which are outside the bounds of Troy’s pronouncement.
@thespaniel, may I recommend you join the official N-AM facebook page, you’ll likely get far more answers their – http://www.facebook.com/groups/119522234768392/
Most young people today associate any impulse toward sexual reserve with fundamentalist Protestantism or medieval Catholicism. The sexual market has evolved in such a way that young men frequently waste all their money chasing women, which makes them unattractive as mates, while young women abuse the “power” that modern society has given them over men until they are no longer sexually attractive, making them unattractive as mates.
One can argue from a Darwinian perspective that this is good because it might cull the herd of especially vain, self-centered, and short-sighted people, but this system disproportionally affects whites since we are not permitted alternative social organizations that permit our groups interests: raising families for our races future being one of them. The only mainstream institution that may provide family building for whites is churches, but these institutions almost invariably run funding drives for non-white charities or otherwise participate in action harmful to our race, so we should not join them.
We must start communities or build social clubs that will permit whites to save their money, start businesses, and have normal careers while providing them with a sense of community. Drugs and sexual depravity should be discouraged and acting like an MTV clown will mean automatic shunning. Instead, family building will be the social norm with the goal of raising a healthy stock of children of our race. The best of our people will come to choose what we offer when we start making our presence known. Unlike the Christians, we will not have a “take all” policy that does not turn the feeble, ugly, and cowardly away, nor will we require our people to participate in humiliating charitable activity to help the homeless, third-world savages, or other rabble.
A conversation I had with a good friend and his girlfriend yesterday was revealing. The guy, who may have an iq ten points higher than mine, and his girlfriend now live across the state from each other. I suspect the girl could either be cheating on him or looking for a higher status mate, but regardless, the girl relished in memories of their past, when she and my friend spent their days in a fraternity house, drinking at from noon till the early morn on weekends. She explained that my friend spent a whole summer playing Guitar Hero for 8 hours a day, rather, then say, learning a skill or working a job.
The problem lies in that in this society these activities have become high status indicators. In Christian societies, helping the weak is considered a mark of high status, as it demonstrates an excess of strength. In National Socialist Germany, taking heroic action on the part of your race demonstrated high status. In today’s degenerate culture though, self-destructive displays of high-status dominate. These indicators include binge drinking, drug use, and yes, even excessive video game playing, as they show that one can be successful while keeping a light heart and without working too hard.
The problem is that this behavior eventually becomes “competitive,” and men have to begin showing higher status by caring less about their work/studies to the point that they no longer can succeed. Whites must reverse this trend and make hard work become rewarded in the mating market again, not counting the jobs found in our enemy’s institutions such as Goldman Sachs.
N-A stands for the termination of nation-states, has a necessity for survival and upholds the need of a rebirth of our tribal spirit. All national territories should be regionalized, fragmented, reduced to small territories and within those territories people with common ethnic or cultural affinities will gather together . . .” (pp. 37–38).
The information immediately below is from wikipedia. Conservapedi didn’t have anything on BANA, national anarchism, Troy Southgate or Andrew Yoeman.
The quote at the top of my post, from the counter currents article combined with the wikipedia info points to an NA flaw.
The flaw is little ethnic communities peacefully living side by side implies whites accept the permanent colonization of America (and Europe?) by the current 100 million or so non-whites. It also entails no national existence of white states with no effective control of our borders.
It even would allow coyotes to infiltrate through the thinly inhabited “common areas”.
The one shot protest by BANA against illegal immigration appears to be nothing more permanent than the Bolshevik “New Economic Policy.” Nothing more than conservative Republican activist might have done and just a temporary concession to white working class youth. It seems in total conflict with the NA philosophy of acceptance of alien communities and a withering away to the state, which state could have been brought to control the border.
The intent of this movement may be to gather disaffected white working class youth into safe little Bore homelands where they won’t be bothered by the close proximity of blacks and Mexicans while they take no part in serious political activity such as AP3.
It rejects Nazism of course, so it won’t be attacked by leftist Jews.
Yoeman himself has no link on the Jewish run wikipedia. Every other NA leader on the wiki page has a link to a biography. I find this omission curious. So who is Yoeman? Does anyone know what he looks like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism
National-Anarchists in the U.S. are carefully studying the successes and failures of their more prominent international counterparts as they attempt to similarly win converts from the radical environmentalist and white nationalist movements in the U.S.[9]
In 2008, Southgate agreed with Yeoman’s proposition that “Tribal Anarchism” is a slightly more accurate description
They distance themselves from fascism and communism as statist and totalitarian,[2] and reject Nazism as the discredited ideology of a failed dictatorship.[2]
Southgate has stated:
We believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities.”[23]
On certain battleground
N-A accepts the “permanent colonization” of North America by non-whites because first of all, the indigenous peoples are non-white, and also non-whites are here to stay and silly fantasies of repatriation are just that, fantasies. N-A deals with the reality of the situation and seeks respectful co-existance with all ethinicities. We will only have our rights of free association and to form autonomous communities respected if we in turn respect the right of others to do the same.
“Yoeman himself has no link on the Jewish run wikipedia. Every other NA leader on the wiki page has a link to a biography. I find this omission curious. So who is Yoeman? Does anyone know what he looks like?”
Andrew Yeoman has left activism completely and has absolutley no ties to National-Anarchism.
Anarchism doesn’t work. Take medieval Italy this was as close to the anarchist model as it gets, the government was so weak and anemic men could ignore it if they chose and many did. So was the result peace and brotherhood?, well not quite since this is where the word Vendetta originates from. Families and their retainers would launch private wars against their neigbours over purely civil matters like the provision of a wedding dowery and these bloody fueds would last decades and kill hundreds of people including perfectly innocent third parties until popular folkish movements brought about strong central government to restrain these warring families. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was not just a play, it was social commentary.
Wherever men live together in communities the need arises for a 3rd party to arbitrate between the inveitable conflicts of interest that arise amongst men to ensure that laws are enforced and contracts are honoured. The larger and more complex the communtiy, the greater the requirement for a larger and more specialist class of people to arbitrate disputes.
National-Anarchism is not compatible with civilisation. Fortunately Troy Southgate, perhaps alone amongst most anarchists is pretty honest in stating that one can have anarchy with very small family groups living in squalid mud huts or you can have an advanced technological society with a state.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment