I think I figured this NA business out. Marcuse has this idea of co-opting the negation and I think that is whats happening here. White Nationalists are co-opting anarchism (symbols and activism included) to use it for their own purpose. This is an attempt to absorb the current anarchy movement rather than fight it outright, which is more likely to result in rebellion. It also has the effect of manufacturing a negation to fascism but renders anarchism harmless because both are nationalist.
@sumitgill You are thinking too hard, NA want to live with whom they want under their own terms, not under the terms of the nation-state, free market capitalism, or multiculturalists. Negating the negating is nonsensical concept with no practical use.
But I recall in a lecture I watched that the speaker was very explicit in pointing out how he was co-opting anarchist symbols 'using the anarchist 'A' and adding these and these symbols to it'.
@sumitgill That's right, I made that statement and I stand by it. We are giving new meaning to old symbols and creating our own along the way. Movements ideas and symbols evolve over time, there is nothing that surprising about this. Remaining static is death.
What you're saying is, that you dont mind homos and negroes, I can dig it. But when you use a picture of Mexicans crossing the border with an upside down American flag and say its bad, how can we take you as legit?
I don't like S&M bondage or the perverse porn culture either. But its a white hetero problem as much as a minority one. I like that you guys are against moral relativism but this seems to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. I'm apolitical btw. Not necessarily anarchist.
Bakunin, Kroptokin, Proudhon, Stirner were in support of a National Anarchist agenda, Goldman would not be. Ethnicity is central to anarchist issues, especially since Left wing anarchists want to destroy European peoples ethnic existence and call all white people oppressive or racist.
im curious as to what specifically are a "national anarchist agenda." kropotkin supported germany in ww1, but he recieved a lot of criticism from the anarchists for it.
do "left wing" anarchists want to destroy european ethnic existance, or do they want a world without borders? for borders are imaginary lines concieved by governments.
do "left wing" anarchists think white people are oppressive or racist? or do they believe that white privelage and racism should be destroyed?
Imagine how you would feel if people representing BANA were holding multiracial gay love-ins-thats how I feel when I see you guys holding signs about "family values" with all the A's circled and iron crosses over the syndicalist star.who wants to destroy european peoples existense?We want to destroy this plastic mini-mall consumer reality that was brought on largly by whites,and if you defend that world your not a real tribalist,I dont recall any of that as a part of my heritage...
We're interested destroying global capitalism and criticizing white people for consumer society is a defaming and hateful point. The diverse white American people need to be criticized and we are the first to do so. We have no loyalty to someone just because they are "white," however defaming white people for the sake of argument ("mini-mall consumer reality") is arrogant beyond belief and reveals more about your reality then others.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Are you moral relativists? Why would a Mexican crossing an artificial border matter to an anarchist, even if he is NA? I mean close to the border, whites are a minority anyway. But if you want to preserve existing homogeneous racial territories, not create new ones, you are indeed talking out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to your tribalism.
@sumitgill Because anarchists are extremely interested in what people are doing in their territory and making sure the people that are there do not wage destructive mischief is a top priority for any anarchist project to survive a government vacuum.
@sumitgill To not even CONCEIVE of that possibility you are clearly not thinking these issues through and are merely a racist reactionary, albeit, an anti-white one.
Haha, I'm anti-white? True I am a bit of a reactionary and I would say I'm a-racial simply because I don't feel its an accurate scientific classification. But I suppose in the name of culture, which does carry weight with me, carry-on carry-on.
A world without borders WOULD eventually destroy European ethnic existence just as a Tibet without borders would destroy the Tibetan culture. A distinct ethnic culture cannot survive if it is diluted with millions of foreigners.
Put another way - if you took a Star Trek convention and mixed it with a Star Wars convention, you'd end up with a Science Fiction convention. Nothing wrong with that of course, but the "special-ness" of the Star Trek convention would be lost.
I'm liking what I see. I hope that this is the path that white youth take: spiritual secession from the corporate multicult butthole that America has become.
I'm sorry, but I really don't believe segregation should be a part of anarchism. Saying where people should and should not live doesn't seem to be very anti-authoritarian (thinking independently here).
There is no need to apologize, have a great time in the multicultural wonderland you believe to be yours. For me and my tribe we believe differently and we will not allow people like you to tell us that we cannot live the lifestyle we choose with the kind of people we choose. That is called freedom of association. Thank you for your comment.
I completely agree that you should be able to hang out with who you want, but please dont call it anarchism or adopt any of our symbols,we have enough problems with misrepresentation already.I've been to your website and have seen what you promote and your just racists looking for a facelift.I have real tribalist friends that would like to reconnect with their cultural european heritage and they dont give 2 shits if obamas prez or if gay people have parades....
Thanks for your opinions but as anarchists: we have problems with presidents period, throwing the race card into that issue is disingenuous. Tribalists are allowed to form under any basis they want. Our issues with children being allowed into an S&M event and indecency is our issue with those events, not "gays on parade." We speak for the people find that offensive and we speak on behalf of the diverse white American people whose interests are not represented by the system you are defending.
By the same token, telling white people that they MUST live with blacks is also authoritarian. If you scratch the surface of multiculturalism, you'll find authoritarianism at it's core.
The New World Order has an agenda - destroy all individual nations and replace them with a global system of control that is run by a tiny elite.
Multiculturalism is being used as a tool to achieve that goal. By mixing up all of the world's people they are herding us like cows into their NWO corral.
. Therefore every community building must be based om mutual consent both of those who apply for membership and those who decide to welcome or not welcome new neighbours. This is the essence of autonomy. National-Anarchists like myself therefore claims as a fundamental principle or right to live according to our own bliefs while at the same time tolerate others convictions. Borders are constructed by mutual autonomous consent.
You are in fact wrong. Anarchist philosophy can be divided in a spectrum of beliefs - some of them proponents of open communities for everyone, others are however more consistent to the fundamental basis of voluntary cooperation and community: that communitarian freedom not only is a positive possibility to move wherever you want, but also that you have a right to constraint those who do not share your belief i.e capitalist companies and others, from entering your community
If you believe there should be borders to countries beyond what exist in reality (like oceans and mountain ranges), you are not an anarchist, period. The rights of a collectivity to "preserve it's culture" cannot transcend the rights of an individual to travel unrestricted by imaginary lines in the sand.
Your theory about allowing anyone to go unrestricted into peoples homes and communities is a foolhardy gesture that shows no understanding of the fundamental motivations of human behavior patterns. How can your world traveler survive "anywhere they chose" if not by committing crimes and stealing?Just like how I have locks on my door to my home and workplace my city should be able to put a lock on who they allow into the community. The results of not doing so are sadly far to common and tragic.
Bullfuck. The analogy you draw between putting a lock on your door and a line on your map is deficient two times over. Firstly, the door lock exists in reality. Do you advocate building a continent-wide fence between the US and Mexico, much less EVERY OTHER BORDER between all 196 modern nations of the world?
Secondly, how can they survive? The same way you survive, dumbass. By contributing toward the community! But no, you xenophobes won't even permit them the oppurtunity.
@3:00 conclusion : fascism and communism are the same , the only difference is fascism belongs to the right and communism to the left. Both are totalitarian and prohibit the other-wing ideologies.
You people are giving Anarchism a bad name. Don't you realize that nations are imaginary lines drawn around private property, enforced by the laws of the State? By what right do you claim America as your own? Not even the true Native Americans believed the land belonged to anyone, and you all are descendants of the immigrant "invaders" who took the land from it's original inhabitants. If what you want is State authority to carry out racial purification, what you are is FASCIST !
"Not even the actual Native Americans claimed the land could be "owned" by anyone" That my friend is comical to say the least. So you are saying that the indians would allow anyone to live in their villages and do whatever they want? Like eat their food and grab at their women with no repercussions? Man you're crazy. The native americans have nothing in common with contemporary anarchism other than tribalism anyway.
The native americans had territories where they lived, and cultural boundaries that kept others from encroaching, but they didn't start claiming "property rights" until they were compelled to speak in the white man's language, to defend their right to exist as they had been doing. So-called "primitive" cultures don't claim to own the world, as "civilized" people do. This is their main difference, and the root reason our civilization is leading humanity to extinction!
I'm sorry that I do not sympathize with the American Indian situation you describe. They DID NOT promote the lifestyle or principles of an anarchist society. There is nothing in common with classical anarchist social theory and the american indian lifestyle, you are living in a fantasy land if you think otherwise. But besides that, since their cultures failed to meet challenges to their way of life, how could "indian anarchists" do otherwise against global capitalism? They would fail.
Nationalism of any kind is not Anarchist. Nations are imaginary lines drawn around private property, enforced by the laws of the State. What gives you the right to claim America as your property? Not even the actual Native Americans claimed the land could be "owned" by anyone. If what you want is to have the authority of the State as your own, in order to carry out a program of racial purification, then what you are is Fascist - THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF ANARCHIST!
"What gives you the right to claim America as your property?" I (and by extension "we") don't claim America is ours, we do however reserve tribal areas to be organized independently of any federal system.
It is about time that you learn what Fascisme is, the core of Fascisme is capitalist with a state where the people serve the state and are completly controlled by the state. thus National Anarchism can never be fascistic. Also it has nothing to do with the traditional nationalisme since there is no believe in states, but in autonomous communities run by like minded individuals. we can truly speak about anarchism like any other form of it!
This video gives a good idea of the core principles of National-Anarchism. We stand for the protection of individual and cultural liberty over the expanding controls of liberalism and globalisation. Tomorrow belongs to us!
I dont know If I agree entirely with the planned "outline" but you are right, a new social alternative is needed, if you can be that alternative then all the best of luck too you.
These videos are awesome. It's about time someone started to say what we've all been thinking. It's time for a REAL SOCIAL ALTERNATIVE! The National Anarchists ARE that alternative!
Anarchism IS communism and I'm sure you've heard this before but you should stay in the East Bay suburbs where your safe.
crud4 1 year ago
@crud4 Your ignorance is outstanding. Congratulations.
BANA0907 1 year ago
Why the heck haven't you guys started a blog yet! ;-)
BANA0907 2 years ago
I think I figured this NA business out. Marcuse has this idea of co-opting the negation and I think that is whats happening here. White Nationalists are co-opting anarchism (symbols and activism included) to use it for their own purpose. This is an attempt to absorb the current anarchy movement rather than fight it outright, which is more likely to result in rebellion. It also has the effect of manufacturing a negation to fascism but renders anarchism harmless because both are nationalist.
sumitgill 2 years ago
@sumitgill You are thinking too hard, NA want to live with whom they want under their own terms, not under the terms of the nation-state, free market capitalism, or multiculturalists. Negating the negating is nonsensical concept with no practical use.
BANA0907 2 years ago
But I recall in a lecture I watched that the speaker was very explicit in pointing out how he was co-opting anarchist symbols 'using the anarchist 'A' and adding these and these symbols to it'.
sumitgill 2 years ago
@sumitgill That's right, I made that statement and I stand by it. We are giving new meaning to old symbols and creating our own along the way. Movements ideas and symbols evolve over time, there is nothing that surprising about this. Remaining static is death.
BANA0907 2 years ago
Oh and I'm going to assume that me being an East Indian can join this anarchist movement, right? :D
sumitgill 2 years ago
I know of Indian National Anarchists and who are also sympathizers to the New Right.
BANA0907 2 years ago
What you're saying is, that you dont mind homos and negroes, I can dig it. But when you use a picture of Mexicans crossing the border with an upside down American flag and say its bad, how can we take you as legit?
I don't like S&M bondage or the perverse porn culture either. But its a white hetero problem as much as a minority one. I like that you guys are against moral relativism but this seems to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. I'm apolitical btw. Not necessarily anarchist.
sumitgill 2 years ago
Bakunin, Kroptokin, Proudhon, Stirner were in support of a National Anarchist agenda, Goldman would not be. Ethnicity is central to anarchist issues, especially since Left wing anarchists want to destroy European peoples ethnic existence and call all white people oppressive or racist.
BANA0907 2 years ago
im curious as to what specifically are a "national anarchist agenda." kropotkin supported germany in ww1, but he recieved a lot of criticism from the anarchists for it.
do "left wing" anarchists want to destroy european ethnic existance, or do they want a world without borders? for borders are imaginary lines concieved by governments.
do "left wing" anarchists think white people are oppressive or racist? or do they believe that white privelage and racism should be destroyed?
NeuKrofta 2 years ago
Imagine how you would feel if people representing BANA were holding multiracial gay love-ins-thats how I feel when I see you guys holding signs about "family values" with all the A's circled and iron crosses over the syndicalist star.who wants to destroy european peoples existense?We want to destroy this plastic mini-mall consumer reality that was brought on largly by whites,and if you defend that world your not a real tribalist,I dont recall any of that as a part of my heritage...
kviapunx 2 years ago
We're interested destroying global capitalism and criticizing white people for consumer society is a defaming and hateful point. The diverse white American people need to be criticized and we are the first to do so. We have no loyalty to someone just because they are "white," however defaming white people for the sake of argument ("mini-mall consumer reality") is arrogant beyond belief and reveals more about your reality then others.
BANA0907 2 years ago
You are obviously unaware that all tribes have boundaries of acceptable rules for entrance. Ignorance is not strength.
BANA0907 2 years ago
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Are you moral relativists? Why would a Mexican crossing an artificial border matter to an anarchist, even if he is NA? I mean close to the border, whites are a minority anyway. But if you want to preserve existing homogeneous racial territories, not create new ones, you are indeed talking out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to your tribalism.
sumitgill 2 years ago
@sumitgill Because anarchists are extremely interested in what people are doing in their territory and making sure the people that are there do not wage destructive mischief is a top priority for any anarchist project to survive a government vacuum.
BANA0907 2 years ago
Ohhhhh. I think I'm getting the full picture here. Well one last question before I leave you alone, are all NA's pacifists?
sumitgill 2 years ago
@sumitgill I don't know of any but the Amish could be considered quasi-NA.
BANA0907 2 years ago
@sumitgill To not even CONCEIVE of that possibility you are clearly not thinking these issues through and are merely a racist reactionary, albeit, an anti-white one.
BANA0907 2 years ago
Haha, I'm anti-white? True I am a bit of a reactionary and I would say I'm a-racial simply because I don't feel its an accurate scientific classification. But I suppose in the name of culture, which does carry weight with me, carry-on carry-on.
sumitgill 2 years ago
A world without borders WOULD eventually destroy European ethnic existence just as a Tibet without borders would destroy the Tibetan culture. A distinct ethnic culture cannot survive if it is diluted with millions of foreigners.
Put another way - if you took a Star Trek convention and mixed it with a Star Wars convention, you'd end up with a Science Fiction convention. Nothing wrong with that of course, but the "special-ness" of the Star Trek convention would be lost.
utube9000 2 years ago
I'm liking what I see. I hope that this is the path that white youth take: spiritual secession from the corporate multicult butthole that America has become.
CrimeReport 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I really don't believe segregation should be a part of anarchism. Saying where people should and should not live doesn't seem to be very anti-authoritarian (thinking independently here).
Verdruc 2 years ago 4
There is no need to apologize, have a great time in the multicultural wonderland you believe to be yours. For me and my tribe we believe differently and we will not allow people like you to tell us that we cannot live the lifestyle we choose with the kind of people we choose. That is called freedom of association. Thank you for your comment.
BANA0907 2 years ago
I completely agree that you should be able to hang out with who you want, but please dont call it anarchism or adopt any of our symbols,we have enough problems with misrepresentation already.I've been to your website and have seen what you promote and your just racists looking for a facelift.I have real tribalist friends that would like to reconnect with their cultural european heritage and they dont give 2 shits if obamas prez or if gay people have parades....
kviapunx 2 years ago
Thanks for your opinions but as anarchists: we have problems with presidents period, throwing the race card into that issue is disingenuous. Tribalists are allowed to form under any basis they want. Our issues with children being allowed into an S&M event and indecency is our issue with those events, not "gays on parade." We speak for the people find that offensive and we speak on behalf of the diverse white American people whose interests are not represented by the system you are defending.
BANA0907 2 years ago
You can be gay and not piss on people on the street or offend other people.
BANA0907 2 years ago
"please don't adopt any of OUR symbols"
Gee, I thought Anarchists didn't believe in property! LOL
utube9000 2 years ago
By the same token, telling white people that they MUST live with blacks is also authoritarian. If you scratch the surface of multiculturalism, you'll find authoritarianism at it's core.
The New World Order has an agenda - destroy all individual nations and replace them with a global system of control that is run by a tiny elite.
Multiculturalism is being used as a tool to achieve that goal. By mixing up all of the world's people they are herding us like cows into their NWO corral.
utube9000 2 years ago
right wing anarchists....long overdo...
great video...
BohemianNationalist 2 years ago 2
Does anyone else see the irony in the name of this group? Is it intentional?
Ivannahumpalo1 2 years ago 2
great video!!!!!!!!
wquinn225 3 years ago
. Therefore every community building must be based om mutual consent both of those who apply for membership and those who decide to welcome or not welcome new neighbours. This is the essence of autonomy. National-Anarchists like myself therefore claims as a fundamental principle or right to live according to our own bliefs while at the same time tolerate others convictions. Borders are constructed by mutual autonomous consent.
FAS4NA 3 years ago
Makes Anarchist Sense to me
AnarchistUprising 2 years ago
bobin26
You are in fact wrong. Anarchist philosophy can be divided in a spectrum of beliefs - some of them proponents of open communities for everyone, others are however more consistent to the fundamental basis of voluntary cooperation and community: that communitarian freedom not only is a positive possibility to move wherever you want, but also that you have a right to constraint those who do not share your belief i.e capitalist companies and others, from entering your community
FAS4NA 3 years ago
If you believe there should be borders to countries beyond what exist in reality (like oceans and mountain ranges), you are not an anarchist, period. The rights of a collectivity to "preserve it's culture" cannot transcend the rights of an individual to travel unrestricted by imaginary lines in the sand.
That is all that needs to be said.
bobin26 3 years ago 14
Your theory about allowing anyone to go unrestricted into peoples homes and communities is a foolhardy gesture that shows no understanding of the fundamental motivations of human behavior patterns. How can your world traveler survive "anywhere they chose" if not by committing crimes and stealing?Just like how I have locks on my door to my home and workplace my city should be able to put a lock on who they allow into the community. The results of not doing so are sadly far to common and tragic.
BANA0907 3 years ago
Bullfuck. The analogy you draw between putting a lock on your door and a line on your map is deficient two times over. Firstly, the door lock exists in reality. Do you advocate building a continent-wide fence between the US and Mexico, much less EVERY OTHER BORDER between all 196 modern nations of the world?
Secondly, how can they survive? The same way you survive, dumbass. By contributing toward the community! But no, you xenophobes won't even permit them the oppurtunity.
bobin26 3 years ago 10
a lock is a real, solid and sound barrier, and a good one.
But an armed border guard is even better.
invictus14 3 years ago
Anti-gay culture jammers! You guys take a little bit of everything and twist it together...
cryptsub 3 years ago 6
@3:00 conclusion : fascism and communism are the same , the only difference is fascism belongs to the right and communism to the left. Both are totalitarian and prohibit the other-wing ideologies.
chibikain 3 years ago
You people are giving Anarchism a bad name. Don't you realize that nations are imaginary lines drawn around private property, enforced by the laws of the State? By what right do you claim America as your own? Not even the true Native Americans believed the land belonged to anyone, and you all are descendants of the immigrant "invaders" who took the land from it's original inhabitants. If what you want is State authority to carry out racial purification, what you are is FASCIST !
delibertad 3 years ago
"Not even the actual Native Americans claimed the land could be "owned" by anyone" That my friend is comical to say the least. So you are saying that the indians would allow anyone to live in their villages and do whatever they want? Like eat their food and grab at their women with no repercussions? Man you're crazy. The native americans have nothing in common with contemporary anarchism other than tribalism anyway.
BANA0907 3 years ago
The native americans had territories where they lived, and cultural boundaries that kept others from encroaching, but they didn't start claiming "property rights" until they were compelled to speak in the white man's language, to defend their right to exist as they had been doing. So-called "primitive" cultures don't claim to own the world, as "civilized" people do. This is their main difference, and the root reason our civilization is leading humanity to extinction!
delibertad 3 years ago
I'm sorry that I do not sympathize with the American Indian situation you describe. They DID NOT promote the lifestyle or principles of an anarchist society. There is nothing in common with classical anarchist social theory and the american indian lifestyle, you are living in a fantasy land if you think otherwise. But besides that, since their cultures failed to meet challenges to their way of life, how could "indian anarchists" do otherwise against global capitalism? They would fail.
BANA0907 3 years ago
States are imaginary lines ,nations are not.
State : land
Nation : people native to that land.
chibikain 3 years ago 2
Nationalism of any kind is not Anarchist. Nations are imaginary lines drawn around private property, enforced by the laws of the State. What gives you the right to claim America as your property? Not even the actual Native Americans claimed the land could be "owned" by anyone. If what you want is to have the authority of the State as your own, in order to carry out a program of racial purification, then what you are is Fascist - THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF ANARCHIST!
delibertad 3 years ago 8
"What gives you the right to claim America as your property?" I (and by extension "we") don't claim America is ours, we do however reserve tribal areas to be organized independently of any federal system.
BANA0907 3 years ago
It is about time that you learn what Fascisme is, the core of Fascisme is capitalist with a state where the people serve the state and are completly controlled by the state. thus National Anarchism can never be fascistic. Also it has nothing to do with the traditional nationalisme since there is no believe in states, but in autonomous communities run by like minded individuals. we can truly speak about anarchism like any other form of it!
If you want it or not you can`t deny facts!
NSATV 3 years ago
what do you mean when u say "reject tolerance, National Anarchists"?
THEHITMANPROJECT 3 years ago 4
Tolerance is the demand to remain apathetic about different lifestyle choices that are unacceptable to you.
BANA0907 3 years ago
Don't choose them then.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
This video gives a good idea of the core principles of National-Anarchism. We stand for the protection of individual and cultural liberty over the expanding controls of liberalism and globalisation. Tomorrow belongs to us!
NationalAnarchist23 3 years ago 2
Great video.
Keep up the excellent work and the best of luck to you!
SocialistPhalanx 3 years ago
I dont know If I agree entirely with the planned "outline" but you are right, a new social alternative is needed, if you can be that alternative then all the best of luck too you.
Jamesascot 3 years ago 2
These videos are awesome. It's about time someone started to say what we've all been thinking. It's time for a REAL SOCIAL ALTERNATIVE! The National Anarchists ARE that alternative!
michaelfreeman79 3 years ago
good stuff guys
lukesgd 3 years ago 3