This interview is included in the
recently released National-Anarchism: Ideas and Concepts, edited by
Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.
1) Please could you introduce yourself, your background, and how you
define national anarchism?
I am a native New Yorker, agrarian
separatist homesteader, and spokesman for the National Anarchist
Tribal Alliance NY. I was raised around the patriot/militia movement
and since my early teenage years I have been involved with a wide
array of radical political groups and causes from anarchist groups to
populist American nationalist and anti-Zionist circles. More recently
but previous to the founding of NATA in 2010, I mainly focused my
attention on attempting to build bridges between the radical and anti
statist “left” and “right” (with limited success). I have
worked with the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, WeAreChangeNYC, Young
Americans for Liberty, End the Fed, the John Birch Society (JBS), and
been involved with the Constitution and Libertarian parties.
I believe NA to be the purest
hyphenated anarchism in the greater anarchist milieu. Anarchism
in general can never be a one-size-fits-all label meaning the same
thing to everyone; the philosophy’s very nature requires
heterogeneity. Unlike the dogmatic, utopian, universal
egalitarianism of many anarchists, NA is a realistic and pragmatic
approach to the differences in opinion amongst anarchists. I
believe that NA has the potential to be a large umbrella under which
numerous groups could identify. It can philosophically unite
diverse hyphenated anarchists with one another, and with other
anti-statist groups. This is because the nature and essence of
NA is that each community has every right to self-determination,
whether it manifests as a planned communist economy, a laissez-faire
free market, a religious or racial separatist enclave, an
environmentalist eco-tribe, or anything else. The
people/community make up the nation, not the state. The About NATA-NY document further explains my views on NA.
2) Does national anarchism always have to promote or be associated with
racial separatism?
Absolutely not. NATA-NY has
written our position on this issue in our Note on Racial Separatism.
The first paragraph of that statement is pasted below.
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.
3) I understand you lived with the Zapatista peoples for a while, what
was this experience like and how does it inform your current activism
etc?
In the U.S., most manifestations of
local autonomy are fading into historical memory. The
Zapatistas proved to me that not only is this model possible in
today’s globalized world, but it still exists. Visiting the
Zapatista zones in Chiapas reinforced our feelings of anti-statist
nationalism and rejuvenated our commitment to the traditional
American notions of individual and community sovereignty.
My experience with the Zapatistas
informs my current activism in several ways. The primary
influence they had on me revolves around the importance of land.
For the Zapatistas, their being indigenous is of crucial importance,
and they feel strongly tied to the land, echoing Emiliano Zapatista’s
original motto, “the land belongs to those who work it.”
Farming—something I am currently doing—is what connects people to
the land they live on. Despite the fact that the Zapatistas are
indigenous Mayan groups (Tzotzil, Tetzal, Chol, etc.), I identify as
an indigenous American and New Yorker—partially because I was born
here, but also because working the land is an essential aspect of
being indigenous. Overall, the Zapatista communities reaffirmed
my own awareness of the need for self reliance.
4) What do you think of the current Occupy movement?
Despite a strong “leftist”
influence, the current Occupy movement and all its offshoots have a
lot of potential. I don’t think that mass demonstrations are
effective, but I think the ability to form resilient communities and
temporary and permanent autonomous zones exists. If the Occupy
movement created parallel/independent local economies, currencies,
trade unions, support networks, and social welfare/healthcare
programs, it would be able to counter the statist bureaucracies of
the global empire, and it would be a lot more effective than camping
in parks. NATA-NY has taken advantage of the anarchistic and
decentralized atmosphere of OWS to help promote the NA philosophy
with great success, despite those who see NA as crypto fascism, as
well as moves by some to create a OWS central leadership.
5) I wonder as well what you think of the 911 Truth movement and We Are
Change and people like Alex Jones?
I questioned the official 9/11 story
the day of September 11, 2001. By 2004, after extensive research on
the subject, my wife and I were handing out leaflets listing
unanswered questions and anomalies surrounding the attacks on the WTC
and pentagon, which mounting evidence shows was partly inflicted by
the U.S. government itself, and partly an Israeli Mossad operation.
I personally have never liked referring to it as the “9/11 truth”
movement because this implies that its proponents have all the
answers about what happened that day, and leaves out all the other
examples of state sponsored/false flag terrorism (e.g. Attack
on the U.S.S. Liberty, OKC bombing, and the 7/7 bombings in London,
just to name a few). I first attended a WeAreChange (WACNYC)
event in 2007 and by the next year was an active member of the NYC
chapter. I still have a limited role in that group since moving
out of the city. Love or hate him, Alex Jones’ huge audience
gives him the potential to unify a diverse range of anti-statist
groups and individuals.
6) Do you think any common ground can be found amongst national
anarchist circles and the current libertarian, agorist,
anarcho-capitalist movement?
Yes. Anarchists invented the word
libertarian; they are one in the same. As I have said, national
anarchism’s fundamental respect for any autonomous community,
regardless of its values or basis of association, gives it the
potential to function as an organizational umbrella for a wide range
of anti-statist, decentralist, libertarian, and secessionist groups.
My wife and I recently wrote an essay claiming that agorism is the
most compatible economic model with anarchism in general. We
believe that all hyphenated anarchists need to embrace agorism in
order to provide a viable alternative to the state and its corporate
partners. We also critique free market anarchists’ use of the
term anarcho-capitalist. You can read the article here.
7) What are your thoughts concerning the Tea Party movement (TPM), the
Militia scene and people like Ron Paul? do you think national
anarchism can attract people involved in radical conservative
circles?
I was involved (like many in WACNYC,
JBS, YAL and other libertarian and conservative groups) with the tea
party in its infancy when it was a populist tax/IRS/federal reserve
protest. By 2009, domination of the originally grassroots TPM by the
GOP, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck was solidifying and becoming self
evident. Like the Occupy movement, I saw great potential in the TPM,
and despite the efforts of Republican Party loyalists to centralize
the movement, some local tea party groups have remained independent.
I wish there could have been more cross pollination between Occupy
and the tea party. My family and I are active participants and
proponents of the community Militia and local self defense. I
personally respect Dr. Paul immensely. Although I was active in his
2008 campaign and remain a supporter, I am disappointed he doesn’t
run with one of the third parties and in general I am totally
disillusioned with electoral politics other than maybe on the most
local level. NA has attracted and will continue to attract folks from
radical conservative circles. The fact that more and more radical
conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists are using terms
like minarchist, voluntaryist, autarchist, agorist, and anarcho
capitalist is proof that anarchist thinking is becoming more
prevalent in these circles. NA is naturally attractive to those
advocating traditional American values such as individual liberty,
local sovereignty, secession, and freedom of association.
8) Can you explain what you mean by the term Anarcho-Feudualism
Anarcho-feudalism is a model of
organization that is centered on owning and working land. Essentially
it’s a type of voluntary mutualist manorialism. It has
several things in common with the traditional conception of
feudalism, but it is less hierarchical and more horizontally
organized. It is definitely not oppressive or supportive of
serfdom, which is associated with traditional feudalism.
Rather, its primary feudalist characteristics are the dependence on
property (land), the agricultural focus, and the loyalty and
allegiance between landowners and workers.
Historical feudalism was a system in
which vassals worked for and paid homage to lords, and lords provided
land use and protection to vassals. An examination of the
etymology of certain feudalistic words can reveal the mutual nature
of the vassal-lord relationship. The word “liege,” for
example, was used by lords and vassals to refer to one another.
The Online Etymology Dictionary lists one definition: "a vassal
sworn to the service and support of a lord, who in turn is obliged to
protect him." This is a mutual relationship. The
significance to anarchism becomes deeper when one realizes that
“liege” comes from German, French, English, Friscian, and Dutch
words for “free” and/or “flexible.” It also shares a
root with “allegiance,” or the loyalty to one another that is
undoubtedly necessary in an anarcho-feudalist setup. All
parties freely enter into a voluntary contract in which they are all
both “vassals” and “lords”; this dual nature of vassal and
lord reflects the concept of the Anarch, whose task is to balance out
freedom and responsibility.
Under anarcho-feudalism every member
freely holds and works the land, and all are involved with providing
defense and protection for the land’s residents. The “lords”
work in the fields just as the “vassals” fight invaders and
oppressors (and vice versa). Everyone collaborates on equal
ground, with the only hierarchies being natural ones that arise out
of the normal differences in people’s knowledge, skills, charisma,
and abilities (meritocracy). People are considered leaders if
they are able to move the tribe (or individuals within it)
successfully towards mutual goals. The respect for tribal
elders and the original property holders (those who made the
anarcho-feudalist land trust possible) is always encouraged and
recognized. New prospects do not have the clout that
full-fledged members do. They enter into one of two
arrangements: either they work for the land trust as temporary
volunteers and then move on, or they agree to a voluntary contract in
which their labor and efforts are analogous to “paying their dues”
and they eventually become members with full rights, obligations and
benefits. That change in status occurs after rites of passage
and oaths and contracts of allegiance are taken.
I am currently in the slow process of
working out the kinks and setting up a cooperative land trust that
would adhere to this model. The Anarcho-Feudalist motto is
Sovereign Yeomen Against Tyranny and Serfdom!
9) I understand you are a Freemason? How do you reconcile this with
anarchism etc?
I am a 32nd degree Freemason. I see
Freemasonry as very compatible with anarchism; for one, the craft is
a voluntary association that encourages free thought, individual
sovereignty, and the democratic decision making process. The
hierarchy in freemasonry is wholly symbolic, with merit and
understanding as the basis for “advancement”. Part of the reason
I sought initiation was the fact that the majority of modern
revolutionaries have been Freemasons, including anarchists like
Proudhon and Bakunin. Political radicals throughout history have
taken advantage of the secrecy, autonomy, free association, mutual
aid, and democratic governance of the lodge to further their
revolutionary ambitions.
10) What are your current projects and where can one find out more about
national anarchism in America?
I am currently homesteading with my
wife and members of NATA in the Adirondack Mountains of New York
state, we are cooperatively working out the kinks in our land
trust/anarcho feudalist project. Some members at the end of the month
will be protesting this year’s Bilderberg conference, and we are
planning a large rally at the United Nations later this year to
protest the erosion of American sovereignty by globalization,
Zionism, and the Chinese economic takeover of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------
* Facebook: National-Anarchist
Movement (N-AM)
Posts
