My Position on Immigration

Article by Michael Hutchinson of the World National Anarchist Alliance.


This is a touchy subject among some National Anarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists. The former due to worry of preservation, and the latter due to realizing that we have a welfare state right now and them not wanting to pay the bill.

In my opinion both reasons are fatally flawed. The reason that NA’s are flawed on this issue is simple. Their reason is to want to preserve their identity, yet they neglect the fact that the fucking line is meaningless. Tribes are composed of real people and property, therefore it is reasonable to want to be exclusionary in at least some regards. The line represents not actual people and their tribe, but the corrupt ideology of the Manifest Destiny. It is supporting what the state put into place. The Mexicans are ancestors of those who used to freely travel the land. People bitch about the invasion of Europe, but it is okay for us to take over the land and exclude the original inhabitants? This is not a consistent position. It is largely contradictory.

The solution for the NA’s? Keep them out of where people reside in your tribe. Are you mad that whites are not breeding enough? BREED! Have some kids! Most people I see bitching about the birthrates don’t have more than 2 kids to increase the white population when they die.

I know that I am questioning some of the founding principles of National Anarchism itself, and people will ask why I use the title for myself instead of leaving. Every school of thought has some flaws that need to be addressed. What I have been discussing here should work for those who are racialist and non-racialist. It gives both sides the chance to do what they wish in their tribe. Am I a bit angry? Yes! State borders are the function of the state and this is contradictory to the principles of anarchism. Where people in a particular tribe reside, however, is very real. THAT is not a fiction. Thus, the tribe would be within its right to include or exclude whoever it pleases.

If I have to criticize Troy Southgate to be more consistent, then so be it. With the “protect our borders” rhetoric, we will never get sympathy from those on the left. I thought our point was to unite both left and right to work together on points of agreement. We are not crypto-Fascists, but this stuff makes them suspect it.

Promote the idea of tribes and voluntary association. With these two, everyone gets what they want.

Categories: Uncategorized

16 replies »

  1. This seems to be a happy medium on this question between those left-anarchists who see mass immigration as a good unto itself and those who side with the state in the name of immigration control.

    Also, I think if the N-A concept is going to work, the general consensus needs to be, “Yes, racialist-anarchists are a legitimate branch of anarchism as are non-racialist anarchists, but the anarchist movement itself is about dismantling the state in favor of voluntary associations and not ‘racialism’ or ‘anti-racialism” per se.” The same principle needs to be applied to competing economic positions.

  2. It’s certainly an important issue. Looking at Native American tribes at the time of contact with Europeans you would have found as many immigration policies as there were tribes. In an N-A world there would be as many tribes as there are Native American tribes; more probably. Some tribes were more concerned with the continuation of their cultural way of life than with their race or even lineage. So they actively kidnapped other tribe’s children or sought out intermarriage and adoptions to expand their numbers. This, of course, had a lot to do with a need for more labor and varying fertility rates across tribes with different lifestyles (Comanche women purportedly had a high percentage of miscarriages because they were on horseback all the time. But horsemanship was what made them great. The solution was adoption of outsiders via kidnapping.)

    I recently read a piece by an Obijwe Indian who made the observation that which tribe you were had more to do with what bands your band was actively killing, and what bands your band was at peace with. In my tribe there were constant splintering off of clans and establishment of new clans. Sometimes another tribe was welcomed into an area as long as all the proper intermarriages occurred and formal acknowledgements were made, etc. etc.

    In my own outreach among Native American tribes I’ll find some that are on opposite sides of a million different issues. I’d expect it to be no different in a white National Anarchist world.

  3. The important thing that I think both sides miss on this question is the fact that mass immigration is a state-driven, ruling class-driven occurrence. If anti-immigrationists want to curb immigration then relying on the state that is subsidizing it to also control it would seem to be a self-defeating proposition.

    Of course, the left-anarchists and libertarians seem clueless about the degree to which the power elite desires mass immigration as a source of cheap labor, clients for state services, political constituents, means of dividing and conquering the population at large, etc.

    Obviously, the only feasible way of handling the issue is the same for handling other irreconcilable differences like abortion. Presumably, different tribes or communities would have their own customary practices as Vince points out.

  4. “Anarchists for closed borders are like anarchists who vote. And anarchists for open borders are like anarchists for world government.”

    That would make a great slogan to put on a banner or T-shirt.

    “I agree but I would add that markets drive immigration as well. I mean, I don’t think immigration would be anything akin to what we have today, without states, but the market would still want them in.”

    Sure. If we want to have commerce, travel, tourism, cultural exchange, cross-national medical and scientific research, etc. there’s always going to be some level of immigration.

  5. I don’t see why this issue keeps resurfacing. The implications of anarchism of any flavour towards immigration is self evident and unambiguous. If an autonomous and sovereign community wants to allow immigration from either “internal national” or “international” sources then no-one who calls themselves an anarchist can object on any level. Similarly if it doesn’t, and most won’t, then again anarchists have nothing to say. QED

    Where “National Anarchism” has something to contribute is in its assessment of how these autonomous sovereign communities would most likely interact. National consciousness is not going away just because it is no longer associated with a state. It is inevitable that communities with similar compositions and outlooks will look to enact systems of cooperation at various levels. Most obviously they would absolutely need to develop systems of mutual defence against predatory states or “rogue” communities which threatened the sovereignty of other communities.

    “Proto states” would inevitably be regularly generated within an anarchist political environment. History clearly shows us how these proto states such as Muscovy, Prussia, Mercia, Rome and Macedonia, (accepting these historical entities were “petty kingdoms” and not autonomous communities) if left unchecked will act in an imperialistic fashion expanding their areas of control and centralising power at an imperial capital in the hands of an imperial class. “National” anarchism offers a solution to this problem by imagining the use of national consciousness as the basis of a counter acting force. This would act both by discouraging “civil wars” (internal imperialism) at an intellectual and political level and by providing the basis of alliances which could resist this tendency towards centralisation.

    This is not simply a theoretic concept. The historical record shows us several examples of national defensive unity in the absence of a centralised state, most obviously in Ancient Greece and in the Gallic resistance to Rome under Vercingetorix. Less classically we can observe what could be interpreted as nationalist resistance to imperialism outside the context of a state in modern history, notably in Afghanistan and Somalia.

    It is possible to conceive defensive alliances of autonomous communities constructed on none national foundations, The Hanseatic League being one historic example. However I suggest that it is rather simpler to use the pre-existing and demonstrably effective basis of national consciousness than an abstract idea of political idealism. Moreover this allows anarchism to make a virtue and a useful tool of what is otherwise something anarchists find it impossible to reconcile with their ideals and which guarantees that their ideas could never be implemented.

  6. “So the question remains, are national-anarchists nationalists first? or anarchists first? As Michael points out, they seem to have a tough time letting go of closed-borders-talk and often come off as alternative right statists.”

    We could also ask whether an-caps are anarchists firsts or capitalists first. Or whether anarcho-communists are anarchists first or commies first. Or whether eco-anarchists are anarchists first or Greenies first? It’s the same problem with all the hyphenated brands of anarchism.

    I take it as a given that all of the different anarchist factions are always going to be primarily concerned about their own hyphenated interests, whether it’s their preferred economic system, favorite social cause, ethnic in-group, or whatever. After all, people are indeed tribal by nature. However, what I would like to see achieved eventually is not ideological unity among anarchists but the much simpler goal of a general consensus on tactics and strategy centered on the pan-secessionist concept. An added advantage of this approach is that anarchists of different “tribes” can go out and recruit others from their wider body of reference groups.

    Anarcho-capitalists would recruit other libertarians and laissez faire individualists. Anarcho-communists would recruit other socialists. N-As would recruit other nationalists. Syndicalists would recruit labor unions. Black anarchists would recruit from other groups representing the interests of black people. Gay anarchists would recruit other gays, etc.

    The main problem I see arising with the pan-secessionist strategy is the question of conflicting territorial claims. I think the answer there is still further secession and decentralization or, in the hardest cases, partitioning and population exchanges (like India and Pakistan in 1947).

  7. “Because what happens when the tribal consensus prevents property owners like John Doe from inviting unwanted guests? Is this not forced exclusion? A state! Don’t like it? You’re ‘free’ to leave. Well now, this is no different from the American conservative who tells me to move to Somalia.”

    As you know, our camp is often accused of promoting “village fascism” or “localized authoritarianism” and things like that. But I think those critics ignore the wider point and bigger picture. “Neighborhood anarchism” or whatever we want to call it brings with it the low exit costs that make migration from a less hospitable to more hospitable community possible. Consequently, particular communities are provided with incentives to attract and retain people of quality so that the wider community can preserve and advance itself.

    A community that is abusive to individual residents will lose its higher quality people (or these people will simply stagnate). Such a community would soon go into economic, cultural, and technological regression. Meanwhile, it would be the more hospitable communities who were economically prosperous, culturally and scientifically advanced and, by extension, politically dominant. This general process would then provide all communities with incentives to avoid the wrongful treatment of their citizens.

  8. “At the end of the day, the left’s problem has more to do with fear of white people and the roots of NA, and the fact that the New Right has a fascist tone to it. National anarchism works well as an escape for neofascists therefore national anarchism is totally satanic etc. But if some Libyan rebel would have developed National Anarchism, oh, it would be like Christ turning water into wine. The truth is, NA works well for blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Arabs, and many other groups that *overwhelmingly outnumber* the small number of whites actually interested in national anarchism.”


    Plus, whites who are interested in the N-A concept are not specifically expected to be racialists, not even by racialist N-As for the most part.

    What I want to see happen eventually is for some prominent left-anarchist individual or organization to come out and either endorse the N-A concept or at least recognize N-A as a legitimate branch of anarchism. When that happens, left-anarchism will be split down the middle, with some of them moving closer to our camp and others moving closer to the statist left.

  9. N-A needs someone from the Left who can build bridges between the two camps in the same way that Cockburn created a link between the Left and the militias or what Nader, Sale and others have done in relation to the paleocon or secessionist right-wing.

  10. My guess is that when N-A finally gets the recognition of some faction in the left-anarchist milieu, it will probably come from one of three sources: either the primitivists, the libertine-nihilist-situationist types, or ethno-anarchists among non-white people (a group like APOC or someone like Ashanti Alston, for instance).

  11. “So the question remains, are national-anarchists nationalists first? or anarchists first? As Michael points out, they seem to have a tough time letting go of closed-borders-talk and often come off as alternative right statists.”

    That’s exactly right. If you look at the writings of someone like Troy Southgate, who is easily the most prominent advocate of NA, you will find a great deal of the conventional “thinking” of contemporary “nationalists”. That “thinking” has very little to say about the principals of self determination or about political philosophy or morality and a great deal to say about the NWO, the failings of the political class and their “Marxist” motivations. Indeed the contemporary “right” is absolutely full of people who are more concerned with “revisionism” than they are with the sovereignty of even their own People.

    Indeed NAs usually defend their position not by a positive appeal to the values of anarchism or nationalism but by arguing that NA is the only viable tactic left open to white supremacists. It is that fact which is pushing the rise of NA within the radical right rather than the force of its moral argument or its obvious practical appeal. (Note: The success of NA isn’t even recognised by most of the radical right with most advocates of “PLEs” (Pioneer Little Europes) failing to make the connection to NA.)

    However, dismal thought this state of affairs is, I think there are grounds for optimism. If anyone ever bothers to seriously consider the value system of nationalism with its demands for sovereignty and self determination then they must conclude that those demands must go further than simply a national level. What’s the point of resisting external domination (Imperialism) if you’re going to accept internal domination? If self determination is good for nations how can it not be good for individuals and in what sense can a nation said to be self determining if its component parts aren’t?

    As it stands there is a great deal of truth in the criticisms levelled by NA’s “left” critics, it is more a tactical doctrine than a complete ideology for most of its supporters. However I believe that this will change as NA develops, particularly as a new generation comes to it without the preconceptions of the old radical right.

    As for the issue of “state borders”. True some of those lines are arbitrarily drawn and are meaningless other than as the boundaries of state’s people farms. However those state boundaries often, thanks to the success of nationalism in the 18/19/20th centuries, correspond to national boundaries, the “nation states”. These distinctions often really do reflect very real differences in language, ethnicity and culture (which don’t appear on satellite photographs). It is entirely likely that autonomous communities would still see those boundaries as meaningful even in the absence of the state.

  12. “As it stands there is a great deal of truth in the criticisms levelled by NA’s “left” critics, it is more a tactical doctrine than a complete ideology for most of its supporters. However I believe that this will change as NA develops, particularly as a new generation comes to it without the preconceptions of the old radical right.”

    Yes, I agree.

    I think two things need to happen:

    The N-As need to work to shed whatever “fascist” baggage they bring with them and place a much greater focus on their ideal of decentralized particularism and neo-tribalism. As you say, I think this will happen as N-A continues to evolve as a concept.

    The left-anarchists need to get over their “right-phobia” or “white-phobia” whatever it would be called and recognize that in a multicultural state whites are just another tribe like anything else (actually sub-divided into many tribes, but you get the point). I think this will happen as demographic transformation becomes more obvious and the ruling class ideology of multiculturalism becomes more deeply entrenched. The left-anarchists are not going to be able to keep their white-phobic outlook indefinitely if they want to retain any credibility.

    Eventually, the two camps will meet and begin shedding the excess baggage from both sides. The same is probably true of the battle between the market-anarchists and socialist-anarchists.

  13. Keith,
    The problem is that both “sides” are extremely perceptive in their criticisms of each other, but wholly blind to their own problems. Indeed antipathy towards what is perceived as the “opposition” is often, for the average radical, a stronger motivating force than attraction towards the values of their own ideology or beliefs. Ironically both characterise the establishment/state as having the attributes or value systems of their radical opposites, for the right the establishment is “liberal” or “Marxist” for the left it is “fascistic” or “totalitarian” (in fact it has features of all these concepts, which is not particularly surprising since they are all aspects of progressivism).

    So we have the problem that the “mainstream” of radicalism is polarised and that any attempt to address that polarisation is interpreted as support for one of the two broad factions by the adherents of the other. I agree with you that there is intellectual convergence at an ideological level occurring within the various radical factions (or rather re-convergence since at the start of the industrial age they were broadly aligned). However this is taking place far too slowly and his having almost no effect at street level because of the mutually repulsive effects of that polarisation.

    It may well be that the trajectory of that convergence is longer than that of the decline of Western and/or Industrial society (40 years for the former being your estimate I believe). It may also be reasonably foreseen that the processes generated by the accelerating collapse of Western/Industrial societies will catalyse the development of new forms of radicalism. If 10% unemployment gets you Occupy, what does 20%, 40%?

  14. “Thoughts on breaking this holy allegiance to the state?”

    Tricky question RJ, Bismarck introduced the first modern SS system in Germany back in the 1870’s exactly to shoot the socialists fox saying something like “we will have social insurance, or a revolution”. Up until now it has been a very effective strategy for states in “buying off” potential opponents (cheaply, with their own money).

    At an intellectual level this is a debate in which nationalism again offers a useful and persuasive argument. Recipients of SS often see their interests as being best served by supporting the “Big state”. Nationalists would point out that the resources of which these people are recipients in fact belong to them in any case since the Nation is wholly owned by its members. Additionally in the West the case is easily made that SS is merely a minimal compensation package being paid out for the destruction of Western nations and their economies by globalists/capitalists. (And paid out at exactly the level the elite deem to be sufficient to prevent that process being challenged).

    Tactically the issue of SS offers the opportunity to appeal to that section of society which sees SS as a drain on its resources. Hey, it works for the Republicans. (In the case of secessionism this might be an effective tactic in dealing with regions and districts we see themselves as disproportionately contributing)

    At a practical level the problem is more difficult. The vast sections of society currently on SS are so exactly because they have become “economically none viable”. True a fair proportion of those would be restored to viability if they had the political power to control to some extent their economic environment or if other groups were prepared to do this for them. (Since we’re not talking about the most dynamic group in the world here).

    The fact remains that a fair chunk of them are reliant on the maintenance of the status quo. If the redistributive power of the state is removed then we can expect to see whole cities in the West rapidly, in one manor or another, cease to exist since they are themselves not economically viable as ex-industrial centres of production in a de-industrialised environment. This is fairly likely to be unpleasantly novel for their inhabitants requiring some unappealing adaptations or alternatively simply resulting in their deaths. Not a particularly saleable prospect. However the kicker is that whilst the state must maintain the status quo in order to create conditions in which it can survive the attempt to do so dooms it anyway. The number of people who survive because SS allows them to accumulates exactly because they survive, with the interesting complication that they expect ever more SS. The drag therefore constantly increases and as it does so it increasingly disrupts the ability of the state to meet it. This is the paradox of civilisation, the more successful it is in protecting its least able members the more resources it must generate to do so, one is a finite number, the other is not.

    Still, as usual, “secessionism” offers a practical solution since it offers the individual the opportunity to live in an environment where they have some control over the distribution and creation of resources. This puts their fate, and the fate of the people they wish to support if they can, in their hands; a fighting chance. Which is more than they can expect from the status quo.

  15. The Social Security dilemma isn’t one I have clearly thought out opinions on, though I agree it’s a problematical issue.

    I suppose as part of the process of dismantling the state, SS could be turned into a consumer-managed program. The funds would be placed into a trust collectively owned the consumers/payers. An administrative council could be elected from the ranks of the consumer-members. Administration could also be subdivided on a regional/local basis. Essentially it would be a cross between a claimants’ union and a bank, or a credit union and a consumer cooperative. I’m not sure this would be a satisfactory solution, but it seems as good an option as any.

    It may be that by the time our movement becomes a political contender the system will be so bankrupt that SS will be a non-issue anyway.

Leave a Reply