ATTACKED by the Left for its stance on racial separatism and denounced by the Right for its collaboration with Anarchists and National-Bolsheviks, the NATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY FACTION was widely considered to be one of the most dynamic and exciting anti-Capitalist groupings in British politics prior to its disbandment in 2003. In the following interview, conducted in 2001 while the NRF was still operating, WAYNE JOHN STURGEON interviews TROY SOUTHGATE, the group’s erstwhile National Secretary.
What do you mean by ‘third positionist’ and can you distinguish the term from ideological Fascism?
We don’t often (if at all) use the term ‘third positionist’ in our publications because it gives credence to the ideological straightjacket imposed by the prevailing Left-Right spectrum, but I do appreciate that we are regularly categorised in this way. The term itself is basically used to describe those who advocate some kind of alternative to the Twentieth Century’s most dominant, widespread and corrupt ideologie namely, Capitalism and Marxism. In this respect the term ‘third position’ is also diametrically opposed to Fascism, given that the latter is merely a reactionary sub-section of its more successful Capitalist patriarch. The Hitlerian and Mussolinian regimes, forged as they were in Germany and Italy respectively, both collaborated with Big Business interests whilst employing a high degree of nationalistic imagery. Most ‘third positionists’, including post-Third Positionists or National-Anarchists such as ourselves, tend to favour the significantly more radical, anti-Capitalist alternatives to Fascism such as those formulated by Otto Strasser, Francis Parker Yockey, Jean Thiriart, Ernst Niekisch and others. The NRF is not a Fascist organisation because the main tenets of this creed – bureaucracy, centralisation, the police state, the cult of personality, the mass movement etc. – are contrary to our objectives. Incidentally, Hakim Bey describes why terms ‘third way’ and ‘neither/nor’ have now become irrelevalent in Millennium [Autonomedia, 1996, p. 75].
A lot of third positionist groups appear to be influenced by and have sympathy for Roman Catholicism. Why is this?
I don’t think this is the case. There is only one so-called ‘third positionist’ organisation in the British Isles which adheres to Catholicism and the less said about that the better! Several NRF members were formerly attracted to Catholicism, including myself, but I think this had more to do with the fact that certain ‘third positionist’ ideologues such as G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were firm devotees of Catholicism themselves. Distributists also based much of their socio-economic beliefs on the various papal encyclicals published by Leo XIII and others. In our view, however, Catholicism and the various other offshoots of Judaeo-Christianity are fundamentally at odds with National-Anarchism because they are religions which tend to enslave and thus prevent man from pursuing his natural (some would say Faustian) destiny. Furthermore, from an organisational perspective Catholicism is a centralising bureaucracy which fails to take into account both regional and national identity. Throughout history, Catholicism’s Roman nerve centre has sought to control and manipulate world events by forging alliances with various monarchical and Capitalistic powers. The NRF is committed to fighting globalisation whenever and wherever it raises its ugly head and, therefore, we choose to view Catholicism in the same way as we regard the various other manifestations of globalisation.
To what extent does Anarchism (both historical and contemporary) influence the direction of the NR Faction?
I think we first began to look seriously at Anarchism once we realised that if revolution is to succeed we must necessarily destroy the existing order from within whilst creating a fresh alternative from without. In other words, whereas we had previously advocated the establishment of Distributist businesses, Guilds and workers’ co-operatives, we eventually realised that economic measures such as these are reformist in that they must inevitably rely upon the prevailing Capitalist System. The only way to change society completely is to reject not only the British State but also its political, social and economic institutions. But whilst we have immense sympathy with the more traditional Anarchist thinkers such as Proudon, Kropotkin and Bakunin, we are aware that the dogmatic ‘anarchist’ mainstream today voices its support for the kind of issues once reserved for liberals and Marxists. So when we say that we have been influenced to some degree by Anarchism, we are not referring to their support for homosexuality, abortion or racial miscegenation etc., but to the primary concept of abolishing the State. One of the more contemporary Anarchist figures whom we greatly respect is Richard Hunt. In our view, Richard’s To End Poverty: The Starvation of the Periphery by the Core (Alternative Green, 1997) is one of the most important contributions to the anti-Capitalist struggle in recent decades. In fact to say that we have been hugely influenced by Richard Hunt’s ideas is an understatement.
Do any religious or spiritual beliefs influence your political theory?
The NRF is a neo-pagan or heathen organisation, although we do not adhere to any one form. In many ways, we consider religion to be a personal thing and our activists range from Chaos Magicians and Crowleyites through to followers of Mithras and the Norse pantheon. When I left the Catholic Church I became attracted to Odinism, viewing this as the most genuine expression of European spirituality, culture and identity. I am particularly heartened by the growth of organisations such as the Odinic Rite and the Tribe of the Wulfings, both of which are very loyal to the gods of the Northern Tradition. At the same time, however, I agree with Traditionalist thinkers like Rene Guenon and Julius Evola in that most religions appear to contain fragments of a hidden albeit distinct and fundamental truth. In fact my investigations within this field of study are still ongoing. Other interests of mine include the history of the Thule Society and Armanenorden, and to some extent I have also studied the fascinating and scholarly works of highly respected runologists like Guido von List and Occultists such as Maria Karl Wiligut. I also take an interest in Peter Carroll and the I.O.T., polar symbolism [seeArktos by Jocelyn Godwin], the work of Miguel Serrano, Synarchy and Saint-Yves d’Alveydre, and the lost cities and myths of Agartha, Shambhallah and Atlantis.
To what extent does the ‘conspiracy theory’ of history influence your view of the world situation we are facing?
For us personally there is no question that the world is being ruthlessly directed (but perhaps not completely controlled) by International Zionism. This has been achieved through the rise of the usurious banking system and is today rigorously maintained by the United Nations on behalf of shadowy financiers who hide behind such grandiose titles as the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberger Group. Unfortunately, the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ seems to imply that the theory in question is something which only madmen and cranks accept as the truth. This is obviously not the case, especially given that the Establishment regularly hires its own court historians to present the ‘official’ version of history. One thinks of sycophantic creeps like Martin Gilbert and others, individuals who are paid to whitewash the heroes of the ruling class and lampoon its enemies at the same time. I think one of the quotes which best sums up our view of conspiratorial matters is that of Ismail Reed: ‘The history of the world is the history of the warfare between secret societies.’ In other words, there are several conspiracies going on at the same time, many of which have shaped the whole course of world civilisation and probably will for many centuries to come.
Do you support the struggle for animal rights and liberation?
We are certainly opposed to the abuse of the animal world through exploitative farming techniques, scientific experimentation and various other forms of cruelty, but I must take issue with the terms ‘rights’. Animals have no rights. In fact neither does humanity. Nature, as it has often been said, is red in both tooth and claw and there is no contractual agreement stating that life should be specifically preserved or maintained. But this does not mean that it is aceptable for people to harm or destroy wildlife. As far as ‘liberation’ is concerned, it depends what you want to liberate animals from. If animals are to be liberated from their natural environment or tamed (as we humans have been ‘civilised’), then this is obviously contrary to the Natural Order. However, once again, if animals are to be liberated from the blood-stained scalpel of the vivisectionist or released from the cages of the city zoo then this becomes a fine and noble objective. On the other hand, whilst the NRF does contain both vegan and vegetarian members I personally have no objection to hunting provided those who participate are prepared to eat what they kill. There is obviously an important distinction to be made here, between visiting the local supermarket and actually going out and catching your own food. With the increasing fragmentation of Capitalism man will have to rediscover his deep-rooted ability to hunt. Those who cannot (or will not), will simply fail to survive. In an activist sense, the NRF continues to involve itself within groups such as the Hunt Saboteurs Association and Animal Liberation Front.
Do you support the traditional family unit and if so what are your views concerning Feminism, homosexuality and abortion?
The most important thing for us is the Natural Order. It is natural for men and women to procreate. Anything which threatens the harmony of Nature must be opposed. Feminism is dangerous and unnatural not because it threatens to leave men with a pile of dirty washing-up and a few smelly nappies (as some of its adherents claim), but because it ignores the complimentary relationship between the sexes and encourages women to rebel against their inherent feminine instincts. Anyone interested in the opposing view should read The Female Woman by Arianna Stassinopoulos (Davis-Poynter, 1973) or Chapter 20 of Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World (Inner Traditions, 1995). Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Order because sodomy is quite undeniably an unnatural act. Groups such as Outrage are not campaigning for love between males – which has always existed in a brotherly or fatherly form – but have created a vast cult which has led to a rise in cottaging, male-rape and child sex attacks. Nature is about life and health, not death and AIDS. One of the most eye-opening pamphlets produced on this issue is Alexander Baron’s truly excellent Guide to Gay Sex: A Primer For Young People (Infotext Manuscripts, 1994). But we are not trying to stop homosexuals engaging in this kind of activity like the Christian moralists or bigoted denizens of censorship are doing, on the contrary, as long as this behaviour does not affect the forthcoming National-Anarchist communities then we have no interest in what people get up to elsewhere. I just hope these people respect our own right to live in the way we choose. As far as abortion is concerned, this process violates the sanctity of life and once again the killing of an unborn child is flying in the face of Nature and one could do far worse than read Abortion: Yes Or No? by John L. Grady (Tan Books, 1979).
What are your views concerning non-violence? Wouldn’t a bloody revolution simply replace one oppressor for another? How can we achieve a non-authoritarian society using authoritarian means? Can’t there be a third way beyond the reformism of party politics and the human carnage of armed struggle?
As Colin Johnson’s article [The Price of Direct Action] in Alternative Green #11 points out, in some situations non-violence is practicable and favourable. In other situations it is not practicable. We refer to armed struggle within the context of the political situation as we see it developing. We no longer believe the country can be won over en masse to one party, one organisation or one set of ideas. There is no consensus anymore. Post capitalist society will be a messy affair. There is only one thing holding the present System together and that is money. Take it away and you will soon see just how civilised your fellow man really is. To operate in a climate like this you are going to need more than good intentions. We will be seeking to establish an area where we can live with people who share our outlook on life. We are not interested in forcing our ideas upon those who don’t wish to accept them freely nor will we be creating any kind of state infrastructure. Everyone will have the right to bear arms, and should our living space be attacked we will defend it with force of arms. Within the enclave itself, the peck order will rule.
Do you see a convergence in the near future between the decentralist Left and Right emerging to combat the political and economic centralisation of the New World Order?
There is already an exciting convergence between those groups presently considered to be opposed to one another, but once again although it is certainly very convenient to use the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ I prefer to describe these various decentralist groupings as being part of the growing anti-Capitalist current. As Richard Hunt has already explained, we are witnessing the gradual emergence of two distinct phenomena: the centralists and the decentralists. The time is approaching when activists from all anti-Capitalist groupings will be forced to decide which side of the fence they occupy.
Are you anti-Semitic and if so isn’t this just a form of reductionism? Can’t one distinguish between the average Jewish person in the street and the reactionary Zionist State in Occupied Palestine? Do you condone racial hatred and bigotry, etc.?
As we have pointed out in our publications, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ is something of a misnomer. In The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler argues that around 90% of World Jewry is descended from a tribe known as the Khazars. These people originated from the southern steppes of present-day Russia, constructed a powerful empire and protected their interests by converting to Judaism in order to transcend the sectarian rivalries of their Christian and Muslim neighbours. Eventually, however, the Khazars were dispersed into Eastern Europe and have since become known as ‘Jews’. But whilst they may be ‘Jews’ in a religious sense, from a purely ethnic perspective they remain Khazars. Herein lies the crux of the problem. The so-called ‘Jews’ currently occupying Palestine and subjecting the indigenous Arab population to forms of brutal repression are not in any way linked to the Jews of the Bible. Thus ends the legitimacy of the so-called ‘Jewish’ claim to Palestinian soil. Ironically, therefore, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ cannot be applied to those of Khazarian extract due to the fact that a true Semite, of course, is nothing short of an Arab. Many truly Semitic Jews can be found in modern Spain, to which they gravitated after leaving Palestine all those centuries ago.
Finally, is there anything you wish to add?
Only that we hope our example will encourage various other anti-Capitalists to begin collaborating with and learning from one another in order to bring the System crashing to its knees.
Leave a Reply