By Cake Boy
When I read Troy Southgate’s (the inventor of national anarchism) substack site, I saw that he was intelligent—far more intelligent than all the arrogant, boring, woke anarchists I have met.
It’s a pity he made something like national anarchism. Sometimes, an artist makes something, and it doesn’t work, and he/she then paints over the canvas or throws the drawing in the trash.
The same should have happened with national anarchism. It’s a funny idea, but not good enough, so let’s skip it.
I have also made mistakes politically. In the past, I even flirted with woke, something I’m not very proud of today.
Politics is also aesthetics. The reason the people in this country liked the neoliberal party is because the neoliberal politicians sort of spoke in a way that they understood. They recognized themselves in the whole neoliberal story. It was about things that meant something in people’s lives: markets, freedom of speech, taxation, the cost of gasoline for your car, etc. Neoliberal politicians presented themselves as ‘down to earth.’ The kind of people you could meet at a birthday party. I have always disliked neoliberal politics, but I see that anyone can learn from them. Not from their political theories, which are pretty messy and confusing, but from the way they took power and the way they were able to connect to the masses. Their social skills were excellent. They knew everything about communication. Using the right word at the right moment. Their slogans and posters were stylish and accessible.
A ‘national anarchist’ movement will alienate more or less all the people in a country. ‘A national what’? People would say. What? Is the third position post-left? What are you talking about? It’s the niche of the niche. It will always stay as small as it can be. And a political movement can’t have success if it’s that small. If it consists of a handful of intellectuals, it’s a think tank, not a movement. But they want it to be a movement. They want success in the actual world.
I studied commerce for a year—a ‘normie’ study—but I did learn some things there. Namely, you can create a concept, an artwork, a festival, or a political idea, but how do you translate it to people? How do you formulate your information so that the other person can digest it?
Suppose you create the idea of a pluralist anarchist movement. Anarcho-pluralism means that Nazis and radical Islam, and other niche phenomena will also have a place within its borders as long as it does not violate other people—the same as is now the case. However, these radicalisms are not the ones you use to popularize the pluralist concept. Because you know that everyone hates it, yes, radical Islamists could live within a pluralist system, but let’s not use radical Islamist symbols to sell our idea. Yes, a nazi could live in a pluralist system if he wanted to and if he didn’t attack people, but let’s not use Adolf Hitler’s speeches to sell our idea. And let’s not put a white power symbol on our posters….
It’s not about what you say but what you do not say. In a way, women often understand this. They call this ‘sub communication’. Leftist people will say this is a sexist statement of mine, but it’s based on observation. Women know what to say, what not to say, how, and when.
It’s all about what I want to convey to this person. Which words do I use then, and which symbols? The neoliberals understood this because they probably hired all kinds of commercial companies. If you believe your idea is reasonable and applicable and want it to be something, then you have to be able to sell it. If you can’t sell it, it will die. You can only sell it if people understand it and if it means something in their day-to-day lived reality.
Southgate says on his site :
The logical conclusion, in other words, is that elements on the Left and Right are consciously attempting to hinder the progress of National-Anarchism in the way that a man who believes there is no longer any need to philosophise imagines that he has brought closure to philosophy itself. This, unfortunately, is the difference between those who bear the eternal flame of free thought and the rabid authoritarians who wish to perpetuate the darkness of ignorance and deceit.
I wrote these texts to use my freedom of speech. You present to me national anarchism. In a way, you ask the people who studied anarchism what they think of this idea, this movement. This is how I respond. I’m not going to lie. I think it’s stupid. National anarchism puts a white power symbol on an anarchist star. I’m anti-fascist and anti-communist. The white power symbol is a symbol used by (often violent) fascists… I don’t like it, and I don’t like portraits of Mao on red flags. Not liking fascism doesn’t make you ‘woke’. It’s as if all of you went too far in your anti-PC anti, anti-woke sentiments. The fact that Antifa sucks doesn’t mean there is ‘something interesting’ in fascism.
I don’t ‘hinder’ your movement. It ‘hinders’ itself. Anarchists are not ok with white power nonsense, and fascists are not ok with anarchism or libertarianism. You fall between a rock and a hard place.
And yes, I’m in favor of free speech, I would never attack Southgate for his political ideas and views, like antifa would do. Cake Boy is that flame of liberty and free thought
With his potential, he could have created something far more valuable than national anarchism.
