[Sithsaber]

Is this just utter bullshit occasionally pulled out of the dustpin to rally stupid ass skinheads or did actual thought go into it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Anarchism

[Paradigm]

I don't think anything that comes out of the minds of racist boneheads can properly be described as "actual thought."

[Sithsaber]

The fascist Tiumvirate here may be deranged but they at least utilize a warped sense of logic; this just seems retarded.

[Rei Murasame]

They are a complete mess. They want to get brand-recognition as 'anarchists' because they want to conceal various things such as their massive super-regressive patriarchal hardon* beneath the trendiness of anarchism so that young people will like it. And they want to draw people away from the Third Position into their decentralised anti-statist defeatist mindfuck thing, which creates further confusion.

National-Anarchism is just a mess in every conceivable way.

* The reason I've used so many adjectives there, is to convey that they are beyond the usual levels of gender regressiveness. They are in a whole new galaxy of regressiveness.

[quetzalcoatl]

Groupuscular right is an apt description:

...current-day fascism is "groupuscular" in nature -- that is, it forms out of smallish but virulent, potentially lethal and certainly problematic "organisms":

After the war the dank conditions for revolutionary nationalism "dried out" to a point where it could no longer form into a single-minded slime mould. Since party-political space was largely closed to it, even in its diminutive versions, it moved increasingly into disparate niches within civic and uncivic space, often assuming a "metapolitical" mode in which it focussed on changing the "cultural hegemony" of the dominant liberal capitalist system. … Where revolutionary nationalism pursued violent tactics they were no longer institutionalised and movement-based, but of a sporadic, anarchic, and terroristic nature. To the uninitiated observer it seemed that where once planets great and small of ultra-nationalist energies had dominated the skies, there now circled an asteroid belt of fragments, mostly invisible to the naked eye...

To be completely fair, groupuscular is a fair description of many groups on the left.

[Fasces]

I am quite enamored with the fundamental idea of national anarchism - the creation of sustainable, sovereign and autonomous volkish villages.

It is completely impractical, of course, and the associated ideas (some version of Helter Skelter combined with primitivism) are absolutely insane, so I would never associate myself with that movement. They found a way to take a beautiful idea and utterly destroy it.

[Gletkin]

They strike me as "primitive communists" in the Marxist sense.
Marx wanted to go back to the radical cooperative economics and democratic politics of our forager ancestors whose societies seemed almost anarcho-socialist.
The main problem was their ignorance and social backwardness. Sexism, narrow focus on only their own ethnic group, tribe, clan or even band and so on and so forth. So what Marx claimed was that human history was really neither a straight line nor a circle but a semi-spiral. (Modern) Communism, the final stage of human history, meant re-gaining the anarcho-socialistic political and economic order of our prehistoric ancestors while preserving all the technological and social progress civilization has made under all modes of production previous to (modern) communism.

Like the Marxists, "national anarchists" want to go back to the political and economic order of our prehistoric ancestors while perhaps preserving all technological progress civilization has made.
Unlike the Marxists, they want to go back to the social order of our prehistoric ancestors too. One of their biggest ideologues, Troy Southgate, struck me as ultra-reactionary on social issues. Profoundly sexist and whatnot even as he railed against capitalism and the state. Of course, the all-inclusive (multi-racial and all that) stances of Marxism is utterly repulsive to them as well.

Now I'm just waiting for "national anarcho-capitalists" to arise......
As I've said before, when prefixed to a name for an ideology, "National" seems to be code for racist or ethnicist.

[ronimacarroni]

They strike me as "primitive communists" in the Marxist sense.
Marx wanted to go back to the radical cooperative economics and democratic politics of our forager ancestors whose societies seemed almost anarcho-socialist.
The main problem was their ignorance and social backwardness. Sexism, narrow focus on only their own ethnic group, tribe, clan or even band and so on and so forth. So what Marx claimed was that human history was really neither a straight line nor a circle but a semi-spiral. (Modern) Communism, the final stage of human history, meant re-gaining the anarcho-socialistic political and economic order of our prehistoric ancestors while preserving all the technological and social progress civilization has made under all modes of production previous to (modern) communism.

Like the Marxists, "national anarchists" want to go back to the political and economic order of our prehistoric ancestors while perhaps preserving all technological progress civilization has made.
Unlike the Marxists, they want to go back to the social order of our prehistoric ancestors too. One of their biggest ideologues, Troy Southgate, struck me as ultra-reactionary on social issues. Profoundly sexist and whatnot even as he railed against capitalism and the state. Of course, the all-inclusive (multi-racial and all that) stances of Marxism is utterly repulsive to them as well.

Now I'm just waiting for "national anarcho-capitalists" to arise......
As I've said before, when prefixed to a name for an ideology, "National" seems to be code for racist or ethnicist.

Well I don't agree with racism, but I think Karl Marx's ideology was mostly aimed at conservative farmers and industrial workers rather than latte sipping hipsters.
Also I don't take feminists seriously, because anything short of handing them power in a silver platter is sexism to them.
You're all too neurotic and driven by emotions anyways. You've proven it by rejecting the men whose qualities you claim you want.

[Technology]

They seem to be a very mixed bag. The wikipedia article doesn't gel with some NA manifestos I've read which portray it less as an active, aggressively racist, racial segregation movement and more of a consequence of a larger overall ideology that treats self-identifying groups or tribes as having "national sovereignty" and being able to exclude others, under a non-universalist system of ethics. Like, you could have a gay black jewish commune tribe with its own law under NA.

It's interesting as there is now a socially "right" anarchy system to join the economically "right" anarchy of anarcho-capitalism. Although the old battles about what even counts as anarchy are rife again here. Personally, an absolutist conception of anarchy renders it even more impractical, when a decentralizing towards the local away from the state should vary according to local conditions. After all, the only way to not allow it to have local variation would be if there was some kind of centralized force, or "anarchist association" which enforced its set of rules religiously on everyone, everywhere, which sounds a lot like... a government.

The only thing that I approve of here is the use of centralism-decentralism, if only they'd apply it correctly. If we can start calling NAs, national-decentralists, and anarcho-capitalists as decentral-capitalists, then we can gain back some of the distinct meaning of anarchy as being "without hierarchy" and not just "without state".

It seems the other main difference between it and other forms of "anarchy" is that they don't seem to believe in universalist ethics, whereas "left" anarchists very much do, and even anarcho-capitalists do when it comes to A: all physical property, and B: the right to life. Oh, and it attracts race war nutters. There's that.

[Sithsaber]

So they're phyles?

[Quantum]

Paradigm nailed it. National Anarchism seems like a lame justification for racism rather than an extensive ideological framework that seeks to solve societal problems.

[Technology]

I think you can be a complete racist, and genuinely believe other things, even if those other things seem bizarre.