Tradition and Revolution: Collected Writings of Troy Southgate

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 15 March 2008 18:22.

The following review by Andreas Faust of Troy Southgate’s book of selected essays and poetry, Tradition & Revolution, provides a good introduction to that strand of thought which is National Anarchism.

The social context for NA is that efforts by political nationalism to turn the clock back demographically cannot succeed, and a widespread social and economic collapse is both inevitable and to be welcomed. It will provide an opportunity for the re-seeding of traditional European folkways at a local level. Indeed, NA argues, without it the white remnant will have no spiritual foundation from which to face the rigours of ethnic conflict.

NA might be seen as an ark in the worst-case scenario. Some aspects of it leave me perplexed - the Wodenism, for instance, which appears gratuitous and artificial. But NA is gathering adherents throughout the West, and Troy is certainly its leading spirit. It is worth knowing about.
GW

‘Tradition and Revolution: Collected Writings of Troy Southgate’

This book contains a varied selection of essays, poems, and other short written pieces by Troy Southgate, one of the founders of the philosophy known as National-Anarchism. National-Anarchism is a cultural current rather than an organisation. It is a long-term strategy. N-A developed simultaneously in England, France and Germany, in just the same way that modern Odinism simultaneously sprang up in at least four different countries in the early 1970s.

N-A is a form of anarchism which has no roots in the political left, but neither is it right-wing. It differs from the ‘mainstream’ anarchist movement in its support for racial separatism (amongst other things), but at the same time has no problem with those who want to establish mixed-race communities also. As Southgate puts it: “We have no desire to rule over an administrative structure or disaffected population of any kind [...] Whilst they choose their own destinies, we shall choose ours.”

If N-A took off on a wide scale, this would theoretically lead to a series of independent communities, which “may or may not wish to form part of a confederated alliance”. Each community, of course, would be primed for self-defence. The regional alliance or federation would support any group of individuals wishing to found a separate community to preserve their own identity – regardless of what that identity might be.

So, has the book converted this reviewer to National-Anarchism? Well, hmmm, hmmm…I believe it might have. I still dislike the term. But on the other hand I can’t really think of a better one. On explaining the concept to a friend recently, he pointed out that as soon as you start throwing the word ‘anarchist’ about, it will automatically turn people away. The word has become linked with images of violence, chaos, disorder…sinister men in black balaclavas throwing bombs.

But who exactly should the term appeal to? The conservatively inclined probably wouldn’t support the doctrine anyway, even if wrapped in more soothing packaging. The term ‘National-Anarchist’, on the other hand, is likely to appeal to the young and rebellious, whose minds might not as yet be stultified. And as Tord Morsund notes in his introduction, N-A is not chaotic at all, but is a strategy that starts with the individual, then progresses to the family, the community, village, town etc. There is a need to reclaim the term ‘anarchy’, which N-A is certainly contributing towards doing.

The ‘black bloc’ left-wing anarchists seen spray-painting walls at many an anti-globalist demo probably wouldn’t know what to do if the State ever collapsed, as they claim they wish to happen. But N-A is already planning for such eventualities. And N-A has the added benefit of confusing people’s political preconceptions by mixing up ‘left-’ and ‘right-wing’ symbolism, thus forcing people to step outside their preconceived thought patterns (which only serve the globalist agenda).

The first essay in the book, ‘Transcending the Beyond’, is as close to an N-A ‘mission statement’ as there is. N-A originally emerged from a movement called the ‘International Third Position’, which rightly recognised that communism was not an antidote to capitalism but actually a “symptom and product” of it. But while these ‘third positionists’ were committed to going beyond the ‘two C’s (capitalism and communism), “National-Anarchists have taken things one step further by actually transcending the very notion of beyond.” In other words, they have rejected the concept of the State itself, aiming towards ‘independent enclaves’. They have maintained a belief in racial separatism but no longer want to impose that belief on others. So N-A is to political theory, then, what heathenism is to religion.

People like Southgate have been described by some fanatical leftists as ‘fascists’, but even a cursory glance at their ideas will show this to be untrue. Southgate regards the fascist regimes in general as having been ‘reactionary charlatans’ who used nationalism as a cloak to disguise their sympathy for international capital. He does see value in certain ‘fascist’ groups, like the Romanian Iron Guard (who he believes were genuine nationalists, not reactionaries). The Iron Guard’s ‘nest’ system of organisation and its lack of authoritarian hierarchy (leadership had to be earned, leaders benevolent and cheerful, not gloomy, and willing to sacrifice themselves along with their men) all give it common ground with National-Anarchism.

N-A itself achieves the difficult feat of being both non-authoritarian and meritocratic. Meritocratic because it encourages greatness to rise to the top…unlike capitalism, which elevates a pseudo-aristocracy based on greed, ensuring many worthy people are unable to rise to their natural level. But also non-authoritarian in the sense that it doesn’t seek power over those who don’t share its vision…which would be throwing pearls before swine in any case. N-A communities would also have little need for internal policing…Southgate quotes John Pfeiffer to the extent that an “organic society has no need for policing practices until the population has exceeded more than 500 persons. This is because 500 is considered to be the maximum number of people that one person could possibly know.” (my italics)

What is the relation of N-A to nationalism, then? Southgate originally called himself a ‘Revolutionary Nationalist’ (or ‘Social Nationalist’), and nationalism itself, as he often states, is beyond left and right (contrary to the media claim that it’s ‘right-wing’). It could fairly be said, then, that N-A is an updated form of nationalism, one better suited to the practical situation that nationalists in the modern world face. He illustrates this by a quote from Roger Bacon: “He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils.”

But while this may be well and good in Europe or North America, what about Australia or New Zealand…thinly populated lands ripe for the taking by two populous empires directly to the north (Indonesia and China), as soon as the American ally’s power declines. Would N-A perhaps have a negative effect in Australasia, weakening our capacity for self defence? The main Australasian exponent of N-A is Welf Herfurth, resident in Sydney. Herfurth’s idea, as formulated in a recent interview, seems to be that Australia should consist of a patchwork quilt of different communities, all completely independent, but co-operating in the important matter of foreign policy. So these entities would not be completely independent, but would constitute a kind of bloc or casual federation.

That don’t sound so bad…although there is another issue there should also be consensus on – the environment. Cultural independence won’t do us any good if there isn’t any land to be inhabited, all being soil-degraded or flooded. Overpopulation, of course, has much to do with this, and Southgate himself is pessimistic. He thinks there is nothing we can realistically do to check overpopulation, and that nature herself will eventually take care of the matter, possibly via a plague or sequence of natural disasters. All that’s left to do, he believes, is to harden ourselves to this fact, and to concentrate on preserving those lives that can be preserved (i.e. those who have the will to survive).

What kind of practical strategies does Southgate propose for promoting N-A ideals? One tactic he advocates is ‘entryism’...we should not fight the enemy head-on, but from within. This can only occur when there are more National-Anarchists than now. But yes, it is more effective than using the ballot-box. That is how the leftists managed to take over the univerisities in their so-called ‘long march through the institutions’. Open warfare against the State is impossible at this point in time, so entryism may be the best course to pursue. But hand in hand with that, of course, goes the cultural struggle. That is where N-A intersects with the broader and less dogmatic current known as the European New Right.

Like the ENR, Southgate believes that political objectives “must be preceded by a Spiritual Revolution”. We must build from the inside, not the other way around. In line with this, he advocates home-schooling (which he practises in his own family) as one of the best ways of ensuring our traditions are passed on. Southgate demolishes many myths, such as the one that home-schooled children will be ‘sheltered’ or ‘socially naive’...in fact they have better social skills and are shown to be more socially adjusted. They can always join a local sports team or organisation to mix with other kids.

Home-schooled kids are usually better educated than those taught in schools, and have often reached university level by age fourteen. I remember reading an article in the local paper that confirmed this. There’s a time investment, but teaching materials are not very expensive. The next step would be to establish ‘practical learning centres’, where home-school parents can help each other with resources and so forth. On the other hand, the system may crack down on this in future…home-schooling was recently outlawed in California, and as everyone knows, when California sneezes the world catches a cold.

There will also presumably be the need to form vigilante groups, for protection. The existing communities will thank us for this, while the more sensible ‘official’ cops may come to turn a blind eye to it. Troy rightly emphasises the importance of self-defence and fitness skills. But is it enough? The State may use military force against us at a certain point. On the other hand, the State’s promotion of multi-racialism may in turn work against it, as common identities take form out of the increasing chaos. None of us can really say what the future holds…all we can do is to take an idea and try to make it work. N-A is as good an idea as any I’ve heard.

As a kind of added bonus, the book contains Southgate’s chapter-by-chapter analysis of Julius Evola’s book Men Among the Ruins, which will be of benefit to those wish to understand the key concepts of Evola’s political thought but can’t abide Evola’s constipated writing style. The book also contains two fascinating esoteric essays. One is called ‘A Sussex Swan: the Wodenic Mysteries of a Small English Town,’ and concerns a town named Steyning, full of symbolism relating to the constellation of Cygnus the Swan, which Troy believes is at the centre of an English spiritual revival. May the ugly ducklings of our modern towns and cities find their true destiny as swans! As black swans here in the South, of course…

Beachy Head, another Sussex locality, forms an exact contrast to Steyning…as England’s most popular suicide spot, it has lured countless people to literally ‘drop out’ of life. But often those people are amongst the most gifted (and consequently don’t fit in with the modern world). Thus Beachy Head is depriving us of future artists and leaders. Southgate maintains that “something quite cataclysmic is taking place beyond the gaze of the ordinary masses.” He suggests we can counteract this by “re-energising the more authentic points which concord with our spiritual and psychological heritage,” and thus to “raise the banner of the Northern Sun against the lunar-centred darkness that envelopes our land.”

If you don’t believe such a lunar-centred darkness exists, just step around the corner. Welcome to a world where “teenage mothers…old before their time and flanked by hooped earrings and a pink mobile phone,” with “no education” and “no future” rub shoulders with “wealthy businessmen with piggy eyes and sweaty palms,” in a town where “graffiti is scrawled on any available space” and where “imagination and creativity are pushed aside.”

Southgate’s book aims at countering all this. It is intended for both “present and future generations.” It will become a valuable point of reference for the emerging National-Anarchist movement. As the quote at the start of the book says, “the new man is still evolving.” He comes “from the quiet periphery,” but around him “the coming world will henceforth order itself.” Troy maintains that N-A is “the next logical step towards the raising of mankind’s spiritual and intellectual consciousness.” In short, it is “an idea whose time has come.” Let us hope, then, that it proves more powerful than the proverbial marching army.

Reviewed by Andreas Faust

Tags: New Right

Comments:

Posted by Tim on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:26 | #

The wodenism thing left me perplexed too. Don’t quite get what it has to do with being anarchist or not anarchist.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:38 | #

Tim,

Troy posted a message at his forum explaining that:-

N-A does not advocate a specific ‘spiritual foundation’, by the way, people can just as easily be atheist as Wodenist. Can I just add here, by the way, that I am interested in the traditionalist or primordial aspects of Wodenism, it is not my faith or religion.

The other perplexing issue for many, especially the so-called left-libertarians and the more conventional anti-collectivists of the anarcho-capitalist right, is how anarchism can mesh with the claim on the soul of tribe or nation.

Fundamentally, I think, NA is a non-conformist movement before it is a fully worked-out system for living. There is, after all, no pressing need to have everything in place now, when the MultiCult is maybe thirty years away from the crash scenario, and the other side of who knows what seismic events.

Anyway, Troy describes it as organic, so I guess that allows for a certain process of refinement over time.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:42 | #

This link is simply unbelievable. I had to read it twice:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/wgay113.xml

Posted by woodchuck on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:59 | #

Can’t believe anyone takes guys like this seriously. Organic wodenism? Sounds like a Polish breakfast cereal.

Posted by torgrim on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:20 | #

Thanks for this information.

Troy Southgate, his book were unknown to me. However, what he is describing is not new to me.

As Wodenism appeared around 1970 in four differnent nations, so too has what Troy Southgate describes as NA, has also “appeared” seemingly with no organizational structure, but rather a grassroots phenom.

GW;
“Some aspects of it leave me perplexed, the Wodenism, for instance”..

NA and Wodenism makes sense in that both do not follow the modern cultural concepts of left, right politics, or the middle eastern concept of one God, one way.
As an example, from archeological evidence, Christianity was surprisingly early, maybe at least 400 years before official recognition by the Church, to have been practiced in S. Norway, around 600CE. It seems that the older polytheistic cultures of N.Europe were tolerant of Christians. Problems came later as the new order, became dominate and tolerance toward the polytheistic worldview was deemed, wrong. Demonstrating a, one way, left/right, good,bad, cultural modality.

Wodenism and NA,share some things, such as; kinship, in group altruism, self sufficency, long term planning, hence concern for decendents, also tolerance toward those that do not value Wodenism, etc.

As my personal view, Wodenism is not a religion in the sense that it is not “revealed”, by a prophet. Wodenism is not either, to be picked up as a garment, one is born into Wodenism through one’s ancestors.
Wodenism is not faith based, Wodenism is a spiritual concept, experienced, not revealed.

I am looking forward to reading Mr. Southgate’s work.

Posted by Bert Rustle on Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:42 | #

Steve Edwards wrote ... This link is simply unbelievable. I had to read it twice: ... It could be construed as soft enforcement, as by removing the thrill of illegality, the level of participation may be somewhat reduced.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:46 | #

National Anarchism is National Bolshevism for the 21st century (all their heroes are old German Bolshies), and as such of little use.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:59 | #

I’m sure an even better book than Southgate’s, when it comes out ( ... hint ...), will be GW’s ....

I’m teasing, of course ... Seriously though, I think a book by GW recounting the story of how he started this site, what it strives to express and achieve, how the site itself changed his understandings of the issues and original site aims, the important academic figures and other published figures the site has had direct contact with (Prof. Frazer, Prof. Sunic, JWH, James Bowery, and so on) and summaries of their contributions and views, the many and varied other important personalities encountered and dealt with along the way (Kai Murros, CvH, and so on), and his own views on the crisis we find ourselves in, his wider philosophy, any tips he may have to offer on building and managing a political blog, pitfalls to avoid, etc., etc., etc. — I’m convinced if GW ever wrote such a book it would not only be a best-seller but would without a doubt advance The Cause further along the road to victory by broadening the reach of our side’s views.

Posted by GT on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:47 | #

If N-A took off on a wide scale, this would theoretically lead to a series of independent communities, which “may or may not wish to form part of a confederated alliance”. -TS

Well, that sounds familiar!

But who exactly should the term appeal to? -TS

White youth yearning for direction, discipline, and productive work toward race survival, community, and freedom.

The conservatively inclined probably wouldn’t support the doctrine anyway, … -TS

The conservatively-inclined can no longer be thought of as adherents to a particular set of principles. The term describes the fundamental nature of certain White men and includes the politically “liberal,” as well.

…even if wrapped in more soothing packaging. -TS

Let’s be clear about the meaning of soothing. To White men soothing implicitly refers to the preservation of class advantages. The “conservatively-inclined” are certainly not opposed to irritating out-groups within their Race.

We can no longer afford to think of “conservatism” in the conventional manner, especially as it pertains to Whites.

The enabler of all things a-White and anti-White is Homo Monetarus.

For 2000 years H. Monetarus has repeatedly opened the doors to jews and stood in the way of eliminating the jewish problem. For 2000 years he has scapegoated the weaker members of his own people. The preservation of buildings and property has always been his first priority.

<u>H. Monetarus</u>

Race: Europid.
Class: Wealthy/Upper Middle-Class.
Morality: Dual, Private-Public.
In-group:
1. Class- & Race-based.
2. Religion/ethnicity/race incidental to interclass economic and political alliances.
Out-group: Consistently Europid.
Politics:
1. Monetarist.
2. Investor.
3. Perceived wealth preservation. Equates money with wealth and regards them as co-eval.
4. Religion/ethnicity/race incidental to political alliances.
5. Politico-Economic interests outweigh religion/ethnic/race interests.
6. Noblesse oblige extended to less privileged members of allied groups.
7. Weaker Europids scapegoated to justify out-Europid alliances.

To survive as a Race we must damn this creature to hell.

Posted by DavidL on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:26 | #

From Eric Thomson:

“What does our ostensibly White elite get out of the destruction of its own kind? Nothing of real value, for their real wealth, whether they know it or not, is their White community. This real wealth they have largely destroyed, at their own peril, for when we are deemed insufficient to pose a threat to the jews and other muds, the Ostensible Whites of the egregious elite will be dispensed with. Meanwhile, their only loyalty is to the money which the jews create out of nothing.”

Entire article here:

http://www.faem.com/eric/2000/et118.htm

Posted by GT on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:13 | #

Some points to consider, DavidL,

1. Ostensible Whites = H. Monetarus.

2. Back in the good old days H. Monetarus’ response to uncomfortable truths was to remove the underclass messenger’s head. In text, unfortunately, all he can do is ostracize the offender and deliver a veiled little quiver, sniff, or smirk out-of-sight. Or circulate snarky messages amongst his clique with instructions to advise publishers and website owners to “ban that fool.” But messages are not always necessary. Through silence H.M. signals his classmates to do the same. The assumption is that the offending messenger’s ego is as sensitive as their own, that he is “hurt” by the shunning, and “will go away” due to “the lack of attention” – just as they would, the poor dears. The message H.M. wishes to convey through his silence is that the messenger’s message doesn’t warrant an “intellectual” response. In many or most cases there is enough truth in this to justify it. However, in most cases upperclass “intellectualism” is a pose readily identified and easily borrowed by many “me-tooing” members of the underclasses - just as “poor white trailer trash” is thrown around by anti-Whites equipped with the intelligence of a rock.

3. National Socialism was neither monetarist nor Bolshevist. The NSDAP rejected Germany’s monetarist class, for with the exception of scientists, engineers, technicians, and necessary political functionaries, almost all others were considered deadweight with little or nothing to contribute. The adoption of monetarism meant half-way measures which could only result in more of the same, with genuine reform and recovery remaining as elusive as ever. Furthermore, rather than promote nihilism and anarchy as America’s cultic blightwing is wont to do, the NSDAP disciplined Germany’s equivalent of America’s “skinhead” underclass of tradesmen and put their boots on the streets. None of this endeared the NSDAP to German conservatives, of course. Political conservatism and liberalism, to the extent they are adopted by the White underclasses, are nothing more than controlled opposition to H. Monetarus, his servants, and his allies.

4. Troy Southgate is on the right track. I do not agree with his choice of the term “Anarchy,” however, and I have a small problem with the inclusion of multiracial communities in “ostensibly” White confederations. I’ll re-read the work to ensure that I understand his meaning. Nevertheless, the man has much to offer.

Posted by GT on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:58 | #

Now I want to clarify something with regards to Troy Southgate being on the right track. It’s good that he recommends home schooling; however, home schooling is about leaving the system - not undermining the system from within. Furthermore, the leftist “march through the institutions” was facilitated by H. Monetarus, who saw the march as a means to effect a mutually beneficial alliance with out-Europid groups and maintain moral supremacy in relation to underclass Europids who might object.

Overall, I think his suggestions for working from within are good for Europe, but not for North America. My reasons are due to differences in geographic size, urban separation, population densities, access to natural resources, the need to morally degrade and economically reduce H. Monetarus’s influence, European vs. American history and temperament, and the fact that Europe can’t free itself until America is free.

H. Monetarus will not allow a “march through the institutions” by his fellow Europids. We have nothing to offer the bastard, first and foremost. Secondly, the march by jews was not a secret. It was done openly within the very institutions H.M. dominated. H.M. facilitated the march because the jews held a moral concept and media weapon to his throat. To maintain his ‘privilege’ in relation to underclass Europid underclass, H.M. allied himself with the jewish invader and now serves as the watchdog keeping us in line.

American Europids must attack H. Monetarus morally and separate themselves, to the greatest extent possible, from his monetary influence.

Posted by GT on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:03 | #

Change:

... and maintain moral supremacy in relation to underclass Europids who might object.

To:

... and maintain moral and socioeconomic supremacy in relation to underclass Europids who might object.

Posted by GT on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:29 | #

I have no conceptual problem with Europeans infiltrating the system from within to the extent that it is possible to do so. However, they must remain quiet and wait for us. Now this is not intended as an insult to European courage and ability. I have served alongside Royal Marines and know firsthand how good those men are compared to U.S. Marines. But we Americans with our economic and technological military advantages are the key to everything, and this is something the jew and his H. Monetarus enabler are perfectly aware of. My advice to Europeans is to stay quiet and support us in whatever manner they can, even if that involves obfuscation and making use of plausible deniability.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:02 | #

From a recent blog entry.

I’m having a conversaton with race-denying, White Supremacy-denouncing denizens of a New-Right elist headed by someone named Troy Southgate, him of La Rose Noire and farcical National-Anarchism, a very stupid, wooly-headed “ideology” for not-too-bright, pot-smoking teenagers. I have yet to meet a virtual nobody with a higher opinion of himself than this character. Maybe some day I’ll make the effort of taking apart that individualistic “movement” (of three fat girls, besides Southgate), but it’s a bit of a waste of time, as it’s not a serious current of thought. Has anyone in North America and continental Europe even heard of it?

How would a racial conquest “hasten our decline further”?

The existence of significant biological differences between groups of human beings means there will probably be social differences between them: differences in educational and economic achievement, personal and political behaviour, and social and political institutions. And if there is social differentiation between races, then competition and conflict between them is also likely (especially if they occupy the same or adjacent territory).

“Hatred,” racial conquest, domination, and racial antagonism will therefore result. It’s a consequence of the natural reality of racial differences and the effort to deny and ignore such differences by the delusions of “multiculturalism,” “multiracialism,” “universalism,” and “egalitarianism.”

Racial supremacy or “ethnic hierarchy” has been the norm in multiracial societies throughout history. It is hardly an accident that so many multiracial empires in human history have been authoritarian regimes in which the superior, dominant race monopolizes power.

Throughout their racial history from the prehistoric Indo-Europeans invasions of Western Asia and India to the nineteenth century, whites have always conquered and dominated the inferior races with whom they came in contact, at least until they themselves were absorbed by the very races they conquered. A salient reason to oppose miscegenation.

To say that “I’m against racial conquests” is like saying “I’m against the moon.”

“Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws…”

Nietzsche.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:03 | #

Post found here:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/06/04/a-conversation/

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:26 | #

Actually, Troy doesn’t push N-A very much on his list or at his meetings. Welf Herfurth’s group in Oz and the Bay Area group appear to be far more singular in that respect, and more involved in the political. And good luck to them.

Overall, one would have to say that Troy is interested in potentially productive but, of course, at this stage still conceptual politics. White Nationalism’s incessant and emotional commentary upon the grotesqueries of modernity are the opposite. It does not constitute any kind of way forward, but merely catalogues our decline. So what’s new, one is entitled to ask.

It isn’t that impossible to formulate an effective rejoinder to your supremacism post. I don’t know about Troy, but I can dismantle it in 300 words, without any reference to the Hot Gates!

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:07 | #

As I’ve said on the blog:

It’s nice to see you, GW. Unlike Southgate, you’re a serious thinker, and someone I respect (notwithstanding our differences). Please feel free to “dismantle” my little post. I’ll gladly reply. That should be fun!

What does it say about the state White Nationalism, when even those who are sympathetic or think of themselves as part of the movement loudly denounce White supremacy? Surely it must be a sign of our collective peecee conditioning and weakness.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:23 | #

A friend of mine suggested that “Shouthgate should rename himself Southpark, since he is just as decadent and stupid. ”

http://forum.grossdeutsches-vaterland.net/showthread.php?t=24344

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments