19-04-2009, 12:42 AM
Final part on Southgate:
Quote:PART II: TECHNIQUES OF LEADERLESS POLITICS
An impression has gone abroad that I am engaged in forming societies. This is a very great mistake, which I feel bound to correct.
Those who have heard or read anything from me on the subject, know that one of the principal points insisted on is, the forming of societies or any other artificial combinations IS the first, greatest, and most fatal mistake ever committed by legislators and by reformers. That all these combinations require the surrender of the natural sovereignty of the INDIVIDUAL over her or his person, time, property and responsibilities, to the government of the combination.
(Josiah Warren: Manifesto)
3. LEADERLESS POLITICS
One of the many criticisms that Southgate has directed against us is that we have not been 'anarchist' enough. I accept this criticism entirely. We have indeed not said enough about anarchism. The time has come to say more about it. We criticized anti-Establishment states and governments because of the ease with which they are overthrown or co-opted by the Establishment. However, we failed to criticize anti-Establishment groups, and supposedly anti-Establishment groups, which are similarly vulnerable to co-optation or betrayal as a result of an over-reliance on 'leaders' and 'leaderships'. We must rectify this error and ensure that in future we do not hesitate to point out the vulnerabilities that political 'leaders' and 'leaderships' bring with them. In so doing, national-anarchists need to look first and foremost at the dangers and vulnerabilities presented by their own self-appointed 'leader' and ask whether such an institution is anything other than idiocy of the most foaming kind.
My purpose here has been to highlight, with a graphic example from very close to home, the dangers inherent in national-anarchism or any other anti-Establishment movement relying upon 'leaders'. Southgate is merely illustrative of a general problem.
What, then, are some alternative methods of progressing the national-anarchist cause? In the subsections that follow I want to look at various methods of leaderless activism before suggesting how they might be synthesized into a coherent approach that could form an alternative to Southgate-style top-down dictatorship.
3.1 Lone wolfism
This is an approach long associated with such 'far-right' thinkers as William Pierce and Tom Metzger. The essence of this approach is that you, the individual activist, work alone. You do not act on the instructions of any organization. In this way you remain relatively invulnerable to betrayal by others, or to the tendency towards inactivity that characterizes many anti-Establishment organizations, particularly those that appear to have been penetrated by Establishment agents.
The disadvantages to this approach are well known but are perhaps not as overwhelming as the decriers of lone wolfism would have us believe.
First, you do not experience that pleasant sense of camaraderie that one receives from organizations such as Southgate's. You are absolutely on your own. However, you can obtain a sense of camaraderie of sorts from non-political groups whereas the camaraderie that you experience in a political environment might well be carefully designed to get you talking. It can disappear very quickly indeed if you upset the wrong person.
Second, a single individual acting alone cannot necessarily accomplish the same sorts of achievements that an organized group can accomplish. However, one should not underestimate how much one individual acting alone can accomplish (the likes of Gavrilo Princip and Jesus Christ come to mind as extreme examples). Conversely, one should not overestimate what a group can accomplish -- most anti-Establishment groups accomplish absolutely nothing. Perhaps there are some tasks that, in the current environment, are best accomplished alone and others that require groups. Given the dangers of group activity (not least the danger of inactivity), there is a strong case for seeking out those tasks that you can accomplish on your own.
3.2 Decoys and red herrings
A specific form of political activity that can be performed by individuals or groups is the laying of decoys and red herrings. This is particularly suited for those who have nothing to hide from the authorities but who do not wish to become involved in other forms of activism and are certain that they will not wish to do so in future.
The approach is simply this. Act as suspiciously as you possibly can without actually breaking the law. I emphasize the words without actually breaking the law. In England, for example, 'wasting police time' is a criminal offence and it would be as silly for you to do it as it would be for me to advocate it. However, I can lawfully suggest that, if you do not mind the authorities taking an interest in you, you might post to all the Web sites and discussion boards that you know are being monitored by the Establishment. Boast of sympathies for every anti-Establishment group that you can find. This will certainly cause your name to appear on numerous documents in the offices of various security services. It may ensure that your telephone is tapped and that you will never secure employment in the British Ministry of Defence or the CIA. It could lead to you experience difficulties boarding certain forms of public transport. It may involve your front door flying off its hinges in the early hours of the morning as unfriendly men search your home (but such searches do not come cheap for the enemy -- the wages of these goons must be paid as they blunder around your house looking for evidence that isn't there). However, if you are willing to make these sacrifices then you will certainly take up the security services' time and resources and cost them a considerable amount of money -- money that could be deployed to combat those engaged in other forms of struggle.
If enough of the world's 'little men' set up enough smokescreens, this will act as a serious impediment to the Establishment's intelligence organs, its eyes and ears, and will slow them down and cause them to make mistakes. It will act as a powerful brake on their activities. And in the darkness of the swirling smoke [passage deleted for legal reasons]
However, this is not a strategy to be used by those who really do have something to hide (because it will be discovered), or by those who wish to engage in other forms of activities (which will be compromised). Nor is this a strategy that will advance national-anarchism considerably -- it will merely make life easier for those who are using other approaches. If you really cannot do anything else to advance national-anarchism -- do this.
3.3 Personal spheres of influence
We need to bear in mind that a principal aim of national-anarchism is the creation of alternative communities -- isolated, autonomous, running themselves however they choose. There is no conceivable way that lone wolfism on its own can lead to community building. At some point people have to get together and start building the communities. The question, then, is how can this be done safely, with minimal opportunities for Establishment disruption, with no reliance on formal organizations, and with minimal reliance on 'leaders' and 'leaderships'?
Consider a bicycle wheel. This is analagous to a typical political organization. The various spokes radiate out from the centre. Remove the centre and the entire thing falls apart. When the Establishment attacks an anti-Establishment organization it may certainly do so by attacking the various individual spokes -- the branches and the individual members -- if it can identify them. However, it is more efficient for it simply to take out the centre, either by co-optation or by neutralizing it in some other way.
If there is no easily identifiable centre then not only does the strategy of attacking the centre become less viable but the spokes and indeed the wheel itself become a good deal harder for them to identify and hence the whole thing should be more secure.
The concept of personal spheres of influence is an extension of the lone wolf concept that enables lone wolves to form packs without relying on external organizations and their leaders. The important notion is that you, as a lone wolf, can form your own informal 'organization' (I stress informal), your own 'circle of associates', your own group of fellow travellers. In other words, you create your own personal sphere of influence. You are at the centre of your own bicycle wheel. You do not rely upon an organization to network for you -- you do your own networking, your own advertising. The aim of this is alliance formation -- not the Southgate approach of making friendly noises at everyone with no specific strategy apparently in mind, but instead a highly strategic approach of identifying and recruiting key personnel to specific projects. These projects might be as simple as getting a group together to attend a demonstration or as complex as building an autonomous community.
Clearly, such an approach does give rise to vulnerabilities. Your activities may well come to the attention of those who watch for such things and who, if they consider that you are worth the effort, may show an interest in you in unwelcome ways. For this reason it is important to try to keep below the threshold of provocation -- the point at which they will intervene to thwart your activities. Better still, keep below the threshold of perception -- the point at which they notice you.
A fairly obvious problem will be the sheer shortage of 'like-minded people', at least in the early stages before national-anarchist ideas become widely known. This will make it very easy for Establishment agents to pose as 'like-minded people' and hence as tempting recruits into your personal sphere of influence. This has two implications.
First, the creation of personal spheres of influence for the purpose of major activities such as community building needs to be an approach that is used sparingly until national-anarchism 'takes off' (i.e. attracts large numbers of genuine supporters). The personal spheres of influence approach is, even now in the earliest stages, perfectly suitable for minor projects such as demonstrations where the Establishment is unlikely to care much about your activities unless it feels that there is a risk of violence or some other significant adverse outcome for it. However, as Southgate's own (supposed) attempts to create a personal sphere of influence have shown, if you try to create your very own organizations before enough good people have heard of your ideas, then you will end up attracting fruitcakes and spies by the bucketload, and these will deter good people from joining at a later stage (and could well wreck your entire project through infighting and other nonsense).
Second, you really do need to watch those whom you are recruiting. Learn the numerous tell-tale signs of the infiltrator and potential sabateur. Policemen are rarely good actors but the best of them are. Trust nobody. Be brisk and businesslike and avoid intimacy. Better to be perceived as cold, aloof, paranoid, remote than to be thrown in an Establishment jail.
3.4 Ant co-ordination
Consider an army of ants. There is no central organization as such but all of these little creatures seem to know their place. Tasks of extreme complexity are carried out with great efficiency. This appears to be accomplished by genetic pre-programming and the reading of chemical messages.
Ant co-ordination is co-ordination by everyone simply knowing the broad sorts of things that they should be doing as a result of their general knowledge of a political movement and its objectives or as a result of messages left by other activists within the movement. It is spontaneous action along generally agreed lines.
If everyone knows what is to be done, or can pick it up, then it becomes a fairly straightforward matter to co-ordinate certain kinds of activities without relying upon any specific leadership. In the case of national-anarchism it is obvious that the early stages are going to require an emphasis on getting the message out. We do not need a 'leadership' to tell us that in the early stages the important activities involve setting up Web sites, writing articles, arguing our case, seeking publicity, and so forth. It should simply be generally known that if you are a national-anarchist, unless you wish to work covertly, you set up a Web site or get articles out in some other way, and tailor your approach towards publicizing your ideas. It should simply be generally known that if you are a national-anarchist, you try to build strategic alliances, you oppose the Establishment while remaining well below the threshold that provokes retaliation, and so forth.
This is very much classical anarchist stuff -- relying on spontaneous individual and group initiative rather than directions from some party or organization. However, it has its limitations. While some historical events of great complexity have had a large element of spontaneity in them (mass uprisings might exemplify this, although these are rarely completely devoid of formal organization), such events are few and far between. Unless they have massive support, spontaneous actions can easily be thwarted by an organized opposition. For this reason it is important to understand where ant co-ordination can be expected to work and where it can be expected to fail.
Generally speaking, when used by humans (who are less adept at leaving and reading chemical messages than their six-legged counterparts), ant co-ordination works best in setting general directions. It is spectacularly poor when it comes to the finer details. It is quite reasonable to expect every national-anarchist of any intelligence to engage in activities to publicize our ideas quite spontaneously. It is much less reasonable to expect them to cooperate spontaneously on specific projects to any effect. Some of the classical anarchists, such as Kropotkin, seem to be far too optimistic about what human beings can be expected to do spontaneously. An excessive and inappropriate reliance on ant co-ordination can be highly dangerous as it can lead to chaotic and shambolic efforts to accomplish specific goals.
The role of ant co-ordination in providing an alternative to Southgate-style top-down dictatorship is thus one of setting general directions. It is for the activists of the movement as a whole to write articles and otherwise disseminate material suggesting general directions and it is for the supporters of the movement to follow those directions where they appear to make sense.
Where more specific co-ordination is required, such as in setting up a community, or organizing a controversial demonstration, then ant co-ordination should not be contemplated. Other forms of co-ordination are more suitable.
3.5 Temporary co-ordination strategies
Whereas it is entirely reasonable to expect ant co-ordination to bring about progress in a broad general direction, such an approach is ineffective and dangerous for co-ordinating activities that require a greater degree of strategic planning or fine tuning. Activities such as community building, for example. I suggest that a complementary approach to deal with the latter sorts of activities is that of temporary co-ordination.
It is important to stress that ant co-ordination and temporary co-ordination do complement each other. Ant co-ordination is appropriate for general co-ordination of the overall direction of the movement; temporary co-ordination strategies are appropriate for specific projects requiring co-ordination and fine tuning.
Temporary co-ordination involves the bringing into being of tight and even dictatorial military-style co-ordination systems to accomplish highly specific tasks. Such systems have, with one important exception, all of the characteristics that we normally mistrust: clearly identifiable structures and leaders, high visibility, plans that are openly known among their supporters rather than tightly guarded secrets. The importance difference is that the systems come into being suddenly and cease to exist after their specific tasks have been accomplished. The temporary nature of these systems makes it difficult for the Establishment to infiltrate them beforehand, and their fluid nature makes it difficult for the Establishment to anticipate and thwart their activities.
Let us suppose, for example, that an American president is going to visit Britain. It would be unrealistic to expect ant co-ordination to take care of a suitably hostile reception for him. However, it would be quite feasible for a group of national-anarchists to get together and set up a co-ordinating committee to organize suitable opposition. As the committee would only come into being shortly prior to the visit, it would be hard for Britain's Special Branch to penetrate it, although it might be able to anticipate who is on it or, if it anticipates the creation of a temporary co-ordination system, arrange for one of its officers to be on it. As the committee would cease to exist immediately after it had carried out its purposes, the negative effects of any co-optation or infiltration would be limited to the specific project for which the committee was formed. The committee could have a strong and purposeful leadership, however such leadership would exist on a temporary basis.
3.6 Resource acquisition and deployment
It is essential to acquire the habit of regarding politics as a game of resources. You win the game when you acquire and deploy enough resources to achieve your aims (although, of course, others might subsequently deploy their resources to undo your work, in which case the game continues). If you have enough resources to do anything, and are able to deploy them, then you can do that thing. If you have insufficient resources, or cannot deploy the resources you have, then you are thwarted.
Those who wish seriously to engage in politics might therefore be well advised to work out what their aims are and to work out what resources they must acquire and deploy in order to bring about those aims. Resources might be human (supporters, people who are useful, allies, the enemies of your enemies, and so forth), or non-human (money, information, a Web site . . .)
Most aims cannot be achieved simply by deploying the resources one already has. Typically one needs to deploy existing resources in order to acquire further resources, which are then deployed to acquire further resources, and so forth.
Some aims are unlikely to be achieved because the necessary resources simply cannot be acquired realistically. These aims are futile. It is nonsensical for an unemployed youth in a bedsit to set himself the objective of overthrowing the New World Order -- he will never do this and if he tries he will simply be wasting time and energy and resources that could be deployed better elsewhere. The aims we set need to be commensurate with the resources we have or can acquire realistically.
Those with vast resources can achieve much more in politics than those with no resources. Thus the process of resource acquisition is of crucial importance.
You do not need 'leaders' and 'leaderships' to acquire and deploy resources. Indeed, 'leaders' and 'leaderships' are more likely to fleece you of whatever resources you have. Resource acquisition is something you can do alone or with friends. It is also something that can improve your own personal quality of life.
Most of us have resources; even if we do not have money, we have friends, skills, information, our own physical bodies. The task is to work out what we can realistically achieve given the resources that we have and can acquire, and then to plan so that the necessary resources are acquired and deployed and the aims achieved.
Too often aims are set too high with the result that nothing is done. Everyone is waiting for leaders to do something, for power to be 'taken', for the Establishment to 'collapse', for someone else to acquire and deploy resources. It rarely happens. This is a recipe for paralysis. By first considering the resources you have, then considering the resources you can get, and finally considering how you can deploy these to achieve specific objectives -- in this way you might actually do something useful with your life.
3.7 Ideological infiltration
Ideological infiltration is probably our most powerful weapon and I suspect that it can do more than anything else to enable national-anarchism to have a very powerful impact upon the world. Ideological infiltration is the mechanism that enabled the Establishment to gain control of almost the entire Earth. Ideological infiltration is the mechanism that offers the most hope for taking it away from them.
Ideologies are shifting, restless creatures. They do not remain static. That they must be interpreted means that they are constantly being updated, qualified, and altered in order to cope with the practical needs of their proponents and practitioners. Invariably, certain organs evolve with the power to carry out this process. Ideological infiltration occurs when the organs entrusted with the propagation and preservation of one ideology begin, almost imperceptibly, to propagate a completely different ideology as a result of various influences upon their operators.
Let us consider some concrete examples:
South Africa's National Party. This was originally an Afrikaner nationalist organization whose purpose was to promote the interests of the white Afrikaner within a Christian nationalist context. With the accession to power of John Vorster the Party adopted an increasingly neoliberal line. This accelerated under PW Botha and FW de Klerk, both of whom showed strong influence from the neoliberal regimes of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in America. Under the slogan 'adapt or die', Botha initiated a gradual movement away from Afrikaner nationalism and towards American-style neoliberalism. The process was completed under De Klerk, who, amidst much Thatcher-style denationalization and denunciation of 'racism', openly stated that his Party sought to represent not merely the Afrikaners but all the peoples of South Africa. Subsequent leaders of this organization ferociously condemned the ideals for which the National Party had stood originally. The Party simply changed from an Afrikaner nationalist organization into a pro-American neoliberal organization. This is perhaps one of the clearest and most perfect examples of ideological infiltration in action. Note that this process is not 'entryism' -- it was not the case that neoliberals joined an organization with which they disagreed in order to change it. Rather, key people among the leadership changed sides and their principal opponents left the organization, giving the reformists a clear run.
The Party of Labour of Albania. In 1986, Ramiz Alia was a dedicated Stalinist, firmly committed to the revolutionary principles of his predecessor and a bitter opponent of American imperialism. Within a few years, as a result of this man's actions, the same organization had renamed itself, had taken the country firmly into the American camp and was busy engaging in plundering the country of its resources in an orgy of Thatcherite privatization. Its rhetoric changed completely from Stalinism to pro-Western neoliberal capitalism. Again, key people simply changed the organization's direction.
The British Labour Party. Once committed to socialism and the nationalization of 'the commanding heights of the economy', a series of neoliberal leaders gradually moved it away from the red flag and towards a position where the politics of the Labour leader Tony Blair were indistinguishable, in their broad thrust, from those of his friend and military ally, the American Republican President George W. Bush. Once again the institution simply changed its ideology, abandoning state socialism and adopting neoliberal global capitalism.
The strength of the strategy of ideological infiltration lies in two aspects.
First, the ideas of institutions are frequently less well guarded than the institutions themselves. To have overthrown the institutions of the white South African regime or the Soviet Union by military force or economic pressure or stoking up internal dissent would have been enormously difficult -- armies, intelligence agencies, formidable economic resources stood in the way, firmly blocking such strategies. But once the ideas of the institutions change, social transformation follows as surely as night follows day. To abolish British socialism as a significant national political force (rather than simply knocking it from power) would have been a gargantuan task if it had been undertaken by attacking the institutions of British socialism -- by banning its organizations or imprisoning its proponents. Yet once the leaders of those institutions became disillusioned with the old socialism, it bit the dust and was replaced by American-style neoliberalism.
Second, people are far more loyal to institutions, symbols, labels than to political ideologies. When the South African National Party began to change into a neoliberal organization in the 1980s and 1990s, it retained much of its support. So did the British Labour Party during its ideological u-turn. Those who would express the utmost outrage and disgust about a particular policy were it to be carried out under the label of 'fascism' or 'communism' will quite often actively support the same policy if it is carried out under some other label such as 'democracy' -- those who are full of indignation about supposed fascist massacres of civilians typically fall over themselves to produce implausible excuses for Allied atrocities such as the (quite unnecessary) nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the equally unnecessary conventional bombing of Dresden. It thus makes sense to infiltrate your ideas into the dominant ideologies rather than to attempt to overthrow the dominant institutions. 'National-anarchist' ideas might well receive little support, or much opposition, if presented as 'national-anarchist ideas', but if gradually infiltrated into the dominant ideologies of our age, or any age, national-anarchist ideas could well exert real influence. Much of what was unthinkable in politics towards the beginning of the twentieth century is broadly accepted at the beginning of the twenty-first. This did not come about through the overthrow of institutions -- many of the dominant institutions are nominally essentially the same. It came about through the ideologies of the institutions changing in a gradual, inexorable and ubiquitous shift towards neoliberal global capitalism. Christianity in 1904 was not the same thing as Christianity in 2004. Socialism in 1904 was not the same thing as socialism in 2004. Both have gradually been co-opted by neoliberal ideology. This is ideological infiltration in action.
How could we apply such a process?
The idea that specifically national-anarchist communities will one day spread throughout the world is highly questionable. National-anarchists are small, divided, poorly led, heavily infiltrated, bereft of resources. There is simply no reason to suppose that their own community-building attempts will ever get anywhere.
What may well happen, however, is that other ideological movements that are larger, more cohesive, better led, relatively free from infiltration, and better resourced could become influenced by our ideas and begin to implement national-anarchistic strategies. Various religious movements, in particular, could begin to see the value of organizing isolated communities to preserve the lifestyles and ways that they cherish. Communist groups and ethnic groups might also be attracted to our broad approach. By encouraging this process, rather than engaging in futile strategies that will never lead anywhere, we can make national-anarchism (in practice if not in name) a lasting and powerful force in the world.
Let me immediately issue two stark warnings.
First, there will be those out there who will attempt to misrepresent these remarks and will portray them as an argument that national-anarchists should not form their own communities. This, however, is not my view. If and when national-anarchists are in a position to establish their own communities then they should do so. My point here is that, in early 2005, contemplating the current state of national-anarchism, there is precious little sign of national-anarchists being united enough, or possessing enough resources, or being sufficiently free from penetration by hostile elements, to proceed along this path in the foreseeable future. Whether this sorry state of affairs will continue will only become apparent in the fullness of time. So long as it does continue then it makes sense to pursue the strategy of ideological infiltration. Ideological infiltration and formation of communities of national-anarchists are not mutually exclusive strategies.
Second, ideological infiltration is not the sort of organizational infiltration espoused by Southgate. Southgate is interested in infiltrating organizations. I, by contrast, am not interested in infiltrating organizations -- I am interested in infiltrating their belief systems.
3.8 Integrating leaderless strategies
I have suggested the following broad strategy for national-anarchism:55
Phase one. Publicizing ideas. At the moment N-A ideas are not well know. Therefore the very first priority is to make them well known. [We] therefore encourage you to spread ideas . . .. This phase needs to continue for many years, possibly decades, before phase two can be contemplated. Even after phase two is initiated, phase one -- publicizing ideas -- needs to continue indefinitely.
Phase two. Creating communities or homelands. This will only occur when large numbers of good-quality people, equipped with the necessary resources and skills, accept the N-A approach and decide to join together and move it forward by creating their own communities, turning their backs resolutely and for ever on the outside world and working for the maximum degree of self-sufficiency and independence. Some ideas on community building are given in the writing A new land, a new life, a new hope.
Phase three. Natural selection. Those communities that are successful will become attractive places. People will want to join them. As conditions in the outside world become ever more miserable -- as disease and corruption and the sheer tedium of life under 'American values' make the mainstream world ever more dangerous and unpleasant -- it is reasonable to suppose that people will want to join successful communities in ever greater numbers. These communities will thus attract resources and skills and will bring great happiness and security to many people. Other communities may well note the characteristics of the more successful communities and will imitate them in ever increasing numbers, spreading happiness, security and diversity across the earth, providing a clear political alternative to the politics of America's New World Order. Communities that are dysfunctional -- those that are inadequately resourced, lack sufficient numbers of people, or people of sufficient quality with the necessary skills, or those that pursue ideologies that make them unattractive, or those that fail to provide any real alternative to the outside world -- these might be expected to wither and die. Others will learn from their mistakes and, hopefully, with time, fewer mistakes will be made.
Phase four. A new world. As the neoliberal world that the Americans and their allies are creating crumbles into a seething cauldron of disease, decay and depravity, as corruption and crime become inescapable, and as successful communities spread across the face of the earth, life in such communities might be expected to become the norm. Our politics will gradually become so attractive to so many people that they will replace the politics of imperialism and globalism and neoliberalism as the dominant force in the world.
The entire first phase can be pursued using leaderless strategies, up to the point where communities come into being. Different forms of leaderless politics seem more appropriate at different stages. In the initial stages, when the emphasis is on spreading ideas, lone-wolf strategies, ant co-ordination, resource acquisition and ideological infiltration seem most appropriate. It is probably unnecessary to engage in the creation of personal spheres of influence or to create temporary co-ordination systems to any great extent simply to get ideas out. Where other, small-scale activities are planned, then temporary co-ordination systems can be used. However, in order to remain focused, it is important not to become sidetracked into too many activities, during phase one, apart from the basic aim of publicizing the fundamental ideas. All of these strategies can be aided by a continued cloud of decoys and red herrings. Note the following and learn it well:
IN THESE, THE EARLIEST STAGES, ALL OF OUR ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS PROPAGANDA -- GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT. THIS CAN BE DONE EFFECTIVELY -- PERHAPS MOST EFFECTIVELY -- USING LEADERLESS POLITICAL STRATEGIES.
As we move towards the creation of communities, there needs to be a shift away from lone wolfism and ant co-ordination (although these approaches should never be abandoned) and a decisive movement towards temporary co-ordination structures and ideological infiltration. It is these that can create communities and they can arise not from formal 'national-anarchist organizations' with leaders but from the personal spheres of influence of individuals with resources, and from many different political and religious persuasions, who are attracted to the idea of community formation and of turning their backs decisively and for ever on the putrid world of the Establishment.
Phases three and four require very different organization considerations because the organization of communities is a very different task from the organization of political movements and brings with it different challenges and different opportunities. I have set out some preliminary thoughts in the article titled A new land, a new life, a new hope. In this regard, I must say immediately that I do not believe that there is any particular structural solution that can be deployed to guarantee that a community will not fall into the hands of leaders and leaderships who will subsequently sell out on its founding principles. This is because of the agency factor: human beings are ingenious creatures and tend to circumvent rigid structures relatively easily -- something that the communists discovered the hard way. What we can do, however, is to suggest certain heuristics -- certain general guidelines -- that might assist communities to avoid the slippery slope to leadership and betrayal. These might take the form of slogans or principles like:
-- 'keep the leaders weak and the people strong' -- disperse power as widely as possible throughout the community so that it is very difficult for betrayal to occur;
-- 'turn your backs resolutely and for ever on the outside world' -- a policy of absolute and uncompromising isolation from the outside world so that its influences do not erode the community;
-- 'be vigilant and merciless against traitors and spies' -- keep the people permanently on the lookout for those who might sell out -- and act promptly and decisively to smash the enemies before they can act;
-- 'reject the Establishment without compromise' -- educate the people with ongoing information campaigns about the horrors and the filth of the outside world so that they are always motivated by an undying hatred for the Establishment and for the outside world, and so that they act harshly against those who might be tempted to talk of compromise with it;
-- 'let there be joy in every heart' -- turn the community into a little paradise on earth -- fill the people with genuine happiness and love for the community so that they have no desire to compromise with enemies and, in fact, so that they become fearful of anything that might harm their community;
-- 'unite against all enemies' -- encourage a culture whereby any talk of compromise is regarded as treachery against the unity of the community rather than an 'alternative point of view';
-- 'build a peaceful life for all' -- promote a happy, stress-free, secure rural lifestyle in stark contrast to the rat-race of the outside world -- let the people, each one of them, feel that they are not alone in the world but are part of a community that will care for them if they fall ill, that will house them and feed them, that will share their problems and that will help them realize their dreams;
-- 'smash capitalism' -- teach the people to despise the constant craving for money and worldly goods that typifies the outside world and to value instead the simple pleasures of good comradeship, of straight talking and straight dealing, of working honestly in the fields, of building a little home of their own, of working for the benefit of everyone rather than for their own personal self-interest.
Such principles would be mere heuristics or guidelines and it would be for each community to decide whether and in what way to adopt them and how to implement them.
I do not doubt that some communities will fail dismally. However, the failures will give valuable lessons on how not to do it and the successes will flourish and inspire imitators. This could set up a sort of natural selection process whereby unsuccessful communities die and successful communities will spread, bringing happiness and joy to the peoples of the Earth and providing a very real alternative to the imperialist New World Order.
3.9 From leaderless politics to community formation -- pioneers, not leaders
How, then, do we move from leaderless politics to the construction of viable isolated intentional communities? Let us first consider how we do not do it.
We do not set up 'organizations' with 'leaders'. Any 'organization' could simply be set up by the Establishment or by crooks anxious to relieve potential community builders of their worldly goods. Any leader could betray.
We do not engage in 'mass politics', trying to recruit as many people as possible to our cause, irrespective of the quality of those people, whether or not they have resources, or what their views or personalities are like. We are not trying to win elections or to conduct a mass uprising so we do not need to win over 'the masses'. This is one of the supreme strengths of national-anarchism -- it needs effective support rather than mass support. We should positively discourage interest from useless people.
We do not sit at our computers sending e-mails to each other all day, grumbling about how terrible the world is and dreaming about how much better it would be if only we were running it.
We do not spend many hours engaging in futile 'debates' with people who will never be of any use to us or to our campaign.
Instead we do this.
We direct our many and varied leaderless political strategies toward one single primary function: the production of carefully crafted, carefully targeted propaganda that aims to inspire and activate pioneers. Not propaganda for 'the masses' but propaganda for pioneers. Pioneers are people and groups with the ability, determination and will to use their own resources, motivation, intelligence and charisma to build the networks and acquire and deploy the resources necessary to build communities. They are not men and women with begging bowls, asking for your 'donations'. They are not salesmen, trying you to purchase a 'share' in their project. They are people and groups with a clear vision, a clear plan to bring it about, and the resources and personalities to make it happen. If they seek to involve you in a project it is more likely that they will be the ones to finance it or to form a company to bring it about with their finance. Your contribution would most probably be in the donation of hard work, loyalty and unswerving dedication!
There are many examples throughout history of people and groups with the characteristics of pioneers -- some more successful than others. Montanus, St Anthony the Great, St Pachomius, St Benedict, St Francis Bernardone, Dominic de Guzman, St Augustine of Hippo, Jan van Leyden and Gert Kloster, the Alevis and the Semeiskie, Menno Simons, Jakob Hutter, Jacob Amman, William Penn, George Rapp, Johannes Kelpius, Robert Owen, Jean de Labadie, Augustin Herrman, John Humphrey Noyes, the True Inspirationists, the Shakers, Bagautdin Khamsin-Vaisov, Elbert Spriggs, Richard Butler, Zeno Saltini, Mahatma Gandhi, Wallace Fard, Phra Bodhiraksa, Asahara Shoko, Bruno Hussar, Lanza del Vasto, Josiah Warren, Giovanni Rossi, the Brotherhood Trust, Ricardo Flores Magón, Emiliano Zapata, Nestor Makhno, Griscom and Jane Morgan, George Ripley, William Lane, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, Carel Boshoff, Sabine Lichtenfels -- all are examples of pioneers who used their talents, personalities and sometimes meagre resources to create communities. Some of these people were deeply flawed and many of the communities that these people inspired failed dismally as a result of these flaws. Nevertheless, these exemplify the type of person we need to inspire if national-anarchism is to result in real, viable communities.
Pioneers are not political leaders, giving great speeches and seeking to rule others. They are not political theorists, such as myself, bereft of charisma and resources and limited to writing long articles for the Internet. They are 'go-getters', doers, achievers, people who create results.
Couldn't pioneers turn into leaders? Couldn't they go bad and betray? Of course they could! But if the national-anarchist movement consists of many pioneers, each operating on his own project relatively independently, when a pioneer betrays then it is the single community, the single project that suffers -- not the entire national-anarchist movement. We can't escape the misfortune that political progress requires people and if people go bad then political progress does not occur, or is reversed. What we can do is decentralize to the greatest extent possible to limit the damage caused by this process of 'going bad' whenever it happens. We can't eradicate it but we can plan for it and limit the damage it can do.
What I am arguing for is essentially a restructuring of national-anarchism. At the moment it is like a single pyramid with a monkey at the apex. Beneath the monkey we have the monkey's family and beneath that the monkey's closest supporters. The rest of the national-anarchists are either underneath or, if they have been critical of the monkey, cast out into the desert! I say abolish the pyramid and the monkey and encourage a large number of essentially independent operations to flourish.
4. CONCLUSION
In this article I have argued that leaders and leaderships are inherently unreliable and historically have tended either to sell out or to lose control through sheer incompetence. I have further argued that, whereas in the past we have criticized the leaderships of states and nations in this regard, similar problems characterize the leaders and leaderships of revolutionary movements. I have used the example of the self-appointed 'leader' of our national-anarchist movement, Troy Southgate, to illustrate this point. I have argued that leaders and leaderships are not necessary in order to advance national-anarchism and that a variety of leaderless strategies can be employed effectively in order to take us from where we are now to the sort of world we wish to see. In presenting this argument I am essentially going back to the classical anarchist approach of Bakunin, but with a much clearer emphasis on the specific practicalities of what is to be done (an absolutely crucial field that is typically dismissed by the classical anarchists with a wave of the hand, akin to the Christian exhortation to 'have faith').
What is needed now is a new national-anarchism, without leaders or leaderships, without the hobgoblins and other juvenilia associated with Southgate -- a national-anarchism with no hidden agendas or security risks, a national-anarchism that can appeal to serious, intelligent, worthwhile people, a national-anarchism that can inspire the peoples of the world to action rather than to laughter and derision.
It remains only to deal with a few subsidiary issues.
First, how are national-anarchists to relate to allies who believe strongly in the leadership principle? I take the view, contra certain followers of Southgate, that it is not necessary to have near complete agreement with someone in order to form a strategic alliance with him for specific purposes. Attitude is far more important than similarity of views. It is possible to agree with someone 99% and still not be able to work with that person if he is a dogmatist who insists on using the 1% difference to create obstacles to co-operation. Similarly, it is possible to agree only 20% with someone and yet, if he is intelligent and pragmatic, manage to co-operate to attain certain specific mutually desired objectives. For this reason I do not believe that scepticism about leaders and leaderships should in any way prevent co-operation with the numerous anti-Establishment movements that believe strongly in these things (such as our dear friends in Limonov's national-bolshevik movement, communists, the 'far right', Islamists, and so forth).
Second, what is to be done with Southgate? My attitude to this buffoon can best be summarized with the old Cambodian revolutionary slogan: 'Keeping you is no gain; losing you is no loss.' He is a spent force and is taken seriously only by a few fellow buffoons, most of whom have backgrounds that are almost as dubious of those of Southgate himself. We have bigger fish to fry. Let him keep his few 'supporters', who are fairly useless people on the whole. There are many far more useful people to be recruited and breaking away from Southgate opens up opportunities to bring them on board.
Third, what is to be done now? What is to be done immediately? The answer can be expressed in only four simple words: GET THE MESSAGE OUT.
NOTES
1. Michael D (2002) A study in imperialism. Voice of the Resistance, no. 1, October 2002, pp. 21--2.
2. See, for instance Bakunin M (1872/1950) Marxism, Freedom and the State. London: Freedom Press.
3. Bakunin M (1867/1992) Power corrupts the best. In Rooum D (ed.) What is Anarchism: An Introduction. London: Freedom Press.
4. Bakunin M (1872/1950), Marxism, Freedom and the State. London: Freedom Press.
5. We have exposed McVay at length already in another forum -- see Michael D (2003) The McVay Files. Usenet post to alt.revisionism, posted as 'Re. Background info. on Kenny McVay', 22 October 2003.
6. Southgate T (2002) Beyond the fascism of the right and the dogmatism of the left. See http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/anarchy.shtml (accessed January 2005).
7. Southgate T (2003) Enemy Within? Hizb-ut Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun, and the Growing Threat of Asian Colonisation. Http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/enemy.php (accessed 1 May 2004).
8. Ghetu D (2001) Synthesis editor Troy Southgate interviewed by Dan Ghetu, http://www.rosenoire.org/interviews/southgate2.php (accessed 28 December 2003); http://www.terrafirma.rosenoire.org/arti...hgate.html (accessed 28 December 2003). The terrafirma.rosenoire.org site, like so many of Southgate's projects, was taken down in April 2004, so readers may need to resort to Web archiving tools to read articles in that domain referred to here.
9. Anon. (1998) Satanism and its Allies. London: Final Conflict.
10. Michael D (2003) On a decisive break with 'far-right' ideology. Http://www.nationalanarchist.com/break1.html.
11. Anon. (2003) Hollywood takes on the Nazis. Post to national-anarchist Internet group dated 3 August. From an anonymous poster using the pseudonym 'montague2002au'.
12. Southgate T (2003) Luther - that scoundrel. Post to national-anarchist Internet group dated 7 October.
13. Http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/entryism.php.
14. Anon. (1998) Satanism and its Allies. London: Final Conflict.
15. Southgate T (2003) RE: The Two Paths. Post to Rose-noire Yahoo! group dated 10 October.
16. Ibid. Subsequent post in same thread.
17. Anon (2002). Usenet post from 'Scythian' (scythian@oco.net). Newsgroups: alt.satanism. Subject: Evola - Revolution/Tradition. Date: 2 June 2002. Message-ID: ufkl53340e2o40@corp.supernews.com.
18. Lujan M (2001) Usenet post from: antarktos@mindspring.com. Newsgroups: alt.anarchism, alt.anarchism.communist, alt.anarchism.individualist, alt.anarchism.syndicalist, alt.politics.socialism.libertarian, alt.politics.white-power, alt.politics.world.federalism, alt.satanism, alt.society.anarchy. Subject: SYNTHESIS Website Update: 24 July 2001 -- Special Announcements! Date: 24 July 2001. Message-ID: 9jjar2$c55$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net.
19. Lujan M (1998) Usenet post from: aragon@mindspring.com. Newsgroup: alt.satanism. Subject: The Nazi-Satanic Axis. Date: 23 September 1998. Message-ID: 01bde731$312ba6c0$f31a56d1@default.
20. Sturgeon WJ (2001) Synthesis editor Troy Southgate interviewed by Wayne John Sturgeon. http://www.rosenoire.org/interviews/southgate.php (accessed 4 May 2004). See also http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zy4CM...n%22&hl=en (accessed 4 May 2004).
21. Http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/candyman/candymanhome.htm (accessed 15 November 2003).
22. See, for example, http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27835.html and http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,55967,00.html (accessed 4 January 2004).
23. Ghetu D (2001) Op. cit.
24. Southgate T (2002) 'Transcending the beyond: from third position to national-anarchism', http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2002/01/17/25828.html (accessed 28 December 2003).
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Southgate T (2003) Urgent announcement. Message posted to national-anarchist Internet group, 29 January 2003. See also http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=3506 (Accessed 4 January 2004) -- note that the Web site http://www.overthrow.com was briefly taken down in February 2004, has subsequently been reformatted and has been placed on sale by its owner. Accordingly articles on the site might or might not continue to be available. Therefore readers may need to resort to Web archiving tools in order to read the articles in that domain referred to here.
29. Http://www.nationalanarchist.com/faq.html .
30. Southgate T (2002) 'Transcending the beyond: from third position to national-anarchism', op. cit.
31. Anon. (1998) Satanism and its Allies. London: Final Conflict.
32. Southgate T (2003) Organising for the collapse. Http://www.terrafirma.rosenoire.org/arti...lapse.html .
33. White B (2003) National Revolutionary Faction dislikes International Third Position, sectarian politics on the beyond left and right. See http://www.overthrow.com (accessed 4 January 2004).
34. White B (2003) Christ, the old gods and the proper means of worship. See http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6414 (accessed 1 February 2004).
35. White B (2003) The faith of life and order: Tradition, racialism and national socialism'. See http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6421 (accessed 1 February 2004).
36. White B (2004) Damaged Beauty as it Exists Within Women. See http://www.overthrow.com (accessed 21 January 2004).
37. Http://www.jdl-ny.org/whitewatch.htm (accessed 1 February 2004).
38. Http://www.whitesurvival.net/forum/index...owtopic=57.
39. White B (2004) How Much Would I Sell This Website For? $250,000. See http://www.overthrow.com (accessed 21 January 2004).
40. Anon (1998) Satanism and its Allies. London: Final Conflict.
41. See http://web.archive.org/web/2001040403035.../~kmcvay/; Usenet post by Ken McVay, message ID: 1992Oct26.172935.25786@oneb.almanac.bc.ca, date: 26 October 1992; Usenet post by Ken McVay, message ID: 165@oneb.UUCP, date: 31 January 1991; The Idler, 1(15) 5 July 1999, http://www.geocities.com/dcjarviks/Idler/vIn15.html; Usenet post by Ken McVay, message ID: 6na02u$n25$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com, date: 30 June 1998; see http://www.vex.net/~kmcvay/; Usenet post by Ken McVay, message ID: 1992Dec17.192105.13558@oneb.almanac.bc.ca, date: 17 December 1992; Usenet post by Ken McVay, message ID: 1993May06.200054.1555@oneb.almanac.bc.ca, date 6 May 1993; ‘Bouqets and brickbats’, Montreal Gazette, 15 October 1994; 'Holocaust defender’, The Globe & Mail, 18 October 1994; ‘Internet warrior takes on Holocaust revisionists’, The Sacramento Bee, 16 December 1994; Canadian Business, 69 (5) (special technology issue), Spring 1996; http://web.archive.org/web/1999090403110...cvayk.htm; http://web.archive.org/web/2001112115295...cvayk.htm; http://www.island.net/~kmcvay/schedule.html; http://web.archive.org/web/19990128083200/; http://www.vex.net/~kmcvay/#TRIVIA.
42. Internet can target women, forum told. Toronto Star, 22 March 1999. See http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/toronto.star.22mar99.html (accessed 4 May 2004).
43. Usenet post by Ken McVay. Message ID: 846975973$6503@atype.com #1/1. Date: 2 November 1996.
44. Southgate, T (2003) DAVID MICHAEL. Message posted to national-anarchist Yahoo! newsgroup. Date: 30 November 2003 (message no. 26659).
45. Http://intermarium.webpark.pl/members.htm (accessed 4 May 2004).
46. This interview was published on the now-defunct terrafirma.rosenoire Web site. It was cached at: Http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Ie7e0...hist&hl=en (accessed 4 May 2004).
47. Boulter J (2004) Social Movement [U.K.] founded. Post to National-Bolshevik Yahoo! group. Date 1 May 2004.
48. Boulter J (2004) RE: Social Movement [U.K.] founded. Post to National-Bolshevik Yahoo! group. Date 2 May 2004.
49. Boulter J (2004) RE: Social Movement [U.K.] founded. Post to National-Bolshevik Yahoo! group. Date 3 May 2004.
50. Http://p218.ezboard.com/fnationalanarchi...topicID=10.
51. Hooper J (2003) German court rejects attempt to ban neo-Nazi party, Guardian, 19 March.
52. White B (2002) Summary of Rumors About Me That Aren't True. http://www.overthrow.com (accessed 21 January 2004).
53. Southgate T (2003) Re: Re: Why I Stay Away From Groups And Movements. Post to National-Anarchist Yahoo! group. Date: 27 November 2003, message number 26584.
54. Dugin A, 'The Metaphysics of National Bolshevism', Elementy, no. 8.
55. Http://www.nationalanarchist.com/faq.html.
D. Michael
January 2005
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war