Posts Tagged ‘communism


Dark Green Romanticism

by the Tasmanian National-Anarchists

The recent revelations demolishing the consensus on ‘manmade global warming’ have done immense damage to the cause of ecology. These scandals are a direct result of the hijacking of the environmental movement by the extreme Left (and please note, by ‘Left’ we refer exclusively to the globalist Left, not the old fashioned left which just wanted a fair go for the worker). The Left hitched its wagon to the ‘manmade warming’ theory because it appeared to give them a perfect excuse to bring about their cherished aim of global governance. As a result, ecology has been reduced to a matter of ‘carbon emissions’.

But now even Phil Jones, the top level scientist who advised the UN on climate matters, has gone on record admitting there has been no warming in the last fifteen years:

Meanwhile, in Germany, the Greens Party seems to have abandoned its concern for the natural world, instead focussing its attention on politically correct enterprises like supporting the bombing of Belgrade (all those Serbs had to be killed for ‘humanitarian’ reasons, according to German Green leaders).

The green movement, which started with noble intentions, has clearly been subverted from within by globalists. It is now time for genuine environmentalists to examine where their movement is headed, and to assess how much damage has been done by these Leftist infiltrators.

In our view, the hijacking of the ecology movement by the Left has done massive amounts of damage, not only in terms of the reduction of ecology to phony statements about ‘carbon emissions’, but also by alienating the common folk from the movement by hitching environmentalism to currents which most people don’t agree with (e.g. ‘progressivist’ causes, and increased statism).

Strength and Beauty

The truth is, we need wilderness areas not because they function as utilitarian ‘carbon sinks’ (a disgusting term) but because they enable us to transcend the mundane. We need a non-human world of beauty and terror for warriors and dreamers to lose themselves in.

Environmental aesthetics shouldn’t just extend to wilderness areas, however. They are equally important in the human environment. Towns and villages, too, are ecosystems, with both human and natural elements. Ecology means opposing the sterile, cosmopolitan ugliness of our modern cities, and replacing this with meaningful and beautiful folkish architecture which is unique to each place, thereby rejecting the internationalism which makes London look like Sydney look like Paris look like Madrid.

It also means destroying corporate advertising billboards.

Famed Tasmanian wilderness photographer Olegas Truchanas once asked: “Is there any reason why the idea of beauty could not become part of government policy?” Unfortunately this can never happen under the current liberal system, because liberalism regards the idea of ‘beauty’ as deeply suspect, perhaps even as ‘fascist’.

The Many-Too-Many

Most of our environmental problems stem, directly or indirectly, from the one cause: overpopulation.

Overpopulation is not merely a threat to quality of life, either – it also exacerbates the danger of global tyranny by promoting large scale societies, more easily brought under control by a centralised world government. Although population levels in the Western world are starting to decline, in the so-called ‘Third World’ they are booming. Perhaps the best way to combat overpopulation is by supporting movements to promote birth control in the Third World.

But quantity isn’t the only concern. Quality is just as important, and humans in the West are becoming more stupid and slovenly with each generation. Television and the liberal education system are dumbing down the populace like never before.

Guillaume Faye observed that “the technocratic civilisation operates an intense selective pressure in favour of human types who are oriented towards such dispositions as economic aggression, submission to doctrine, devotion to certain norms of physical comfort and so forth. Such a pressure is genetically deleterious.”

So how can we reverse this genetic, mental and spiritual decline, without the use of governments or coercion?

Only through a new spirituality…

‘Let us be wild! Let us be pagans!’

Paganism needs to be reclaimed from the Wiccan stereotypes (Wicca isn’t paganism, it’s a feminised version of Judeo-Christianity with a Goddess instead of a God). Real paganism is folkish, and folkish spirituality goes hand in hand with environmentalism. Preserving the health of the folk is just as important as preserving the health of the ecosystem.

Environmentalism was created in Europe in the 19th century, not by globalists or communists, but by FOLKISH NATIONALISTS. Many of these early environmentalists supported the Nation State, but in our own time nationalists should directly oppose the State, because the State (acting as an arm of globalism) is crushing regional identities all over the world.

To be a nationalist today means supporting the struggle of ALL tribes and nations to maintain their identity in the face of globalist monoculture.

Gerhard Petak from the band Allerseelen wrote: “Folkish is today a dangerous word. Like the words home, roots, loyalty it is situated in the cross wires of an omnipresent brainwashing. Those who use this word are pushed close to the Third Reich. But the foreign policy of the Third Reich was not folkish at all. The principle that the peoples were different, but equal of birth, was not taken into consideration.”

Petak also believes that scientific developments and technology cannot be undone, for better or worse. It may be possible for some individuals to lead a luddite lifestyle, but technology itself can never be abolished. Instead, it must be transcended:

“Tradition and future, spirituality and technology, wisdom and science, mythos and logos have to meet without fighting, destroying each other. That is the difficulty, the art of alchemy. A green paganism has to be conservative avant garde, in some areas conservative, in others revolutionary.”

Which way forward?

Greens must begin by rejecting their support for open borders immigration, which only benefits the capitalists they claim to oppose. The fact that so many greens sympathise with the Left is remarkable, given the bad track record of Communist regimes towards the environment.

Ecologists also need to adopt a more warrior outlook – that is the only way they will ever get respect from the public. Steve Irwin had a warrior demeanour and was greatly respected, even by those who hate ‘greenies’ and ‘ferals’. Germaine Greer, on the other hand, attacked Irwin after his death (for this very trait) but is not well loved. Ironically (given Greer’s feminist views), more women would sympathise with Steve Irwin than they would with her.

Joe Sixpack has come to see the green movement as the provenance of dreadlocked, arrogant communists. To counter this, the green movement as a whole must cut its ties to the Left, and instead forge ties with national revolutionary groups who believe in genuine self-sufficiency. It must also attempt to build better ties with ordinary people.

The creation of smaller groups of activists and thinkers, people who are already on equal terms, is probably the best way to go (to avoid the ego clashes and ‘messiah complexes’ so common in politics). Large movements are open to Leftist or government infiltration. Think small.

And finally, while the green movement’s rejection of modern society is understandable (given how shallow that society is in many regards), greens must not be blinded to human potential. Man and nature have their own spheres, but they aren’t rigidly separate. The spheres are interlinked materially through the common biosphere, and culturally through the inspiration wild nature has always provided for artists, poets and philosophers. We owe nature a duty of care first and foremost because we owe ourselves a duty of care.

Heidegger wrote that the role of mankind is “to enable the earth to bring forth a world.” That is the eternal Faustian quest which Western man must engage with, or die.

The only alternative is the triumph of materialism.

In other words: the triumph of the Left.


Just What the Hell is ‘Socialism’?

Just What the Hell is ‘Socialism’?

by the Tasmanian National-Anarchists

Some anarchists claim that anarchism is a form of ‘libertarian socialism’, while others claim that anarchism is totally opposed to socialism and everything it stands for. This begs the question: what exactly is ‘socialism’?

‘Socialism’ is, in fact, a highly ambiguous term. This short article looks at what socialism is, or rather what it claims to be, and whether National-Anarchists (i.e. tribal anarchists) could be called ‘socialist’ in any way, and to what degree.


Proudhon’s definition of a socialist was “one who hopes for the improvement of society”, but that is far too vague. By this definition, almost everyone is a socialist. Spengler’s claim that “all world improvers are socialists” is equally open to dispute; some capitalists see themselves as ‘world improvers’ too, however misguided they might be.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines socialism as “a theory or system of social organisation which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land etc. in the community as a whole”…but it is unclear from this what is meant by ‘community’.

This ambiguity over what constitutes the ‘community’ or ‘social unit’ has led to many divergences between socialists, as socialists themselves have been both nationalist and internationalist, both cultural and economic in outlook. There is no one all-embracing kind of socialism.

But something many self-described socialists do have in common is a desire for more justice (which for some, but not all, is bound up with the idea of ‘equality’), often at the price of less freedom.

Not all socialists are opposed to hierarchy (Plato’s ‘Republic’ is socialist, but advocates a hierarchical caste system, for instance) but they ARE opposed to hierarchies which they see as being unjustified, i.e. lacking justice. Socialists are hostile to a ‘might is right’ kind of worldview not because they hate power per se, but because such power is seen as lacking justification (i.e. justice).

One potential negative quality inherent in socialism is the way it can lead to the resentment of higher or noble qualities. Too many socialists seem to want to make kings into peasants, rather than the other way around.

Another fault many (but not all) socialists possess is puritanism – they dislike things they see as being ‘useless’. This probably stems partly from Christianity and its hold over the European collective unconscious, but that doesn’t explain it entirely, as the same puritanical streak can also be found in socialists from non-European backgrounds, e.g. Islamic socialists.

This hostility to ‘uselessness’ means many socialists see whatever doesn’t further ‘the cause’ as being worthless – be it art, sport, religion, romance or love (Marxist regimes have taken this hostility to the extreme, liquidating or putting in concentration camps anyone seen as useless or reactionary).

Because of this hostility, socialists have often been portrayed as ‘joyless’, and it is true that certain socialists seem to regard any kind of happiness with suspicion.

But there are many exceptions to the rule…indeed, we can say that socialism, at its best, means having a strong sense of justice; at worst it means being motivated by resentment and envy.

National-Anarchists generally like a beer and a laugh and are far from puritanical, so we don’t really fit into this second category of socialist. But we do empathise with a different kind of socialism, one based on a communitarian version of justice (as opposed to a hyper-egalitarian one).

Before returning to this theme, let’s take a look at some of the main groups usually regarded as ‘socialist’:


Ironically, the ultra-materialist and anti-religious doctrine of Karl Marx has much in common with monotheistic religion – the iconography, the prophets etc. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given Marx was the son of a rabbi (and also, we might add, a kind of Jewish anti-semite who wrote racist diatribes against his own people).

The key to Marxism’s success was its adoption of the 19th century ‘progress’ paradigm: Marxists claimed (and still claim) that their form of socialism is ‘inevitable’, that its eventual triumph has been ‘scientifically proven’ by Marx. But in seeking to make socialism ‘scientific’, Marx made it soulless in the process.

Marxism is a product of the 19th century in its belief that society works like a machine; in this it is a typical byproduct of capitalism. Capitalism and Marxism are alike in their notion of ‘progress’, with ‘useless’ or ‘reactionary’ elements being swept aside or trampled under.

Marxist regimes have murdered over 100 million people in the last century, and it goes without saying that National-Anarchists oppose this hateful ideology and all that it stands for.


Bolshevism claimed to put Marxist theory into practice, but like its sister movement fascism it was essentially a soldier’s movement (the word ‘comrade’ is military in origin). As Michael Walker astutely pointed out, finance capitalists loved bolshevism but hated fascism, while industrial capitalists loved fascism but hated bolshevism.

While National-Anarchists might respect bolsheviks for their courage and fighting skills, we have no sympathy whatsoever for their tyrannical political aims.


Ranging from the ‘elite’ upper crust (satirised by Tom Wolfe as ‘radical chic’) to the standard upper-middle class types who frequently harp about the benefits of third world immigration (while conveniently not having to live in the same neighbourhoods as the worst of the immigrants), these are the most numerically common type of ‘socialist’ found in Tasmania (and probably in the Western world as a whole).

These ‘socialists’ are happy to compromise with capitalism if the latter is seen as somehow ‘reforming’ itself. Lenin famously described them as ‘useful idiots’, for the way they helped further the cause of internationalism and tyranny, while still claiming to be democratic and liberal.


Marxists mainly come from upper-middle class backgrounds, and have frequently been disappointed by the proletarians they claim to side with. Proletarians tend not to be internationalist in outlook; they generally don’t want revolution – merely an improvement of their and their family’s lot.

For this reason, in the 1960s, the so-called New Left arose, fixating on groups other than traditional proletarians they could exploit for ideological purposes. Immigrants and gays were the two favourite groups. For this reason, New Left socialists talk of ‘rights’ (not responsibility) for groups they want to exploit – immigrants, gays etc. – but ‘responsibilities’ (not rights) for the average Joe Sixpack.

As stated, their main aim seems to be to exploit minority groups, who they believe will help them usher in a hyper-egalitarian world order. But not all the minority groups actually share this aim, and for that reason one must feel a bit sorry for the ‘New’ Left types (whose ideas are actually getting pretty old by now).

The most noteworthy thing about the New Left is its high level of funding in proportion to overall membership. New Left groups like ‘Resistance’ and ‘Socialist Alternative’ have very few members, but seemingly endless supplies of materials, organisers etc., which means they must have some pretty wealthy backers. Not really surprising, as finance capitalists also bankrolled the Bolsheviks in 1917.


Besides the so-called ‘scientific’ kinds of socialism, there is also a ‘socialism of the heart’.

Socialism does not mean ultra-egalitarianism – there is nothing in the word ‘socialism’ which implies that it does. Nor do all socialists blindly believe in the ‘inevitability of progress’, especially when the word ‘progress’ has come to mean ‘making things worse than they already were’.

Socialists certainly want more justice – but that doesn’t entail buying into the hyper-egalitarian dogmas of the extreme left.

People are reluctant to work for the good of an intangible ‘All’. They simply won’t make sacrifices for abstractions like “a completely non-hierarchical society,” and nor do most of them even want one. Several generations of Soviet socialism produced, as one commentator notes, “not even the slightest manifestation of the antlike social altruism which would cause workers to work because they want to.”

Ironically, ‘proletarian internationalism’ works best only as a motivating force for upper-middle class communists!

But if ‘equality’ is an abstraction, COMMUNITY, on the other hand, is real – there is nothing abstract or intangible about one’s local community. If socialism means a refusal of social fragmentation, then National-Anarchists are definitely socialist. We regard ‘socialism’ as being valid if it truly means ‘social man’ – and not merely ‘equal man’, as some would have us believe.

To again quote Michael Walker: “Socialist initiatives are doomed to failure if the community of social members is not united by a common belief or identity which distinguishes it. In life [it is] the organism which wants to succeed.”

It seems like the more our technology progresses, the less we actually understand our own nature.

A genuinely scientific socialism would acknowledge ethnic identity as a reality, despite the claims of 20th century pseudo-science that it doesn’t exist. As Bakunin stated, “Diversity in capacities and powers – those differences between races, nations, sexes and persons – far from being a social evil, constitutes on the contrary, the abundance of humanity.”

National-Anarchists could be called tribal socialists or, if you prefer, communitarians. We agree with Georges Sorel that human beings identify with a tribe first and foremost.

Today these tribes still exist in various shapes and forms – but they are emasculated by the consumer society. One of the goals of National-Anarchism is give the tribes their power back.

Join us!

counter for wordpress

National-Anarchism: the Political Adventure of the 21st Century

Reclaiming anarchism from the universalist 'Left'...reclaiming nationalism from the jingoist 'Right'...