Outing in York

Yrk Heil


On Saturday the 28th of May, we held an abortive attempt at a demonstration in the centre of York. We had around 36-38 activists with us and all considered we were in the city centre for about three hours.

Theme was supposed to be the hypocrisy of liberalism. The police supplied the content by turning up, charging everyone, stealing our megaphone and shutting the whole thing down to prevent any free speech from being exercised which was of the wrong sort.

The police superintendent immediately afterwards was quoted as ‘everyone has a right to a peaceful and lawful protest, but…’ Ah yes; the “but.” The exceptions. The small-print, if you will, in all these multifarious ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’ that a liberal democratic state pretends to grant us.

On the way back to the train station, some fat-head shouted at us from the sidelines, getting all emotional in the process as these types are wont to do, “these people! These people want to destroy every last vestige of democracy!” … as we were being marched out the city by armed police officers. One had to wonder, ‘if this is democracy; then what is democracy? …’

Because you see, there’s no such thing as ‘rights.’ They don’t actually exist outside of anybody’s imagination. All that exists is might and right, and it’s the former which is to be put at the service of the latter. So the only real question is: is might currently serving right, or wrong? These are the two options. And the difference between fascists and liberal hypocrites is that we are open about our intolerance towards our opponents.

NA Conference Liverpool 2016

Extensive extracts from our latest conference, in the good city of Liverpool.

Radicals and Reactionaries

Over the course of the last four or five centuries, the Right has essentially been on the receiving end of one big long kicking. The one time this failure was punctuated by real success was the period spanning 1890 – 1945.

How come?

During that particular period there were many, more or less similar, movements going under different names – fascism, national socialism, integralism, revolutionary conservatism, etc. The difference in naming is superficial when looked at in the context of their shared inner substance.

This ‘substance’ could broadly speaking be broken down into two elements:

(1) Adherence to the Right’s core principles + (2) adaptation to the external circumstances of the modern world.

The rest of the Right – that constant stream of failure, remember – has failed precisely through its neglect of one or the other of these two components.

Either they a) retain a commitment to their core principles, but flat-out refuse to adapt to the realities of the modern world. Think traditionalist conservatism, reactionary conservatism, radical traditionalism, etc. They thereby necessarily consign themselves to irrelevance, and ensure their own inability to ever have any effect on anything. Which, consequently, is why they’ve seemingly faded from the face of planet Earth over the past couple of centuries.

On the other side of the coin, are those ‘right-wingers’ who do everything within their ability to adapt to the changes of the modern world – but do so in such a way as to jettison all their own principles in the process. In doing so they simultaneously enable their own transient success, and render that success completely fucking useless. What use is getting your lifeboat to shore if you have to throw everyone overboard to do it? These forms of ‘the Right’ are therefore tolerated, co-opted and even welcomed by the Left as token opposition. The entire history of the conservative movement has come more and more to represent this kind – another obvious example would be civic nationalism.

Going back again, the movements of the early 20th Century punctuated that endless failure, in doing so showed us it can be done – and how. They kept up a strict adherence to the principles of the Right – hierarchy, objective quality, orientation towards the sacred, loyalty, supra-individual identity, the organic state, and an understanding of history as cyclical rather than linear (‘progressive.’) But they managed to combine this with an unswerving pursuit of victory – pragmatic; even ruthless – totally willing to adapt to whatever environment it found itself inhabiting in order to come out on top, in so far as that adaptation never compromised their core principles.

A closer look shows that this consisted of adapting to two things in particular: 1) technological modernity, 2) modern secularity. One way of looking at this – and of distinguishing between this truly radical Right, and the older reactionary Right – is this…

The fascists could look upon the Right’s perennial worldview, and could clearly distinguish between the essential and the inessential. They instinctively distilled it down to its core principles, and did away with everything extraneous. This gave them the ability to adapt to their environment and situation. Consequently it led to their success.

The reactionary Right – or Old Right – on the other hand perceived no such distinction. They simply sought a restoration of a prior societal form – at some preferred yet basically arbitrary point in the past – as a whole. They gave little thought as to principles vs. non-principles. They simply sought to restore it as it appeared back then.

This automatically put them on a collision course with some aspects of the emerging modern world. For example, the effects of modern technology on societal arrangements and forms (transport, economic and therefore educational systems); the general trend towards a loss of belief in a transcendent reality, and increasing secularisation of life as a whole. This meant the reactionary Right found itself holding an increasingly incoherent position; and intellectually on the back foot as a result. In pre-modern times it sought its justification in the Sacred. Monarchy for example was justified as the Divine Right of Kings in England; similarly the Mandate from Heaven in China. Essentially ‘God wills it.’ This is an increasingly unconvincing argument in the increasingly non-believing modern world. This left two possibilities: 1) they stick to their original justification and become rapidly irrelevant, OR 2) they construct new secular arguments for things which only ever made sense as sacred institutions and arrangements. The result is superficial ad hoc arguments which are philosophically incoherent and convince no-one. Thus the Old Right – the pre-modern Right – ensured its own demise.

As already stated, the way the fascist movements overcame this was to jettison everything from the traditional Right’s worldview which was inessential. They distilled down the principles that underlay the world the Old Right had wished to resurrect and which in actuality had given that world its real value. They sought to create a modern or futuristic social order based on those eternally true principles. At the same time they justified their ideas in secular terms – whilst retaining a more or less spiritual orientation.


The New York Times, 25 March 1906: “… the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews were made on March 12 in Berlin to the annual meeting of the Central Jewish Relief League of Germany by Dr. Paul Nathan … He left St. Petersburg with the firm conviction that the Russian Government’s studied policy for the “solution” of the Jewish question is systematic and murderous extermination.”

The New York Times, 8 September 1919, page 6: “127,000 Jews Have Been Killed and 6,000,000 Are in Peril. … 6,000,000 souls in Ukrainia and in Poland have received notice through action and by word that they are going to be completely exterminated – this fact stands before the whole world as the paramount issue of the present day.”

The New York Times, 20 July 1921, page 2: “BEGS AMERICA SAVE 6,000,000 IN RUSSIA. Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre.”


A brief re-cap of the basics of why we hold the concept of democracy in absolute contempt.

We’ll split this into three segments:

(1) Where does it come from?   —>   (2) What is it?   —>  (3) Where does it lead us?

1.    Weakness of will. The softening effects of a high standard of living. Not only do people no longer feel comfortable being ruled; but they don’t even feel comfortable doing the ruling themselves – and the responsibility it entails. Consequently they throw the decision open to the majority and dress it up as a more enlightened form of rule. This is an attempt at currying their favour (“look at how democratic I am!”), but is primarily a sub-consciously driven means of avoiding the responsibility for making the final decision — which is the essence of leadership.


‘Democracy has always been the declining form of the power to organise: I have already, in Human, All Too Human, characterised modern democracy, together with its imperfect manifestations such as the German Reich, as the decaying form of the state.’

2.    There’s no such thing as a ‘true democracy’, and never can be, as all democracies inevitably become plutocracies – rule by their wealthiest. This is because a democracy is rule by popular opinion. Those who control the means of shaping public opinion – primarily the various media – are thereby the ones who it can be said truly rule.

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.


The fact is the American electorate, no matter how tempting it is to call them stupid, credulous and lazy, are largely victims of the sophisticated mechanisms of propaganda that have been finely tuned for generations. They’re victims of an entrenched capitalist system that has hijacked our institutions of democracy from city halls to Capitol Hill. Both candidates for president, to even stand a chance, must spend roughly $2.5 billion each. This means, to even be considered to represent “the people,” they must have met the pre-approval of the super wealthy who comprise the vast majority of the donor base by dollar amount….’

   – The father of public relations, Edward Bernays, in his seminal 1928 book, Propaganda.

There is no such thing as a ‘true democracy’ as no ideology or group or individual will ever allow a level playing field upon which its competitors can compete (thus giving its rivals the chance to dislodge it from power.) All ideologies and individuals seek total dominance – and to that end total hegemony of their ideas.

The power or dominance of an ideological system and its users rests upon the perception of its legitimacy – the belief in the minds of the people, or the military or someone significant, that it is just and right that this particular system should rule. In accordance with this fact, all systems seek to totalise perceived legitimacy. Therefore a hypothetical system which accords all possible political positions equal opportunity is an absurdity. Its supposed real-world examples, a charade.

* the legitimacy of a democratic system rests on the perception of popular rule – not on its actual fact!

3.    In a democracy people don’t vote for what they think is best for the country – they vote for what they think is best for them. Individual short-term self-interest trumps the long-term interest of the country as a whole. Therefore, it’s practically a premise of the democracy that what’s in the best interests of the country doesn’t matter. It’s not what’s important.

People in a democratic system are also highly prone to group-think. The opinions of the vast majority are heavily (sometimes it seems entirely) influenced by what it is they think their peers think. They respond to social cues. This is often the primary source of their political opinions.

Now historically, the very justification of democracy in the minds of classical liberals (which is, by the way, the only argument that merits our attention) was that it acted to prevent anybody in power from really being able to do anything – that it would in effect play off strong natures against one another; and in doing so siphon off their energies into ‘safe’ avenues (i.e. waste them; rendering them harmless.) This, in classical liberal thought, was the great strength of the democratic idea over its rivals. It only conceived of great men as powerful men (powerful ego-centred men.) And therefore a system was needed to put a cap on these natures, to prevent them from wreaking too much havoc. This was inline with the fact that classical liberals thought human beings to be essentially self-interested creatures, and that individuals will therefore only ever use power for their own gain, and that any social vision they seek to impose is only a disguised form of the drive for self-aggrandisement. Whereas we, National Socialists, believe there is such a thing as the possibility of disinterested action – the drive to do the right thing, regardless of personal cost/benefit; and for its own sake. The capacity for such a thing among men is unevenly distributed. And it is with a man unusually able in this regard – as well as in raw human talent – that the power of the state should reside. The will to do great things; and the ability to get things done.

We Recommend

Stuff you might want to make a start on before making contact with us:

Attack – National Action
Strategy Document 2013 – National Action
Strategy Document 2014 – National Action

The Psychology of Leftism (excerpt) – Ted Kaczynski

The Greatest Story Never Told – The Untold Story… (Website)

The Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery… – Julius Evola

Hitler’s Table Talk – Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf (Ford translation) – Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf (unabridged version) – Adolf Hitler

Boxing – Edwin L. Haislet

Siege – James Mason
Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality by Nicholas Kollerstrom [PDF]

Mussolini’s New Fascist Man – Mark Dyal
Lycurgus and the Spartan State – Mark Dyal
Overcoming the Bourgeois Mind and Body – Mark Dyal
Nietzsche, Physiology and Transvaluation – Mark Dyal

Hitler’s Social Revolution, Part 1 – Léon Degrelle
Hitler’s Social Revolution, Part 2 – Léon Degrelle

Breaking the Bondage of Interest: A Right Answer to Usury, Part 1 – Kerry Bolton
Breaking the Bondage of Interest: A Right Answer to Usury, Part 2 – Kerry Bolton
Breaking the Bondage of Interest: A Right Answer to Usury, Part 3 – Kerry Bolton
Breaking the Bondage of Interest: A Right Answer to Usury, Part 4 – Kerry Bolton

Hello world…

14/88, boots on the ground!

Blog at

Up ↑