ORGANIC, holistic, natural… there are various ways to describe National-Anarchism, but somebody in one of our forums once used the term ‘non-reactionary conservatism’ and this is correct in the sense that we are the ultimate conformists. What I mean by this, is that although many of us are outsiders my perception of National-Anarchism nonetheless involves being on the side of nature. This is a very subjective word, of course, but I do believe that whilst we are completely swimming against the tide of modernity it is civilisation itself which is rebelling against the world as it really is. In that sense, we are not rebelling at all. We may rebel against the people who wish to control us, but that doesn’t make us rebels in a more tangible regard.

On the other hand, National-Anarchists may wish to reject what this individual described as ‘conservative’ values and go it alone. Or even live in a way that other N-As may regard as ‘unnatural’. As always, the first port of call is Anarchism itself and that’s what really brings us together. The word ‘conservatism’ will always conjure up negative connotations for its inevitable connection with right-wing statism in the way that the word ‘anarchism’ does with regard to its unfortunate association with authoritarian leftists or bearded fanatics with molotov cocktails. The fact that Anarchism is not always the main driving force among some of the people who are attracted to National-Anarchism has led to the occasional problem – i.e. Fascists actually believing the deceitful leftist hype that we are nothing more than Fascists pretending to be Anarchists and then discovering to their horror that we are genuine, after all – and this is why I am always keen to point out that the clue is in the name.

There are certainly very important factors which lead people to explore National-Anarchism as a serious alternative, such as disillusionment with mass society or an interest in ethnic or cultural maintenance, but the solution itself nonetheless lies in the ultimate application of Anarchism itself. Whilst terms such as ‘organic’ do seem appropriate, our non-coercive stance means that we also have to allow for those who may wish to run their communities along rather different lines. After all, the alternative would be to suppress them in the way that current ‘pluralistic’ societies expect us to water-down our own values and beliefs in favour of a common good. Or, more accurately, because self-expression is bad for business.

There will always be loners and individualists who do not wish to fit in, or even entire communities of people who prefer to transgress notions of family and conservatism altogether. If people can see past their reactionary distaste for the way others live their lives and focus on their own, the world will become a far better place. Admittedly, it is not easy when other people are shoving their values and beliefs down our throats and this is why so-called ‘pluralism’ remains a threat to authentic self-fulfilment.