Bay Area National Anarchists

What makes NA so different from other political movements is the noticeably different outlooks among the National Anarchists themselves.

On that note I am going to attempt to delineate what those differences are and who identifies with each.

National Anarchists share many traits in common including opposition to the State, critical of global capitalism, multiculturalism, materialism, and universalism.  But there are important differences in the style in how that is expressed.

A National Anarchist can be one of the following three types based on the personality of the adherent: socially conservative, socially libertarian, and socially liberal.  It is possible for an individual to evolve and change over time but in the authors experience the tendency of an individual tend to be stable over the long term and reflect their personality.

Socially Conservative

These National Anarchists promote a Traditional or even paleo-conservative outlook that in certain instances may be described as authoritarian or ‘against time’.  Their values are often in direct opposition to prevailing social norms and favor the norms and customs that may be out of favor by decades, or hundreds of years. They usually express dismay at attempts to reform the System by using the existing institutions and ‘soft positions’ on issues of importance to them.  This means they may come across as strident and intolerant of the forces they are opposed to.

Examples may include the work of Andrew Yeoman, and although they do not explictly identify as National Anarchist, the community building work of Stephen Flowers and Stephan McNallen would seem to fit in the paradigm of Socially Conservative National Anarchism.

Socially Libertarian

The libertarian leanings of some National Anarchists include a greater personal tolerance for alternative lifestyles, including homosexuality, drug use, religions, and multiculturalism.  The Socially Libertarian National Anarchist pride themselves on being ‘fair minded’ and thoughtful individuals whose views on current political and cultural topics and shares much in common with Left libertarianism except for ethnic identity.  For the Socially Libertarian National Anarchist, maintaining an inclusive and welcoming scene is how they hope their ideas will be embraced by a wider group of people.  Unfortunately by being so inclusive they often fail to express what sets them apart from social movements that preexisted the coalescence of National Anarchism.

Examples include Welf Herfurth, Troy Southgate, and Keith Preston.

Socially Liberal

The Socially Liberal tendency is an ‘anything goes’ outlook that the author is skeptical represents true National Anarchism.  Socially Liberal National Anarchists can include adopting a foreign religions, having no incentive to change the demographic structure of society if their movement had hegemony over the State, or promoting sexual deviancy as the preferred status quo.  Despite the often selfless dedication of some of their adherents, it has yet to be seen whether this tendency will evolve into a tendency that takes root in real world activism or just provides an outlet for the opinions for a deviant dilettantism.

Examples include Eduardo Florez, Flavio Goncalves, and James J. O’Meara.

In conclusion it should be obvious that National Anarchists are a diverse and different bunch.  However despite these differences we still look to each other as comrades struggling in our own way- as we each see fit- trying to bring about a world without the diseases of the present era.

Oakland, Cali. – On September 3, 2010, the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) will protest the release of the film Machete at multiple locations in the Bay Area of California.  This protest is being coordinated with like-minded individuals and grassroots organizations nationwide.

In Hollywood’s latest anti-White film, the hero is a blood-thirsty illegal alien of Latino ethnicity who slaughters white people with a myriad of weapons.  White people are presented as the “bad guys.”  Even the trailer of the film—which can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIxcVzwLR1k—begins with the militant Latino telling the viewers that he has a “special message” for the people of Arizona, who valiantly stood up for Western Culture and state sovereignty vis-à-vis a recent law that prescribed penalties for those who aid in the invasion of our country.

Machete was able to be produced in part by tax incentives and access to locations that were provided by the Texas Film Commission—a division of Gov. Rick Perry’s office.

Andrew Yeoman, the founder and spokesman of BANA, said, “The members of my organization plan to protest outside theaters that are showing this film.  We are bringing our own machetes; it is time our people stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough!  No more Hollywood filth!’”

The protesters will be armed with flyers as well.

###

Note: if the above file does not print the border of the document correctly, try this one.

By Michael Parish

As we’ve discussed previously on this blog, the Left, those impeccable purveyors of Enlightenment rationality and objectivity, suffer from a striking epistimological paradox: while claiming a monopoly on the overwrought ideals of 1789, it is impossible for them to rationally comprehend and acknowledge any views that deviate even slightly from their own.This brings to them to a second, even stranger paradox, that being the immediate dismissal of those views to the bleachers of irrationality (which these days is called bigotry). In the process, those modernist notions become increasingly exposed for the hollow rhetoric they are. A recent example of this….
Michael O’ Powell, in the leftist rag Gonzo Times, had this to say of my Bay Area comrade Andrew Yeoman…
“In Bay Area, Hate Has Its Spokesman”
Uh oh…a turd in their silver punchbowl…
“Ethno-Nationalism By The Bay”
Already ethno-nationalism is conflated without explanation with “hate.”
“The Bay Area is known throughout the world as being a beacon of tolerance, liberalism, and multiculturalism. Known for producing the likes of Harvey Milk and Rachel Maddow or for Vietnam protests and the Berkely Free Epeech movement, it’s known far less for its speakers of far right hatred. However, that does not mean they’re not there.”
Yes, we all know what San Fransisco is known for. Notice how the meaningless cliche “tolerance” and the misguided experiment “multiculturalism” are situated right next to the vague term “liberalism” which you are intended to accept as a synonym for rationally progressive social structures? Notice how they refer favorably to the Berkely Free Speech Movement (a repeat of which would serve that institution well by the way) while alluding forebodingly to a supposed “speaker of far right hatred”?
“On August 11th, in the wake of Federal Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling repealing Proposition 8, Andrew Yoeman took to the website of Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) and wrote, “Irrespective of what one thinks about the phenomenon of gay marriage, we are bothered by a federal judge who has ruled something approved by the people of California is unconstitutional without providing any rational basis for which that assertion is true. This is judicial tyranny against the people, and should be recognized as such by everyone, wherever they reside on the politcal spectrum.”
It’s not as if Walker is calling for the mobilization of federal troops to intervene and massacre Californians, so I would relegate Yeoman’s assesment of this as “federal tyranny” to the exageration file. But it is a significant event, in that it’s an instance of a liberal violating liberal principles in the pursuit of liberal ends. That he has not furnished a “rational basis” for his assesment of the ruling matters only scarcely-political ideology is largely a matter of emotion and aesthetic preference, with “reason” but convenient window dressing. His decision will not be recognized that way by those on the Left side of the political spectrum, who are more than willing to weight the dice when it yields the wrong (for them) numbers.
“It takes significant digging to find the ideology that lay underneath his talk of democracy standing up against tyranny, but if you talk to him long enough, it does manifest. Elaborating on his opposition ot the desicion of Judge Walker, Yeoman argued “The regulation of marriage in the accepted in the legal domain as a state level issue that the people of California have decided should be between a man and a woman. This really has nothing to do with the militant minority that want to radically change the legally and socially accepted basis of a family but everything to do with what the people of California believe is fair and just.”
Actually it takes no significant digging at all…his defense of desicions made at the state level is based on the legal concept of states rights, one of the basic tenants of American paleoconservatism. It bears more than passing familarity to most. That is the dangerously subversive ideology you oh so ominously referred to? Notice how the second half of Yoeman’s argument was based on a defense of majority preference a.k.a. democracy, which the Left exalts in the abstract, but casts pejoratively as a sinister “ideology” when it fails to yeild their desired results.
“Yeoman alluded further that the redefinition of marriage amounts to an affront on the cultural
history of Western Civilization.” “I have been called a hateful bigot for believing that a family should consist of a gender pairing that has defined not just this country but western civilization for as long as there is documentation for. That does not give militants on this issue the right to attack me and others that believe the same as me with the hateful hysteria they are accusing us of.”
Notice how he explains in clear detail his position on this issue and refers specifically to the ideology adhered to by the author of this article…and he is still branded with the “bigot” label. And also how he his comment about “the hateful hysteria they are accusing us of” is embodied by the article itself. This author can’t even tell when his own self (or kind, in this case) is being referred to.
Poor Andrew can’t even defend himself from the accusation of “bigotry” without being condemned in an article by a clueless author who reaffirms the same.
The article then drifts on to some background information on Andrew that is largley irrelevant here. But the warped (mis)perception of the world is clear-holding views that deviate even slightly from the egalitarian-interchangability paradigm instantly makes you a bigot. And a radical bigot at that. That Andrew implicitly believes in separate societal roles for straights and queers (and separate rules for both) is sufficient to warrant his classification as a “speaker of hatred.” And as a speaker of “far right” hatred no less…even though his view is indistinguishable from that of most mainstream conservatives, and apparently, most mainstream Californians.

First published at http://newrightamerica.blogspot.com/2010/08/further-penetrating-liberal-mindset.html

By Guillaume Faye

(It is) the masochistic tendency to regard with a sense of guilt and a sense of worthlessness one’s own ethnic group, one’s own people.

Ethnomasochism is similar to shame of oneself and self-hatred. It is a collective psychopathology, triggered by a long propaganda effort to foster a presumed fundamental sense of guilt felt by Europeans vis-à-vis other peoples, of whom they are assumed to be the “oppressors”. It is therefore necessary to repent and to “pay the debt.” This effort at repentance, a veritable historical sham, has been undertaken by the Churches, as well as by the European States.

Ethnomasochism is also the basis of anti-natalistic policies that surreptitiously aim to limit the reproduction of European populations. Implicitly then, it can be likened to a type of “self-racism”. The European man can be said to have been struck down by an original sin, an intrinsic racial stain: he is guilty of being what he is.

Ethnomasochism provokes the systematic defense of cross-breeding (“métissage) and cosmopolitanism. Curiously, it denies to Europeans the idea of ethnic identity, but grants it to others. Europeans are duty-bound to dilute themselves, but other peoples, Africans for example, are not. Ethnomasochism is the counterweight of xenophilia (love and overestimation of the foreigner, the “other”). It is related to ethno-suicide.

In history, ethnomasochism is not new; it was the symptom of peoples tired of life, tired of perpetuating themselves; of aging peoples who pass the torch to others. The European elite are afflicted with this collective illness. And this illness explains the laxness towards the colonization by migrants and the idea that we have both a duty and a need to welcome the new occupiers.

In the Original French:

Ethnomasochisme

Tendance masochiste à culpabiliser et à dévaloriser sa propre ethnie, son propre peuple.

L’ethnomasochisme s’apparente à la honte et à la haine de soi. C’est une psychopathologie collective, provoquée par un long travail de propagande en faveur d’une prétendue culpabilité fondamentale des peuples européens face aux autres, dont ils seraient les « oppresseurs ». Il faudrait donc se repentir et « payer la dette ».Ce travail de repentance, véritable imposture historique, est entamé aussi bien par les Eglises que par les Etats européens.

L’ethnomasochisme est aussi à la base des politiques anti-natalistes qui visent subrepticement à limiter la reproduction des populations européennes. Implicitement, il s’assimile donc à un « auto-racisme ». L’homme européen serait frappé par un péché originel, une tare raciale intrinsèque, il serait coupable d’être ce qu’il est.

L’ethnomasochisme provoque l’apologie systématique du métissage et du cosmopolitisme. Curieusement, il dénie aux Européens l’idée d’identité ethnique mais l’accorde aux autres. Les Européens ont le devoir de se diluer, mais pas les autres, pas les Africains par exemple. L’ethnomasochisme est le pendant de la xénophilie (l’amour et la survalorisation de l’étranger, de « l’autre »). Il s’apparente à un ethno-suicide.

Dans l’histoire, l’ethnomasochisme n’est pas nouveau ; il fut le symptôme des peuples las de vivre et de se perpétuer ; des peuples vieillissants qui passent le relais à d’autres. Les élites européennes sont atteintes de cette maladie collective. Cette dernière explique le laxisme envers la colonisation migratoire et l’idée selon laquelle nous aurions à la fois le devoir et le besoin d’accueillir les nouveaux occupants.

Guillaume Faye

The below link is a flyer describing BANA’s Values and Activities. If you would like to spread the word about the BANA collective please download, print, and share this flyer with all like minded people:

BANA Activities Flyer

A National Anarchist may be identified by a number of different characteristics.

For the purpose of this article a person is considered a National Anarchist if they are fully aware they are or not.

A National Anarchist in America may exhibit the following stereotypical characteristics. They will often claim to have a staunch independent streak and critical thinking skills. They are also:

White Americans (not always, but at the present time 99 times out of 100 this is the case), they only speak one language, they have an affinity for wearing black, they are supportive of DIY culture and projects, they like punk music, they ride bikes as a form of transportation as a political statement, they are opposed to drug laws, taxes, and the primacy of money in society, they are opposed to working for the government or the military, they are college educated, they are very mobile and are rarely found in the area where they are from, they speak with respect towards other cultures and may know more about others than their own.

This finishes the list.

Granted National Anarchists have all sorts of persuasions and come from all sorts of backgrounds, but as a type these characteristics are less important than their actions.

Since National Anarchists are anarchists of a nationality, they may pay also lip service to any number of causes that make them sound like an average Leftist or radical. But don’t be so fooled.

The next time you see someone matching this description, be friendly, they are often happy to discuss their views.

Ask, “excuse me, are you a National Anarchist?”

They might ask you why you asked that and you just reply in confidence “because you look like one.”

By Andrew Yeoman on April 27, 2008

It may be unlikely that intra-continental borders can be drawn according to the standards of the typical “racial” group. Given the intermixture of various racial categories throughout North America and the seeming concessions made by a small percentage of each of these racial groups to function as one (whether forced by policy or
otherwise), it seems that the distinction so readily applicable to politics of the past has been blurred. This indistinct method of group identity has some obvious restrictions regarding the political alignment of hybrid races, a problem that I’m under the impression Europe looks down at your average “white” American for in another
manner in accordance with their even more specific racial categories.

The driving forces behind the hybridization is often attributed to political policy but, a more substantial cause is the prolific availability of motorized travel coupled with massive and expanding populations of the aforementioned groups. Despite this, addressing the political aspect which encourages the acceptance of hybridization
is obviously an important factor because where motorized transportation is most abundant, policy and the attitudes it inspires are the only means of presenting choice to the individual who is as yet unsure of which group they identify most with.

The trend seems to be that politics increasingly denies any alternative to the practice of hybridization. This effects not only the implied union of two “racial” groups but, hybridization also applies to the landscape of intellect as well. If you were to envision the problem of hybridization, you could picture North America, or even the globe as a large organism composed of cells which are the groups of individuals who adhere to this policy or that. The policies essentially being choice, are shaken until these cell walls burst within the organism. Considering two needless world wars that caused suffering to all nations involved, the global atmosphere is that of a ripened bruise. The healing process is the re-establishment of these cell walls within the global organism, and the group (racial, political, religious, etc) recognition aspect of politics are the lingering nerve impulses of a severely damaged
appendage.

Perhaps reorganization in not only the North American continent but, the world would be better served by establishing new ideas for new borders. As simple and obvious as this may be, I think that one particular area requires improvement in this manner. That is the concept of race.

Race is not only a damaging buzz word that has lost its meaning outside of small groups of individuals who recall the deeper organic and intellectual meanings behind it as it applied to the older political atmosphere but, it cannot apply readily or practically to the existing biological landscape.

Assuming practicality is in mind, consider an alternative to the concept of race. Out of this bruise on the earth has come the concept of “diversity”. It has been portrayed as a very positive state of being, and accepted as such worldwide in many areas. In fact, there are aspects of diversity which can appeal to the most hardcore of the right wing.

Diversity is most often a term attributed to a mixture of “races” which is the establishment of tolerance, and a wealth of other soft values. Yet inside of this terms conception exists hard values. Take for instance the prerequisite of a race, in order to make the recognition of diversity. Were there not multiple races within the diversity, there would be in fact a unirace, thus defeating the concept of multiculturalism and diversity.

Diversity and multiculturalism are bound to oppose hybridization, not only of race but of politics as well. It is in the interest of many within these groups to preserve that which is meaningful to them, that is what they identify with -in order to orient themselves in purposeful ways to the world as a whole.

Simultaneously, diversity is a concept which implies hybridization. There lacks in the concept itself an ability to draw borders (to draw the lines). Therefore, it represents that which is of value to those of identity and those of hybridization.

Within this double-meaning, exists a standard of speech so dull and uninspiring that the terms “diversity”, “multiculturalism” have the potential to be used in ways that benefit either side of the debate:
identity or hybridization. This potential realization, offers a way to present the defense of the group as a choice again.

Consider the term diversity as equivalent to the racial group. New questions arise such as, “What diversity are you?” This question may have parallels of noteworthy consideration within the breakdown of the Christian church. Recall a common question, “What denomination are you?” in regards to one’s religious orientation.

Religious denominization as a means of asserting group borders within a massive population and bruised theological infrastructure as compared to racial diversity as a means of asserting racial borders within a massive population and bruised biological infrastructure. In this way, no matter what the actual racial constitution of a
specified diversity, it may qualify as a legitimately recognized and acceptable identity.

Those who are intolerant of diversity when it fails to meet their specified criteria (whether it be the presence of a specified percentage of the old racial categories or religious groups, etc) may have a more difficult time asserting the claim of “intolerance” or a “lack of diversity” while they utilize measurements of racial composition against a group which does not identify with or utilize the methods of the older classification.

Can you slander a man or woman so easily if he is supporting white diversity, black diversity, UK diversity, European diversity, American diversity, etc?