*Note on Racial Separatism » National Anarchist Tribal Alliance – New York

Sean Gabb

Very well, no one seems inclined to reply to Robert Henderson’s attacks on market economics. Does anyone feel up to commenting on this bizarre but interesting – and possibly sincere – attempt to fuse anarchism and white nationalism? SIG

Note on Racial Separatism

by Craig FitzGerald

This was written by NATA-NY to be an insert for placement in the first issue of Tribal Resonance, as a note on the section entitled “Racial Separatism“. We wrote this note in response to emails we received asking our position on this subject. It is also for the benefit of those who have made judgments about NA based on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s smear and disinformation campaigns, and for those who see ethno-separatism as antithetical to Anarchism.

Neither the National Anarchist philosophy nor the National Anarchist Tribal Alliance – New York (NATA-NY) is inherently racially separatist. As true Anarchists who believe in the principles of liberty, free association, decentralization, community autonomy, local/individual sovereignty, self determination and mutual aid, we reject any and all coercive measures to homogenize our rich and independent cultures and peoples. NATA-NY concurs that every ethnicity has the right to exist and maintain its people/nation without intervention from outside forces.

As Anarchists who value individual uniqueness and are wary of collectivization, we hope that one would not immediately seek to pigeonhole National Anarchism as automatically racially separatist. Based on the libertarian and highly localized nature of the ideology, some National Anarchists support and desire to live in racially separate communities, while others do not. National Anarchists (including NATA-NY) reject the modern mainstream anarchist movement’s hypocritical support of non-white ethnocentric organization and separatism, whilea white separatism is regarded as a racist and counter-productive philosophy that must be exterminated (along with its proponents). National Anarchists equally support the right of all races, ethnicities and cultural groups to organize and live separately. We advocate local community autonomy and reject mainstream anarchism’s embrace of dominant left-wing cultural politics (e.g., multiculturalism and open borders), countercultural lifestyle matters (e.g., pedophile rights), and liberal pet causes (e.g., global warming, gun control, internationalism, abortion rights/population control and political correctness).

National Anarchists hold that the trend of “antiracism” and “multiculturalism,” rather than educating the public about the diverse cultures around the world, has only served to create a “gray race” of modern drones who lack any connection to heritage or history, and animosity in those who seek to preserve their familial and ethnic customs. By preserving local heritages, it is possible to counter the homogenization and cultural eradication of globalism. Thus, National Anarchism, is not racist or supremacist, and does not support violence motivated by these misguided ideologies. As Tribal Resonance states: “The maxim of the future will be respect for others and unity in diversity.”

While some individual National Anarchist groups may be racially separate, NATA-NY is not one group, but an alliance or confederacy of individual Anarchs (sovereigns) and independent tribes, some of which see racial organization as vital to survival, while others are culturally diverse. As the NATA-NY mission statement says:

“We seek …to bridge the gaps between diverse independent groups that agree on one principle: radical decentralized autonomy. […] NATA-NY is a confederation… based on freedom, self-determination, and self-reliance. […] The “nation” in National Anarchism does not refer to a government, state, or arbitrary borders. Rather, a Nation, or a Tribe, is simply a community or group of people working together for common lifestyles and goals. Tribes can be created based on infinite factors, including geographic locality, religion, ethnicity, subculture, ideology, sexual orientation, or occupation. No unifying element should be ignored or disrespected; in other words, anything and everything can be a basis for Tribal organization.”

*Note on Racial Separatism » National Anarchist Tribal Alliance – New York

4 responses to “*Note on Racial Separatism » National Anarchist Tribal Alliance – New York

  1. Well, they don’t seem to be White Nationalists or whatever…

    They just recognise that there is a hypocrisy about other ethnic groups being allowed and encouraged in their ethnic identity politics while any expression of white identity is treated as taboo.

    They also say that they are against coercive social engineering and that if people wish to freely associate in ethnic groups that should not be forcibly prevented.

    All this is stated in a very roundabout way, no doubt due to the element of thoughtcrime involved in any discussion of ethnic politics but it is basically unobjectional, the nub being that people should be free to associate with whom they wish and free from coercion.

    I expect them to be ignored as irrelevant but if they come to any prominence then i expect them to be denounced as Nazi’s.

  2. i dont see any problem with the above whatsoever. certainly seems perfectly rational and compatible with anarchist principles as i understand them. there is no implication of coercive expulsion or, more importantly, no coercive inclusion.

    perhaps the best illustration of a completely rational approach to voluntary communities that today is classed as thoughtcrime appeared in an episode of ‘Louis Theroux’s Weird Weekends.’ Louis visited a white supremacist community in the USA. upon asking a member of the community whether a black man would feel comfortable visiting their community the supremacist replied ‘why would he want to?’ by choosing this example i am in no way endorsing supremacist politics but rather attempting to highlight the coercive nature of state driven integration. that a community may want to exclude certain individuals from their private community and additionally such individuals have no desire to go anywhere near such people anyway. so why does the state stomp all over property rights and start forcing individuals against their will?

    state systems around the world and throughout history seem unable to resist applying their coercive power to either segregation or integration. would it be so bad to leave people to organise voluntarily? cosmopolitianists could enjoy their private communities and systems and individuals desiring to live in more exclusive communities would be equally free to do so. the article expands the point beyond mere ethnicity;
    “Tribes can be created based on infinite factors, including geographic locality, religion, ethnicity, subculture, ideology, sexual orientation, or occupation. No unifying element should be ignored or disrespected; in other words, anything and everything can be a basis for Tribal organization.”
    exclusive organisation based on some of those factors is considered acceptable by current statist politics but there is no consistency in the contemporary attitude.
    in a stateless society everything would be private. there would be no rights other than those mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by all relevant parties. any form of individualism should through a rational application of the principle of self ownership arrive at such a conclusion. the alternative is collectivist authoritarian totalitarianism.

    on the subject of borders and immigration – without a state there would be no state borders. voluntary groups of individuals may desire to maintain current geographic boundaries at whatever level of exclusion they want or entirely new borders may appear. some theories of the sovereign individual posit a nation of one with a border extending no further than the property of self ownership. however in anarchy any voluntary form of organisation and therefore any scale of border is possible – familial homesteads, gated streets or housing estates, walled conurbations, city states, sovereign counties or regions. certain nationalist movements within the uk spring to mind – yorkshire, cornwall, scotland etc. the free state project in newhampshire is an example of voluntary migration to a geographical area where individuals in the community share certain principles. dare i suggest it that some communities would become free to enact their own systems of governance within their exclusive, private property – for example sharia law. polycentric legal systems could not be coerced into cooperation by any central monopoly of force so if no other legal system wanted to insure trade between its members and any system it deemed economically or legally dubious then that unpopular system would have to keep itself to itself.
    the fear of open borders under a state system is that due to the common ‘social goods and services’ provided by money taken by the state allowing immigrants use of such goods and services will be, in effect, allowing them to steal from the incumbent population of tax payers.
    in anarchy there can be no coercive ‘public goods’ such as free access to roads that have actually been built and maintained by lifetimes of taxpayments. an individual will only be able to make use of what he is voluntarily permitted to do so by the private owners. perhaps he willl pay the road toll or perhaps it is a road in a shopping complex provided free to all in exchange for the anticipated custom. whatever the case, a system where nothing is handed out on a plate probably wouldnt present such a tempting option to the would be immigrant. on the other hand such a place would perhaps have a similar lure to the opportunist as the historical USA but again without coercive integration idividuals would be free to organise exclusive or cosmopolitan communities both of which can be seen in the history of the emergent north america.

  3. let me also say that given the total freedom to sign up to services from legal systems to refuse collection which also enjoy the freedom to discriminate, individuals may finally have to confront the reality of their preferences. i mean that by signing up to a service that excludes a proportion of the total available market then necessarily cost to the individual will be higher. i realise that the attraction of exclusivity can command a premium and therefore overcome potential pressures on profits – country clubs etc. but such a model seems unlikely to apply to Tesco for example – or in the context of an anarchist future roads and legal systems. how many people would pay enough extra to cover the loss of a whole section of society from Tesco’s customer base if they took a dislike to their presence in the same retail outlet?

  4. SG: bizarre but interesting … attempt to fuse anarchism and white nationalism

    What’s bizarre about it? Looks pretty straightforward to me. And it’s not really attempting a fusion of anarchism and WNism – which would only mean a bunch of Wnists pursuing Wnism anyway – it’s just a declaration that in their alliance they’ll accept groups organising under any and every principle, including racial or ethnic ones.

    will: so why does the state stomp all over property rights and start forcing individuals against their will

    There’s the general eternal problem of the state, of course, but if we really want to be honest the West-wide regime of the day is itself an alien minority at the top. This accounts for 99.999999% of the mania against letting the native majority suit itself. We might just find our interests differ from theirs.