Lecture delivered by Wayne John Sturgeon at the second international conference of the National-Anarchist Movement, England, June 23, 2018.
“Isn’t the world already
At Peace and aren’t we
The only warring faction?”
Improvements made straight roads,
but the crooked roads without improvement,
are the roads of genius.
I would like to begin this lecture with a quote from a contemporary theologian, Alasdair Macintyre, who made the following candid observation in reference to our own times, when writing on the fall of the western Roman Empire:
The new magazine of the National-Anarchist Movement, “Tribes,” is now available. Please contact me through this website’s contact page or via Facebook for inquiries about orders. Complimentary copies will be provided on a selective basis to reviewers, publishers, academics and journalists.
Editorial by Troy Southgate
The Challenge of National-Anarchism by Adam Ormes
Birth Against the Modern World by Hildr Jorgensen
Deep Roots Are Not Reached by the Frost by Linda Hext
Anarchy Against Politics by Kostas Exarchos
Autonomy and Introspection by Mary Kate Morris
Ecology and the Ethnosphere by Thom Forester
From the Streets in Black to a Field in a Wide-Brimmed Hat: A Left-Anarchist’s Journey to N-AM by Gregor Eugen Elliott
Tribe-Race-Ethnicity by Piercarlo-Bormida
Eonorenesis Ethnogenesis by Alexander Storrsson
Anarchism Without Adjectives: National-Anarchism and the Diversity of Communities by Sean Jobst
GILAD ATZMON – New Left, ID politics & Tyranny of Correctness: What is Left? @ Second International N-AM Conference in UK,June 23-24 2018 More info : http://www.national-anarchist.net FIND US ON FACEBOOK!
ALEXANDER STORRSSON – Myths and Migrations of the Indo-Europeans: How we Got to Where we Are speech @ Second International N-AM Conference in UK,June 23-24 2018 More info : http://www.national-anarchist.net FIND US ON FACEBOOK!
This is actually a very incomplete list. It only includes acts of imperialist aggression by the USA since 1945, and the many, many examples from before that, and it’s not even a complete list of the post-’45 examples.
“Plenty folk say they are outraged over Russia possibly interfering in US elections, jeeze fancy any country doing that.
But it does seem Clinton received $400,000,000.00 secretly from a Russian businessman.
Now folk are outraged Trump questions the stories told him by CIA, FBI, It would take a very special kind of special stupid to trust them, and even greater stupid to argue they are trustable.
The bankers owned media sure have folks suckered into what they are told they should think, without any thinking involved.
As if anyone would interfere in another peoples country.” -Russell Malcolm
What if Putin did it? That’s the question I’ve been getting a lot of lately. The proverbial ‘it’ being the oft-repeated accusation that the Russian government, under the direction of Czar ubermensch Vladimir Putin, colluded with Donald Trump in the 2016 election. I happen to be one of a handful of people on the left who has never bought into this half baked conspiracy theory, cooked up by Democrats to explain how they lost the White House to a reality TV monster and picked up by the so-called intelligence community to justify their purse shriveling budgets. But still I get asked, usually by some limp-wristed Whole-Foods progressive, what if Putin did it?
Since I’ve grown blue in the face trying to explain to these well intentioned morons that after 18+ months the worst thing that the biggest investigation since Watergate has managed to uncover is a mercenary Slavic clickbait farm and the kind of casual run-ins with Russian oligarchs that are sadly de rigueur for existence in the Washington swamplands, I figured I might as well just answer the goddamn question, which has developed a vibrant new layer of cacophony in the wake of Robert Mueller’s latest wave of baseless indictments against Russian nationals who will never stand trial. So what if Putin did it? I would have to shrug my shoulders and say Karma’s a bitch.
Looking out across the yellow-washed angular buildings that clutter the inner city of Phnom Penh in 2016, hindsight fills me with anxiety. Imagining myself here in 1975, I recall the jubilant and cheering crowds in the spring of that year who weren’t privy to that hindsight as they welcomed Khmer Rouge communists into Cambodia’s capital city after months of siege.
On the morning of 17 April, word had arrived that the Khmer Rouge had captured the government’s last beleaguered military stronghold on the outskirts of the city. Prime Minister Long Boret could hardly believe the news. He demanded to be driven to the riverside to see it with his own eyes. By the time he arrived, order had already collapsed in the streets and men wearing the black shirts of the Khmer Rouge surrounded his small entourage and demanded his guards put down their guns. Managing to slip away in the chaos, Boret reported back to his cabinet at the Defence Ministry that the enemy was already in the streets. The rush then began to evacuate senior government members from the country on any government helicopters still available amidst the anarchy. Had he taken action, Boret might have escaped with his wife and children on a helicopter reserved for him, but he delayed, trying to find a helicopter with enough space for his extended family.
Some common sense comments from Tom Woods on the anti-Russia hysteria.
“The hysteria over the Trump-Putin summit is astonishing.
There really is a Deep State, and it’s normally pretty subtle. The subtlety is all gone now.
It’s nonstop, round-the-clock hysteria. No president has ever been on the receiving end of this much unhinged abuse — even when they’ve richly deserved it.
With Trump, I find myself criticizing him when all the respectables are cheering him (as in the case of the Syria strike), and (sometimes) defending him when all the respectables are attacking him.
The respectables brought us Afghanistan, the Iraq war, the destruction of Libya, the destruction of federalism, an unpayable debt, the housing bubble, and 1001 other monstrosities. That doesn’t mean they’re always wrong, but, well, it almost does.
In an interview with Rand Paul, Wolf Blitzer demanded to know if the Kentucky senator trusted U.S. intelligence agencies.
Well, this much I know: there’d be far fewer dead people in the world if Wolf Blitzer hadn’t trusted U.S. intelligence agencies.
Trump’s foreign policy leaves plenty to be desired, needless to say. But he does utter important truths from time to time, and they send the creeps, spooks, and profiteers who benefit from mindless bellicosity into fits of apoplexy.
It’s interesting how so many right-leaning folks get it right on Russia, only to lose their minds on China. Um, um, Tucker, China has exactly one military base outside it’s national borders (in East Africa). The USA has hundreds. No need to sweat. Much ado is always made about the supposed power of China’s GDP, but China has a large GDP relative only to it’s massive population. The same is true of India. India’s GDP is the third largest in the world that of China or the United States relative to purchasing power parity. Like China, India is also a nuclear armed power. Does anyone seriously think India is a threat to US global hegemony?
This is a decent enough article as far as it goes, but it fails to address the real elephant in the room, i.e. that mass incarceration results from too many laws and the overly broad definition of “crime.”
Editor’s Note: This is the first in a collaborative series with the R Street Institute exploring conservative approaches to criminal justice reform.
Conservatism is not a monolith. There is no one way to be a conservative, think like a conservative, or define the conservative outlook. But there are certain bedrock principles of those on the Right: limited government, economic responsibility, and a belief that our Founding Fathers laid out sacrosanct rights in our Constitution. A firm belief in the importance of family, morality, and, for some, faith has generally guided the application of these principles. While no party can represent the whole of conservatism, the Republican Party’s role as the dominant right-of-center force in modern American politics makes it a good place to take ideological temperatures on the Right.
“The original Black Panthers were pretty awesome too. I haven’t seen any leftist groups that are even on their level either these days. Even the 70’s radical groups were more respectable. I rate The Weathermen who were the most notorious toilet bombers of that time more highly. Granted, I think they may have had more malevolent intentions than they claim now, for instance, Cathy Wilkerson trained FALN members how to make bombs and they actually did blow up people. But also George Jackson, Raymond Levasseur. I am sure I can think of others. Those guys were not effete pussies. Granted, their violence did more harm than good imo, they caused the government to pass more restrictive laws and since people don’t tend to like extremists and violence, they pushed voters to the right resulting in that scumbag Reagan being elected.
A Facebook commentator recently added this response to this debate:
In any polarised debate, seek the excluded middle! What neither position here seems to address is the question of commons, which historically acted as a mediator between private property and collectively owned resources. Meanwhile, the allocation of commons necessitates the definition of those who manage those commons, which will be to the exclusion of those who are not. This is, in a sense, a border, albeit on a much smaller scale than that of a nation state. Here are Elinor Ostrom’s 8 Principles for Managing a Commons (or common-pool resource(s) = CPR) – note the first point.
1. The CPR has clearly-defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties)
2. There is congruence between the resource environment and its governance structure or rules
3. Decisions are made through collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate
4. Rules are enforced through effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators
5. Violations are punished with graduated sanctions
6. Conflicts and issues are addressed with low-cost and easy-to-access conflict resolution mechanisms
7. Higher-level authorities recognize the right of the resource appropriators to self-govern
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources: rules are organized and enforced through multiple layers of nested enterprises
…and I suppose the reason they fail to mention commons is that as far as I’m aware, in European-American settler culture, they didn’t play the role that they have in most other societies.
Recently an article on Medium attacked the National-Anarchist Movement, whose second annual conference was recently held in London. Read the original article here. This was my response:
Some of the comments in this article are extraordinarily misinformed. National-Anarchism is very similar to older ecumenical anarchist tendencies like panarchism, synthesism, or anarchism without adjectives, plus some other ideas like neo-tribalism and ecology. Recently, this meme was posted on an N-A page:
And these were some of the comments in response by leading N-As:
“This chart would be an overview of interaction between various N-AM communities, which serves as an umbrella for, sometimes mutually exclusive, ways of life.”
“I agree, but I doubt whether some of these variations would be quite as tolerant as we are. Agreeing to disagree is one thing, but true Anarchism should never venture into the realms of coercion. In other words, the squares to avoid should never become squares upon which to impose your own views.”
“The chart is also very atheistic/materialistic in that it leaves out a vast multitude of Anarchist variations centred on spirituality. Think of all the Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Occult groups, for example. And there is always room for thematic Anarchists, too, who may base their communities on sexual (beyond homosexuality), musical, dietary, historical, fictional or cinematic themes. The list is endless and the N-AM is the only movement on the planet that caters for such diversity.”
Obviously, the ideas expressed above have nothing to do with either fascist totalitarianism nor neo-Nazi terrorism.