TROY Southgate is an author little known to most Spanish-speaking audiences, but whose political, life, and ideological trajectory we found interesting, both in terms of his evolution and what he can contribute to activists, thinkers, readers, politicians, students, workers, etc., of very diverse or even opposing tendencies.

So, we’re dealing with an author as prolific and versatile as he is complex and consistent. Therefore, the first question I’d like to ask you is the following:

DL – What really prompted you to get involved in politics, and why did you begin this “adventure” with the National Front?

TS – I had strong opinions from a very young age, growing up in the 1970s and watching political events unfold in the media. My father was a socialist, in the centre-left mould, so issues such as the miners’ strike, famine in Africa or Thatcherism’s cruel destruction of English society were always a topic of debate. Having voted Labour in 1983, as my father had, I soon realised that the ballot box was not the solution and made my way to the National Front after becoming interested in the organisation’s economic policies on distributism, family farms and workers’ co-operatives. I have often been labelled a ‘fascist’ for this decision, but I have been anti-fascist throughout my entire life and the group of activists I joined had already purged those elements from its ranks.

DL – For those who don’t know the exact circumstances and the “inside story” of each party and movement in which you have participated, as well as your personal circumstances, some might think of you as a “system infiltrator” or someone with a “lust for prominence.” Could you tell us what prompted you to become active in and found each of these?

TS – Some researchers have claimed that I had gone from one party to another, like a political butterfly, but that isn’t really the case and my political journey has always been marked by a steady evolution based on maintaining certain principles. Infighting within the National Front led, in 1989, to the formation of a breakaway faction called the International Third Position and I went in that direction because it was far more revolutionary. However, my involvement with the ITP only lasted until 1992 because certain people within the group – Roberto Fiore and Derek Holland, in particular – wished to make it fascistic in line with developments on the Continent and therefore I led most people into the English Nationalist Movement. This was an attempt to restore the original beliefs that we had espoused in the NF, mainly the Strasserite ideals that had challenged Hitler in the 1930s. By the mid-90s, we were having dialogue with Richard Hunt’s Alternative Green magazine and taking on board increasingly anarchistic views, so that led us to reject the British State and become far more decentralist. Changing our name to the National Revolutionary Faction, we even began promoting armed struggle against the capitalist establishment. That couldn’t possibly happen in today’s repressive climate, not without operating underground. By 2000, we had evolved into an out and out Anarchist organisation and began using the term National-Anarchist Movement (which still exists today). So there is a trajectory that runs throughout my involvement, certainly no backsliding or opportunism. I would like to think that I have always been very principled and certainly no attention-seeker interested in self-promotion. Quite the opposite, in fact, I only recorded my first audio interview last year!

DL – I think anyone who knows you even a little or has read your previous publications and interviews will understand why labeling you a “fascist” is absurd. In any case, your stance on any form of totalitarianism is quite similar to that of the traditionalist Julius Evola, who was quite critical of Fascism and National Socialism. Do you consider any mass phenomenon like totalitarianism to be unnatural, “plebeian,” and pernicious, or is there some salvageable element of mass society?

TS – Not at all and I think you’ve summed it up very nicely. I didn’t discover Evola until 1996, when I was still a Catholic, and found his ideas – or should I say his sources – rather confusing. That changed by 1998, when I had read more deeply into the subjects that Evola wrote about and of course have gone on to publish a large number of Evolian texts myself. But you are perfectly correct, the Italian offers many valid criticisms of the Nazi and Fascist systems and the reason I turn to his work so often is because it is possible to move people away from totalitarianism by introducing people to the kind of ideas he was expressing by the time he wrote Ride the Tiger in 1961. That text, in particular, has far more in common with Anarchism than any form of authoritarian and yet there are many on the Right who still believe that Evola belongs to them. I would argue that Evola is far closer to Jünger’s concept of the Anarch, than anything ordinarily associated with right-wing politics.

DL – Has this political trajectory served as an “initiatory path” for you in the sense of finding yourself, or could we simply summarize it as a series of disenchantments and disappointments that have led you to focus on a political-ideological project focused on truly committed and revolutionary people, such as National-Anarchism?

TS – I have always been a seeker so I suppose that it has been something of an ‘initiatory’ process, but I was never disenchanted for long and spent many years continually putting things back on track and ensuring that the original vision of political, social and economic self-determination was not destroyed by the hypocrites and agent provocateurs that have set out to destroy it. It has often been a very lonely and thankless task, but yes, the people I work with these days – a new generation, I’m glad to say – are extremely principled and dedicated.

DL – Considering your experience with other authors, politicians, and activists from different parts of Europe, do you think there’s a viable possibility that, given the current situation of “no return” we’ve reached, a collaborative network could be established, a European or Eurasian Front of patriots with some possibility of subverting or at least halting European decline in the long term without using the ballot box or any other tool of the system?

TS – I do think that Lenin was correct when he said that we must ‘march separately and strike together’. There are certain times when we are in a position to pick our moments, such as joining factory strikes or attending anti-war demonstrations, but ultimately I feel that capitalism will eventually collapse and that any networking that takes place – in lieu of the internet, too – will happen between decentralised village communities that come together to secure their mutual existence.

DL – Personally, I’m one of those “Quixotes” who prefers to believe that we still have one last chance and that, just as we’ve recently seen Irish people marching together against the invasion of Ireland, bearing the Ulster flag and the tricolour, or Spanish parties that had been separated and at odds for decades, unite in the face of the current situation, there is a possibility of avoiding total collapse. Would it similarly be possible to leave behind historical hatreds between European peoples and nations so as not to disappear and be replaced physically and spiritually?

TS – I certainly believe that it is foolish to perpetuate ethnic or cultural hatred, but as Lenin’s quotation infers we can still retain our differences and unite for particular objectives. I have attended anti-war and pro-Palestine marches organised by the Portuguese Communist Party, for example, despite disagreeing with Communist ideology myself. So when you imply that we must unite before Europe is destroyed, I strongly agree. On the other hand, I will never work with neo-nazi groups that promote ethnic violence or so-called ‘anti-fascists’ who attack those on the right. The people involved in groups of that nature are clearly an obstacle to making real progress against international capitalism.

DL – What role has the EU played and continues to play in the vassalization of part of Europe? Who do you think was really behind its founding, and why did the United Kingdom never want a full union? Did it perhaps play a liaison role between the American “masters” and the “vassals” of “Western” Europe, or perhaps because it was more interested in maintaining the image and ties of its imperial past? Can we bring down the EU without having to wait for the system to collapse on its own? Is there still time to use the tactic of entryism? Many in Spain have tried to modify or even take the reins of parties with significant influence, but have ended up abandoning them or, worse still, using this tactic as an excuse to justify their new life as part of the system.

TS – I believe that the EU and the Americans are working hand in hand to subjugate peoples of all nations. When I see the media announce that a certain European politician – such as Angela Merkel several years ago – is concerned that the United States is tapping their phones I simply shake my head in disbelief. There are American bases throughout Europe, many of them staffed by intelligence agents who do indeed monitor the population of each country. Just look at Menwith Hill in England, for example. I have always been very pro-European, but the EU was always a select business club designed to squeeze maximum profit out of its inhabitants and today it is becoming increasing clear that the real power comes from the Zionist bankers in London and Washington. With regard to bringing down the EU itself, the most effective way to achieve that at the moment is to do as much as we can to be independent of the system. That means teaching our children at home, growing our own food, establishing our own currencies, setting up workers’ co-operatives and various other methods that will empower those of us on the periphery and weaken the Centre until it finally starts to collapse.

DL – There’s a concept that caught my attention in one of your posts, which I mentioned in my last article on Eurasia and the need to include the British in a future “European State.” This concept is the term “Anglo-Saxon” (sometimes also used as “Anglo-American”), which I would like you to explain in more detail, and why you think it’s a mistake to use to refer to relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. While they are certainly not brotherly, they have not been hostile, but rather something similar to a rebellious son who seeks and succeeds in replacing his father in leading the world; in line with many ancient cosmogonies.

TS – I won’t dispute that the two countries operate together, in fact the relationship is incredibly incestuous to the point that I question whether they – or even the European governments under occupation – are truly separate entities. The reason I reject the use of the term ‘Anglo-American,’ is because Anglo-Saxon England came to an end when the Normans invaded in 1066. Consequently, we had an extremely greedy Norman aristocracy to contend with and this can be seen by the way William the Conqueror and his descendants divided up Saxon England for their own gain and at the expense of the common people. The Normans themselves, of course, eventually got themselves into debt with Jewish banking interests. These criminals were expelled by King Edward I in 1290, but from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries onwards it is possible to speak of Jewish supremacy. If the Anglo-Saxons had won the Battle of Hastings, things may have been rather different, especially if you consider the more ‘democratic’ nature of the old witenagemot system of political decision-making. But yes, London and Washington is where the real power lies.

DL – Regarding Zionism, as with Freemasonry, there are a myriad of theories and opinions. It’s true that not all Zionists are Jews, nor are all Jews Zionists, but it’s also true that the latter (especially the more religious ones) don’t want a Jewish state for prophetic reasons. What, then, can we really understand by Zionism? When did it manifest itself as a real danger? Should we differentiate between the so-called “Khazarian mafia” and Ashkenazim? In any case, how has an ethno-religious minority been able to infiltrate and take over the highest spheres of politics, as well as important branches of psychology, economics, history, entertainment (including the sex industry), etc.? Could this have been due to some Christians’ desire to over-represent an idealized “chosen people” of the Bible, or is there really a simpler explanation: “they are superior” and “we goyim are jealous”?

TS – Zionism, as it was founded by Theodor Herzl, began as an atheistic ideology that had been inspired by German nationalism and it was only when its leaders wished to secure funding from both the Rothschilds and a number of Jewish organisations that the movement decided to try to appeal to religious Jews. As a consequence, Zionism was opposed by millions of Jews who saw it for the large-scale fraud that it had become. Things are different today, although the more authentic followers of Judaism – such as Neturai Karta – continue to oppose it. As I always try to point out to my left-wing friends, the question of Zionism goes far beyond what is happening to the Palestinians and we are all under the jackboot of Jewish supremacism as a result of it manipulating all modern forms of government (regardless of ideology). This process is a direct consequence of the moneylending that began in the Medieval period and which has since seized control of both the mass media and the global economy. I also believe it is important to point out that 90% of modern Jews are descended from the Khazars of Eurasia, because the ‘real’ Jews – among them the Semitic Jews of Iberia – have their roots in Palestine and are quite different to the pale-skinned usurpers who have colonised the Middle East over the last century. As for notions of superiority, one may say that the idea of the so-called ‘Aryan master race’ is rather laughable when you consider how the Jews (Khazars) have subverted European civilisation, but there is no doubt they are extremely intelligent and have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of their subjects. Controlling the narrative helps, naturally, not to mention each side in every political debate. Now, although I believe that we must oppose Zionism (and thus capitalism) with every drop of energy we have, we also need to remember that some of the greatest anti-Zionists have themselves been Jewish and that there is a big difference between being anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish.

DL – Regarding Trump’s intervention in Iran, many European patriots and quite a few American voters have opened their eyes and discovered what controlled dissent means. However, a more interesting debate has emerged, one I know you’ve addressed recently in your posts: who is the master and who is the puppet: the United States or the State of Israel? Could there perhaps be a third, more disturbing possibility in which both are part of the same “entity” governed by a transnational cabal? Would we then be facing Israel?

TS – The existence of a single entity, which I believe it is, has rendered each of the countries involved superfluous. As I mentioned above, I believe that all governments are dominated by Zionist interests – or at least those which are not being violently overthrow – and that means we are up against a global empire that operates like a vast hydra. It is important to point out to people that America works through ‘Israel,’ rather than the other way around. After all, the Knesset has no need to control Washington because Washington itself is already staunchly Zionist and has been for many decades. Yet Trump, Netanyahu and all other politicians are puppets that are used to perpetuate the illusion of separate nations with their own distinct interests. In that respect, borders and boundaries no longer exist.

DL – Your writings have covered the history of Iran and the Ayatollah revolution. Unfortunately, both in Spain and around the world, Zionist and American propaganda have managed to create a distorted image of the Persian nation, leading to the “willful forgetting” of events such as “Irangate” or Iran-contra. However, it’s difficult to explain to those who experience the ethno-cultural advance of Islam in Europe on a daily basis that Iran, specifically, is not an enemy nation. How would you approach this dilemma, both to readers with basic knowledge and to those completely ignorant? Do you consider the recent conflict with Iran to have been a “first contact” to gauge the response to a possible “velvet revolution,” or has it simply been temporarily halted for economic reasons? Do you fear that Iran’s near future will be that of another “liberated” nation in the name of “human rights” and liberalism, as a prelude to greater isolationism from Russia and China in an attempt to return to a unipolar model like that which emerged between the fall of the USSR and the rise of new powers and blocs?

TS – Firstly, although I have a certain degree of respect for the Iranians of the 1979 Revolution I still, as an Anarchist, believe in the overthrow of the present regime. Not for the same reasons as the West, but merely because all nation-states are – in my opinion – enemies to be vanquished. I would agree that the anti-government demonstrations in Iran have looked very much like a ‘velvet revolution’ that has been facilitated by the West, but things have changed a great deal since Khomeini died in 1989 and I am not sure that I fully accept the well-publicised rift between America and Iran at this stage. This may sound rather strange, given that America has just bombed three key sites in the country, but the result is that the Iranian government is now stronger than ever and it has brought people together. I may be wrong, of course, but I fail to see how a country can be overthrown when it has such a powerful religious and ideological core. People may be unhappy with their government, but they are also extremely hostile towards America/’Israel’ and the only way that spirit can be undermined is through mass genocide. I think we just haveto be patient and see whether the war will go any further, but another possibility is that the division of the world into blocks is just a way of running things differently in various parts of the world. In the ‘Cold War,’ for example, there were still deep ties between Russia and the West behind the scenes and this was exposed by Charles Levinson and others.

DL – Personally, I believe that liberalism, and by its degeneration, Marxism, are not creators of key concepts such as freedom, nation, social ties, communitarianism… rather, one could say that they have bastardized and subverted pre-existing ideas and concepts. And only through this transvaluation of organic, and therefore truly natural and immanent, realities have they managed to create authentic philosophical-political creations typical of the “Iron Age” or Kali Yuga. However, the poison of these ideologies has penetrated so deeply into most of our societies that it seems impossible to eradicate it. Do you think it is possible to rid ourselves of this ideological poison, or will any attempt to return to ancient and true values ​​be conditioned, as it were, by “original sin,” since we bear part of that “taint,” or can one truly free oneself from a worldview that has been imposed on us since our earliest childhood?

TS – Unlike in Iran, where most ordinary people are themselves ideological, those living in Western countries have become extremely apathetic due to the fundamental nature of ‘representative democracy’. At the same time, you are not wrong to use the word ‘poison,’ because liberalism has undoubtedly ruined the minds and bodies of the people and this has happened to the extent that many of them have become mentally unstable. Clearly, capitalism needs strong bodies and minds if it is to survive and this is why we are seeing mass immigration on such a vast scale. These people are destined to become the new workers, consumers and taxpayers. The ‘Europeans’ of tomorrow. So the ‘ideology’ you mention never really existed on the ground in the West, as it does in places like Yemen, so if we remove that from the equation we are left with the possibility of economic catastrophe. If immigration cannot postpone it, those who have captured the West will be in big trouble. One further point: Zionism will happily adopt a number of different masks if that means being able to survive and prosper. After all, it has already bankrolled the Fascist and Communist movements and liberalism is simply another method of control that may well have outlived its purpose.

DL – Religiosity and Spirituality: Both you and several of the authors you reference or write about use concepts such as spirituality and religiosity quite frequently. Could we say that religiosity is the need or intention to structure and institutionalize the spiritual and metaphysical sphere once societies become more complex socio-political realities? Do you believe that spirituality and religiosity are inherent to human beings or rather a necessity and a tool? Based on your personal experiences and political career, you have practiced, studied, and researched both religiosity and spirituality. Do you think European peoples and nations have made a mistake in separating this sphere from politics, unlike other stronger cultures (from a Spenglerian perspective), or should we maintain a position, like that of the Hellenes, Romans, and even medieval kings, of keeping the earthly and the spiritual separate and, except for traditionally historical cults and rites, for each person to live their beliefs privately? Is belief in the metaphysical necessary for our survival, or is “thought and action” sufficient?

TS – I do prefer that politics and spirituality are combined, yes. Not a single form of spirituality, because I believe that numerous forms can be practised beneath the accomodating umbrella of National-Anarchism. However, the spirit – in whatever form – must always take precedence and without it all action is doomed to failure. I believe, like Frithjof Schuon, that all religions are united at the uppermost level and yet must retain their sectarian beliefs. So we are back to what Lenin said about marching separately! On the other hand, this is completely different to the separation of states and religions within existing secular societies, because then we are left with a very tepid form of ‘pluralism’ in which everyone has to compromise in one way or another.

DL – We now come to the “eternal question”: What is National-Anarchism? Something that at first seems antithetical due to the terms it uses. Is it rather a true political synthesis in a Hegelian sense? Does it differ substantially from classical anarchism, or is it more “authentic” than the latter? Why the term “national”? Was this term chosen to give a unifying character, like a “federated” network in which each unit is independent but can count on the rest in the event of a possible threat or calamity, as the tribal confederations of Celtic, Hellenic, and Germanic peoples did in ancient times?

TS – I don’t think National-Anarchism is any different from ‘classical anarchism’ at all. Not as Anarchism was originally conceived, at least. All truly authentic forms of anti-authoritarianism must allow for people to exist in ways that are peculiar to them, at least if they are non-coercive and do not harm others. There may be a ‘Hegelian’ component in the idea of establishing thousands of alternative communities that are united by their desire to secure freedom for all and to practice unity in diversity in their own particular spheres. The word ‘national’ was chosen to reflect the racially separatist inclinations of our original founders, but since then we have attracted a lot of people who wish to live in multi-racial communities and we feel that it is only consistent to give people what they want and move National-Anarchism beyond dogma and ideology. There is a place for everyone in our circles, as long as they are truly Anarchist and do not wish to impose their lifestyle on others. And yes, the idea of a supportive ‘federation’ or regional alliance is very much part of our thinking.

DL – National-Anarchism anticipates and prepares for the worst from the perspective of the collapse of the current system. In which case, you would pose no obstacle to the system. However, if we consider that the system has long emphasized controlling the number of inhabitants of the planet (especially Europeans and those of European descent) or the existence, until recently, of “hermetic” monuments like the “Georgia Guidestones” and their sinister message, haven’t you already considered a drastic reduction of the population and its replacement/subjugation by machines? Considering this, wouldn’t your communities then be a danger to the system, whose ultimate goal is the total dissolution of all ties of community, solidarity, ethnicity, culture, spirituality, etc.?

TS – We have considered that we may become a target at some point in the future and this is why all attempts to form National-Anarchist communities must be done ‘under the radar’. Provoking confrontation at a time when the globalists are so dominant would be suicidal. Simultaneously, all such communities must be very well defended. If not against the authorities, then certainly against the hostile outsiders that always appear in times of great crisis and uncertainty.

DL – How would the various National-Anarchist communities be structured and organized, both individually and within each other? We’re talking about organic societies: Are they the same as a corporate society or state? How would the perspective and practice of National Anarchism relate to these realities? Could we summarize its existence with the following quote from Ferenc Deák: “Power is only a means; the goal is the happiness of the people.”

TS – One of our biggest influences, Richard Hunt, one said that what we are striving for is ‘a grubby utopia’. Not consciously grubby, in the sense that we are deliberately looking for imperfection, but simply because the idea of eternal happeness on earth is unrealistic and we need to face up to that fact. We certainly want to be happy, no doubt about it, but happiness must be defended. Structurally, our communities can adopt a variety of forms but they must be centred around a unifying idea of some kind – be it racial, religious, cultural or otherwise – and be entirely consensual. Thousands of alternative communities already exist, so we can already see many living examples of people working together for common ends.

DL – To prevent the long-term emergence of new inequalities or “classes” like those intrinsic to materialism, what is the proposed solution? An Evolian-type aristocratic system, an organic and therefore natural elitism in which each individual contributes and develops according to their abilities with equal opportunities, giving rise to a new “hierarchical order,” or perhaps a formula in which everyone knows how to do “a little bit of everything,” avoiding “specialization,” and re-forming groups or even entire communities focused solely on agriculture, crafts, the dissemination of ideas, manufacturing, etc.?

TS – Some Anarchists reject all forms of elitism, but I think ‘natural elitism’ (or even meritocracy) is the correct term in the sense that some people will always be better at doing certain things than others. Once again, however, coercion must be wholly absent. I would hope that forced hierarchies will meet with strong resistance, and that people who are unhappy can leave and move into other communities that are more in tune with their needs. Avoiding specialisation, or what Marx referred to as ‘alienation,’ is extremely important if people are to live fulfilling lives.

DL – In recent years, many young Spaniards have developed a notable aversion to cities, their rhythms, lifestyles, and the increasing presence of foreigners, to the point of seriously considering fleeing cities and their jobs and trying to make a living from agriculture. Among these, a few seek to build traditionalist communities, as the countryside is a more natural and healthy environment in every sense. What advice would you give to all these young people to help them take the plunge and occupy this Spain, which has been emptied in the name of “progress”? What are the keys to avoiding the failure of rural repopulation and confronting the system’s attempts to flood these communities, and rural areas in general, with foreigners or to pressure young people who still resist to sell their farmland to investment funds that seek to infest it with wind-powered “forests” and oceans of solar panels?

TS – I think that all projects of this nature should be based on economic autonomy. Borrowing large sums from the bank, for example, merely creates dependency, whilst pooling your resources with one’s family and friends makes a decision of this nature far more realistic in the sense that it represents a more definitive break with the system. Failure is best avoided by (a) choosing to live among people that you can trust and depend on, and (b) ensuring that you have a workable economic vision that will allow you to live independently. As for your last point about governments resettling immigrants in rural communities or seeking to exploit farmland, I think this needs to be opposed physically by local people and anyone else who sympathises with their plight. The history of the green movement is full of such examples and it is possible to resist such incursions through both mass mobilisation and more subversive (direct) action.

DL – Do you believe that, similar to how authors such as H.P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, Tolkien, etc. perceived it, the city is the antithesis of nature, and that it is in small population centers and rural environments that the roots of the organic and the traditional are preserved? Are these the bastions of the spirit of every people? And more importantly, can an authentic network of ethno-culturally homogeneous communities be built that not only allows them to govern themselves locally but also leverage the importance of the rural vote in the Spanish political system to somewhat destabilize the parliamentary system? Is it a coincidence that it is from the “periphery” that the new “centre” can be built, both politically and metaphysically?

TS – You’re abolutely correct about planting the seeds of Tradition away from the corrosive centres of influence. I can’t really answer your point about voting, as National-Anarchists reject the ballot box completely, but you are certaily right that new centres can appear on the periphery and, over time, lessen the power and influence of those in the cities. The more we turn our backs on the system, the less control it has over us.

DL – In some of your writings on National-Anarchism, you’ve addressed issues such as the loss of current technological advancement. It’s a scenario that would surely appeal to a person as interesting and unique as Ted Kaczynski. However, many people depend on current technology. How will national anarchist communities deal with this new situation? Will they maintain the most basic technological advancements, setting limits like the Amish communities? Will they advocate for a neo-Luddism, or will they preserve everything they can until someone, in the future, manages to recover this knowledge and apply it in a way that is respectful of the environment and without sinister purposes, as is the case in our consumerist and digital age?

TS – We don’t have a hard-and-fast rule that says people must become Luddites or only use a certain amount of technology, but again, it all depends whether the technology in question leads to some form of dependance. Personally, although I presently rely on technology to spread National-Anarchist ideas I have similar views to those of John Zerzan and various others who have spoken out about the encroachment of civilisation in general. In addition, I think it is a question of availability. If National-Anarchism is spreading at the expense of modernity, then you would expect technology to decline at the same time. Alongside the gradual death of capitalism, therefore, we will see things such as empty production lines and badly maintained transport networks (the veins of capitalism itself). This will make it impossible to produce technology on the same scale.

DL – In your works, as well as in some interviews, you advocate for the preservation of European identity and tradition. However, you avoid any simplification or comparison with what would be considered white supremacy. Does this mean that you advocate for the preservation of different ethnic, cultural, and religious identities, or rather that each of them should find its place (even in new latitudes) and respect each other while maintaining their ethno-cultural characteristics? Would it be similar to the example of Orania, whose inhabitants decided to come together to build their own community in the face of constant harassment and the degeneration of the country to which they belonged? Do you think the formation of these identities will be favored (as is happening in many parts of Europe) by unity based on identification with one’s peers?

TS – If, by ‘identification with one’s peers,’ you mean working alongside people with whom you share a particular vision, then yes. Whilst it is certainly not Anarchist, Orania is a good example of people establishing a more ethnic model – which some will favour and others not – but these communities should be centred on preserving their own heritage rather than clinging to notions of racial superiority. Saying that, if no harm is done to others then I suppose it is still possible for people to entertain a sense of perceived superiority!

DL – We mentioned above the problem of overpopulation and a possible depopulation resulting from the progressive disappearance of the current system. What would the ideal size of a national-anarchist community be? How can we avoid repeating the same mistake of behaving like a virus or a parasite, considering that we have managed to overcome epidemics such as the plague, world wars, economic crises, etc., and managed not only to recover previous numbers but also surpass them? Will the new system be delimiting and contingent? Will “Evolian” solutions be opted for, will birth control methods be used, or, like our ancestors, once the community grows large, will the founding of a new settlement be proposed with some of the citizens? And considering that not all cultures plan or share the same worldview as Europeans, would they accept containing their population explosion if they haven’t done so until now, which could once again become a danger to the continuity of Europeans and Euro Descendants?

TS – A number of sociologists have pointed out that the ideal community is comprised of no more than 500 persons. This is based on the supposition that 500 is the maximum number that a single individual can know personally, beyond that societies begin to develop some kind of police force to maintain order and of course that is incompatible with National-Anarchism. The most stable form of society, I believe, is that of the extended family. Living among one’s aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers tends to ensure that criminality is kept to an absolute minimum as a direct consequence of what has been called ‘social shaming’. Others may wish to exclude family members altogether, or even – given that one happens to be an individualist in the Stirnian mould – live alone. Choice is everything. Birth control is something that would have to be decided by individuals and communities themselves, even if I have always been personally opposed to abortion.

DL – I’d like to end the interview by thanking you for your collaboration with Mos Maiorum magazine, but not before encouraging you to have the last word.

TS – Thank you for inviting me to discuss my views in so much detail, I do hope that I have answered your questions satisfactorily. If anyone would like to discover more, or even find out how to obtain National-Anarchist texts, they are free to contact me at blackfrontpress@yahoo.co.uk