[JohannKaspurSchmidt]

To the opponents of national anarchists we are a bunch of disgruntled white male racists akin to the klu klux klan or neo nazis with typical simplistic propaganda smear themes and imagery.

This is very much incorrect not to mention a tirelessly repetitive propaganda smear against us by communists, liberals, socialists, and all other political groups that feel that they need to toe the line when it concerns political correctness that favors multicultural globalism where here I will explain why.

While there are a lot of white males in the ranks of national anarchism that want to have anarchism within their own ethnic cultural groups there is nothing in it's tenets that says other ethnic cultural groups that are non caucasian can't also form their factions under the same banner of national anarchy.

Moreover if other ethnic groups that are noncaucasian were to form their own ethnic cultural seperatist factions they might be surprised that ethnocentric European national anarchists would support them from abroad.

I support seperatist native americans, Hispanics, Africans, Asians, Arabs, Hindu, and any other ethnic group on earth with similar aims despite differences of ethnicity or culture. I view them as brothers in arms against all international statist and government forces.

There can be a international brotherhood without ethnic cultural integration and assimilation in a typical globalist fashion where we can be seperate but also work with each other.

Let this thread silence all critics that dare use propaganda smearing against national anarchists.

[Rei Murasame]

Is national anarchism similar to what is called 'communalism' in South Asia? That might be a good point of comparison to make, if it is so.

[feihua]

Wiki sez:

Communalism[1] is a term with three distinct meanings according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.[2] These include (1) "a theory of government or a system of government in which independent communes participate in a federation". (2) "the principles and practice of communal ownership". There is no indication whether communalism (sense 2) would apply in the "independent" communes described in the definition of communalism (sense 1). However, in practice, many experiments in utopian socialism did implement internal rules of communalist property ownership in the context of federated communalism. It is at least theoretically possible for a federation of communes to include communes which do not practice communalist rules of property, which is to say, that the overall national government may be a federation of communes, but that private property rather than communalist property is the order within each such commune. Karl Marx, often viewed as the founder of communism, criticized other socialists of his era, and made particularly blistering criticisms of utopianism which was generally conceived along communalist principles, both federational communalism and local property communalism.

National-Anarchism is a radical, anti-capitalist, anti-Marxist, anti-statist, right-wing political and cultural ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.[1] As a prelude to an anticipated racial civil war and a collapse of the capitalist system, National-Anarchists seek to establish autonomous villages for völkisch communities, which have seceded from the state's economy and are no-go areas for unwelcomed ethnic groups and state authorities.[1][2]
The term National Anarchism dates back as far as the 1920s.[1] However, it has been primarily redefined and popularized since the 1990s by British ideologue Troy Southgate to promote a synthesis of ideas from the Conservative Revolutionary movement, Traditionalist School, Third Positionism, Nouvelle Droite, and various anarchist schools of thought.[3] National-Anarchists therefore argue they hold a syncretic political or metapolitical stance that is "beyond left and right" because the conventional left–right political spectrum is obsolete and should be replaced with a centralist–decentralist paradigm.[4]
Scholars counter that National-Anarchism represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension.[5][6][7] National-Anarchism has elicited skepticism and outright hostility from both left- and right-wing critics. The former accuse National-Anarchists of misappropriating a sophisticated left-wing anarchist critique of problems with the modern world only to offer neo-fascism as the solution, while the latter argue they want the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists without the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim.

Interestingly, http://www.nationalanarchism.com/ uses the same first paragraph as the wiki entry for the website's homepage.

http://www.national-anarchist.net/ has the manifesto on the homepage of their website and wastes no time getting down to anti-zionism.

It's a whole new spin. Apparently trying to make some kind of social acceptability out of it, if not sense.

[feihua]

.... double clicked double posted....

[Rei Murasame]

I wonder why they don't just admit to ethnic nationalism and join the rest of us in that category? It really does seem like they are trying to avoid the connotation of being 'fascistic', and the connotation of being 'separatist', and the connotation of being a 'national liberation front', while in fact directly descended from that mode of thought.

[feihua]

I saw an ad for national anarchist shirts which took me to a forum about white strength. When searching for national anarchists, the topics were......"hey, whatever happened to those national anarchist links? Is anyone keeping up with that?" "Well, he was around a couple of weeks ago but I don't think he's doing that anymore."

I am somewhat fascinated by these threads because it's like Westboro Church flavored drink. It's not real Westboro Church reasoning, but that flavor is there despite the aspertame.

[The Immortal Goon]

I wonder why they don't just admit to ethnic nationalism and join the rest of us in that category? It really does seem like they are trying to avoid the connotation of being 'fascistic', and the connotation of being 'separatist', and the connotation of being a 'national liberation front', while in fact directly descended from that mode of thought.

I've often wondered about this from people on the right. They'll say something that hints at the idea of racial separation, and then quickly attempt to turn everything around on the left for being racist or something as a defence.

Why not just admit what you believe and be done with it? Why try to hide it and not even attempt to change people's minds, but cower away and feed the narrative that is tapping away at your own movement?

[RhetoricThug]

While there are a lot of white males in the ranks of national anarchism that want to have anarchism within their own ethnic cultural groups there is nothing in it's tenets that says other ethnic cultural groups that are non caucasian can't also form their factions under the same banner of national anarchy.

This sums it up. We only hope to organize a community with mutual identity. In theory, the community will have no reason to abuse the participating members- peace shall be kept. Anyone with similar views can form their own community. The great thing about the anarchist perspective- you are allowed to go wherever you fit in. No force, only consent.

Glad to see another member on here with parallel virtue.

Of course, the argument will be- communities will fight with other communities over resources. Trade will not suffice the sacrifice. So how can we, realistically, keep the peace? Humans are increasingly militant when their needs are not met. National Anarchism dreams of addressing those needs by allowing everyone to live with like-minded people/ their own kind. No melting pot sought, failed experiments need not to be credited as facts then accepted en-mass.

[Rei Murasame]

I've often wondered about this from people on the right. They'll say something that hints at the idea of racial separation, and then quickly attempt to turn everything around on the left for being racist or something as a defence.

Why not just admit what you believe and be done with it? Why try to hide it and not even attempt to change people's minds, but cower away and feed the narrative that is tapping away at your own movement?

Yes, I have no idea what the exact mental process that causes them to do that. There are a lot of people who have taken on the narrative of, "Oh no, it's the left who are doing that, not us!"

In a way, it shows that there has been a sort of triumph of the leftist narrative on race in some areas of the world, because rather than arguing their point, they will try to turn it around and pin it back on the left as though it were a bad thing. It is, as you say, completely self-destructive. Just this weekend I had to take some people to task for it, because it's really infuriating.

[RhetoricThug]

National Anarchism, wants to do away with the foolish "left-right political spectrum"
We look at ideas as centralized or decentralized. This eliminates petty arguments, pulling and pushing back n forth between, "What authoritarian regime will reign supreme." Will it be the left central state, or the right. Both sides cause destruction, both sides have had their chance to prove something. Get over it. The future is no government. We truly empower the people.

Left: "I just don't understand why they think that way."

Right: "I just don't understand why they think that way."

Anarchist: "You two are both morons."

[Lexington]

National Anarchism, wants to do away with the foolish "left-right political spectrum"
We look at ideas as centralized or decentralized. This eliminates petty arguments, pulling and pushing back n forth between, "What authoritarian regime will reign supreme." Will it be the left central state, or the right. Both sides cause destruction, both sides have had their chance to prove something. Get over it. The future is no government. We truly empower the people.

Left: "I just don't understand why they think that way."

Right: "I just don't understand why they think that way."

Anarchist: "You two are both morons."

And then left, right (and me, the moderate smoking a cigarette in back) turn around and say together "Who's the moron who doesn't want life to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short?"

And then maybe - just maybe - we can talk about things bigger than bad rhetoric about centralized and decentralized and left and right.

[RhetoricThug]

than bad rhetoric about centralized and decentralized and left and right.

Do you really adhere to bad competence??? We only want to reconstruct an adequate living condition that makes sense for everyone. A middle modest man is someone who can't decide between the two idiocracies.

[feihua]

It really pissed these guys off when black guys made it cool to wear hoods again.

[RhetoricThug]

It really pissed these guys off when black guys made it cool to wear hoods again.

It pisses people off that it becomes an excuse to be racist. I can't believe the KKK once marched in public.

When you sober up, please continue intelligibly.

yeah, good thing I can edit...

[Lexington]

Do you really thin know, adhere to bad competence??? We only want to reconstruct an aqueduct that makes sense. A modest is someone who can't decide between the two idiocracy.

When you sober up, please continue intelligibly.

I don't know what aqueduct you mean to reconstruct.

[feihua]

I bet it pissed, you off. The pointy, it really turned you sideways, or license. Come forth the translatable equivalence or etc

The odds escalated from the first post. Evens, Steven, are clearly desired, however. The obvious goal is to have advantage over what is claimed to be respected.

Does this year's model suggest fascism is not appropriate for naggers in sheep's clothing?

The lack of follow through being displayed is annoying, however, anger has not been achieved.

The advertising is always interesting but sometimes what is incorrect about the display makes the attention sought tear their hair out likewise only to be fearful the next claim is that emulation is present.

How is respect for separation possible when such an effort is made to engage?

I have seen lines drawn. I have seen chips placed upon shoulders. When I see lines drawn by those with chips on their shoulder, it is ponderous. The beckoning only increases the pondering.

Where will the power triumph is not the question, but when am I going to see the hint of it being present?

I see the cross but not the shirt. I see the shirt but not the flag. I see the flag but not the cross.

? Advertise the cause in a way that advertising will not attract attention to the product?

It is an interesting concept but only because it is at odds with the closers in the home office.

If you don't know where I come from You better steer clear of my trail
From the dark side of London That's way beyond the pale

My grandpa came from Russia Stowed away hidden in some bales
He took my grandma dancing To the air raid sirens wail

Then Saint George used his sword on the immigrant poor
'Cause he can't kill no dragon
If I was in those shoes I'd say Soweto's gonna happen here too

I gotta get a message through Tell everybody the news

And with the winter coming

Crossing all the borders Through the smoke of war and rain
Papers out of order on a military train
A coat, a bag, a baby, status refugee These are the people of my family

Don't anybody know that this city was made Of immigrant blood and money
If I was in those shoes A black shirt with playboy blues

I gotta get a message through Tell everybody the news

And with the winter coming

Now there's a rocker in Vladivostok Got every side by Jerry Lee
But for accidents of disorder That guy could well be me

I want everybody to know this I want everyone to hear
Immigration built the nation You got a blood cross standing here

[Lexington]

Do you really adhere to bad competence??? We only want to reconstruct an adequate living condition that makes sense for everyone. A middle modest man is someone who can't decide between the two idiocracies.

Or, perhaps...a moderate is someone who thinks one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist about markets or social equality or the size of government or an extremist of any kind to provide an "an adequate living condition that makes sense for everyone" and can judge how to do that pragmatically rather than dogmatically.

I think that's a virtue, personally.

[RhetoricThug]

I see your point, and it is not fundamentally flawed. I hope you can see the same here. The point is- National Anarchists really believe that each community will serve their own needs and will not blur their wants. Can't you at least acknowledge the agenda, it wishes to find peace through granting freedom to every particular group. There is no ethnocentrism.

[Lexington]

Can't you at least acknowledge the agenda, it wishes to find peace through granting freedom to every particular group. There is no ethnocentrism.

Just...separate but equal, somehow, for some non ethnocentric reason?

[RhetoricThug]

What do you not understand? Let me rephrase that, what did you not digest? The ethnocentrism is never present. Each community will represent their self through community, each community will accept members by consent and interest. The human condition might hold hostility as a normalcy. If that holds true, we are in trouble, our ideas would be challenged by the corruptible power of the state. The left and right fail to see how they are both authoritarian, yet they will both go out of their way to call an Anarchist unrealistic. You are self-proclaimed in the middle, fine. I will give that deserved credit. But are you statist?