Mass Mobilisation 1. The First Step

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Lao-Tzu

The next series of articles will look at how a handful of libertarian nationalists can utilise their limited resources and skills to mobilise a mass movement to achieve political power as the purpose of politics in the final analysis is to organise enough people to take control of the state to implement their political agenda.

All ideological movements must face this problem but for nationalists the problem of mass mobilisation is unique as they must labour under threat of persecution. They are denied many of the rights of free association and free expression that other political groups take for granted. They are granted no access to the media, cannot meet in the open and known nationalist activists who are identified by the authorities through the seizure of party lists are formally and informally hounded from their jobs.

At present most nationalists are isolated 'keyboard commandos'. They exist only in cyber space and most likely have never met another nationalist face to face, let alone been active in a nationalist organisation. To some extent this is also true of the average British libertarian layman who's activist potential remains untapped because no appropriate means of agitation are provided for him by the libertarian leadership who tend to concentrate on intellectual endeavors which are naturally the preserve of a professional elite rather than that of your libertarian layman.

In the internet age most nationalist and libertarians become acquainted with these ideologies via the internet. The blog, the email and the online forum have revolutionised political activism by circumventing the traditional political gatekeepers, but barriers continue to exist that prevent activism. The nationalist scene has its fair share of neo-nazi's freaks and weirdos which no libertarian nationalist would want to be associated with yet one is expected to take a leap of faith in joining existing nationalist organisations without ever having scrutinised the people who comprise the organisation. With state agents actively trying to penetrate and derail these organisations it is not surprising that many nationalists are unwilling to come out from behind the keyboard for fear that by joining such an organisation they might be opening a Pandora's box, which will come back to haunt them.

This psychological barrier can only be broken down by building up trust and friendship first. Before any decision is taken to participate in formal organisational activism, be they attending a conference, canvassing or attending a demonstration our prospective nationalist must know and come to trust the men and women of the organisation he is thinking of joining: this can only be done by getting to know them on a social basis.

This requires libertarian nationalists to arrange to meet each other offline on an informal basis. They would, using the medium of the internet, agree to meet at a bar on a certain date and time and do nothing - just sit, drink and talk. There would be no roll call, no chair person, no public speeches and no secretary taking minutes. There would be no structure, the libertarian nationalists are free to talk about whatever they wish, invariably they will talk about politics but they might talk about sport or films. There is only one rule and that is nobody must exert pressure on another to do any kind of activism that he doesn't want to do.

At the end of the evening the libertarian nationalist will likely have come away with a positive impression of his fellow libertarian nationalists at the meet up and he will agree to another meet up again in perhaps 4-6 weeks time. Though it may initially appear that little constructive action has been achieved through these repeated meetings the bonds of friendship and trust are built up, which any political movement requires to thrive. Over time the numbers who attend these meet ups should hopefully increase to a few dozen regulars who know and trust each other enough to form an embryonic activist organisation to engage in offline activism to stimulate a mass movement.

For security purposes the dates and times of these meetings would not be publicised in any online forum or blog. The reason is to prevent any disruption by Antifa like groups, for example , a National Anarchist blogger refers to such an incident where such an informal meeting was infiltrated by the Antifa.

A nationalist friend of mine once organised a meeting of nationalists
through the Internet. Half a dozen would meet each other, some for the first
time, at a barbecue in a public park. The event was publicised in an online
chat forum for nationalists - including the place where the barbecue was to
take place, and the time. The actual meeting went ahead well enough, and the
nationalists in attendance, all young men, got along.

Naturally, an Antifa activist managed showed up and managed to pass
himself off as a nationalist and infiltrate the group. He took photos, as did an
Antifa pair standing some distance away. The photographs, and even some footage
of the gathering, were splashed across an Antifa website in the next few days,
along with mocking commentary. Understandably, the nationalists in
attendance were mortified, and some of the more inexperienced ones went
underground and never came back to the scene.

Anybody reading this blog interested in meeting up with this author and other like-minded libertarian nationalists in the United Kingdom should send an email to: kjerico142@googlemail.com Remember the longest journey begins with the smallest step.

The Liquidation of the Ruling Class

This manifesto does not explain how the NLF will gain power, which will be the subject of future posts but rather what it would do having gained power.


The policies that an NLF government would pursue would be one that would break the power of the plutocratic ruling class and restore a free and homogeneous Britain. Some of this analysis is based upon the work of Sean Gabb's 'Manifesto for the Right' made in 2001, with a few important revisions. The policy of the NLF would not be one of moderate reforms, but rather would within the first 100 days shut down much of regulatory agencies and thus cripple the plutocratic ruling class to stop from attempting it to take back power before it is entirely liquidated.

In its first few days of government the NLF will abolish all the regulatory departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry, Culture and Sport, Education and Training, Agricultural, Fisheries and Food. Local government functions that deal with town planning and child welfare would equally be abolished, alongside all manner of financial regulatory authorities. The employees of these departments should be sacked and the legislation enabling these organisation should be repealed. The above agencies are only examples of the agencies that would be abolished as the NLF would run through all regulatory bodies with a fine tooth comb and abolish each one guilty of enabling primary statism.

Not one more penny would be spent subsidising the transportation infrastructure to lower the distribution costs of big business. The railways and trunk roads would be genuinely privatised and handed over to the workers to run them as co-operative enterprise. Local roads would be handed over to local residents. Intellectual property and copyright would be declared null and void. The NLF would allow corporations to continue to operate under limited liability law at greatly increased taxation but no further incorporation under limited liability would be permitted.

Education would continue to be funded by government, but its curriculum would be determined by local residents. State schools would also be supplemented by private schools and home schools funded by vouchers. State funding for Higher Education would continue, tuition fees should be abolished and a modest grant restored. Whilst existing students shall remain unaffected the NLF will reverse the expansion of higher education by progressively limiting the number of places to around 10% of high school graduates. Although Higher Education is a bastion of the ruling class the purpose of these retaining goverment funding is not to alienate students who the NLF will need to draw on for activists.

The welfare state will be left substantially alone and part of the revenue savings created by our abolition of regulatory agencies should be used to increase the state pension and abolish means testing for benefits. Any later reforms of the welfare state to reduce welfare dependency or privatise pensions ought to be careful not to penalise any existing claimants. The NHS should continue to be funded by government, but the work contracted out to private individuals and co-operatives (Not corporations).

On matters of race and immigration, the race relations industry will find itself unemployed and laws against free speech and association should be repealed. Legislation will be passed forbidding further non-white immigration and as to the existing ethnic minorities in Britain an NLF government would look to their legal status. Illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported without compensation, Legal immigrants working on visa's should not be permitted to renew them when they expire. No compulsion will be exercised to immigrants and their descendants who have been in Britain long enough to obtain citizenship, rather as part of the liquidation of the ruling class the NLF will offer generous financial incentives for such minorities to voluntarily return to their countries of origins. Whilst they remain in Britain they will retain full civil and legal rights.

The NLF would also change the tax system to remove the burden of taxation off ordinary people and small business and shift it to the plutocratic ruling class. With the tax savings generated from destroying much of the regulatory bureaucracy as well as the tax increases for corporations and other ruling class interests, ordinary people will see their tax bill shrink significantly whilst keeping much of the welfare state.

Such policies if implemented will ensure the liquidation of Britain's plutocratic ruling class in a manner which would be least painfull for the ordinary people who are exploited by it.

Primary and Secondary Statism

The NLF beleives it is a mistake to treat every reduction in state activity as a step in the right direction. Rather we view each proposed reduction as part of the overall statist whole. The NLF being nationalists oppose open borders and are not only in favour of restrictions on white immigration, but advocate a complete halt to non-white immigration. We do this because we beleive that in a genuinely free world there would be no push/pull factors arising from the coercive power of states which would cause such mass movements of alien peoples from one corner of the globe to another. Rather a free world would be a world of ethnically and culturally homogenous nations, rather than the abraisive multi-cultural 'diversity' that is being imposed upon the West today.

Using this systematic or dialectical approach the NLF does not treat all manifestations of statism as equivalent, rather it views each concrete action of the state in relation to the system of power as a whole. To put it in more simplistic terms we look at the big picture and see whether a state law actually means more or less power for our plutocratic ruling class. Any state action that increases the power or wealth of the plutocratic ruling class is an example of primary statism, e.g. Limited Liability Law, Intellectual Property, Business regulation. Any state action that alleviates some of the exploitation of the oppressed class such as the minimum wage and the welfare state should be seen as secondary statism.

The NLF approach should be to agitate against the primary facets of statism, whilst leaving the secondary facets substantially alone. Although the NLF is in principle opposed to both facets of statism the secondary statism exists to aleviate the consequences of the exploitative nature of primary statism. By destroying primary statism one eliminates the conditions that give rise to the demand for secondary statism. Without the instability and exploitation characteristic of the corporate-statist economy the demand for state welfare and labor protection will wither away on its own terms. For now to advocate the dismantlement of secondary statism whilst the primary statism remains in place is akin to handing over more exploitative powers to the plutocratic ruling elites and inflicting more suffering on the already heavily oppressed masses.

Libertarianism 7. Kevin A Carson

The most interesting development in recent years in Libertarian circles has been the ideas of Kevin A Carson, who has taken standard theories of the state and applied it to modern day corporations demonstrating that these modern day corporations operate with much of the inefficiencies of states, the reason why they are so dominant in our present society is that they are given massive privileges by the state through limited liability laws, transport subsidies, artificial property rights like intellectual property and using government regulations to raise entry barriers creating in effect credit and land monopolies.

Such laws result in an economy dominated by a cartel of a few large corporations, which due to the absence of genuine competition that would exist in a free market can and do abuse their monopoly position to engage in exploitative practices such as raising prices above the cost of production to the ability of consumers to pay (Drug Companies are notorious for this) and strengthening the bargaining position of employers relative to labour.

The result has been an economy where despite massive increases in labour productivity in the last 30 years the standard of living of the working population has remained stagnant or in some cases gotten a lot worse. The productivity increase has been entirely aborbed by the richest 1% of the population, who have obtained it via exploitative practices.

Having highlighted this Kevin Carson argues that in a political economy dominated not by free market exchange but power, unionism of the labour force and the welfare state must be seen as positive fight back by labour in order to recover their slice of the pie that has been stolen from them by the corporate cartels. Ultimately, however, Kevin Carson argues the ideal solution lies in the abolition of power relations by taking away the state privileges the corporate cartels hold and returning to a genuine free market, where labour enjoys the full fruits of its productivity.

The sort of society that would emerge from the abolition of corporate privilege would be an economy that would be vastly decentralised in which the majority of the population would be self-employed or be part of worker cooperatives and where production was geared to serve local markets. Without the inefficiencies and exploitation of corporate cartels today's standard of living could be achieved by working only 20 hours a week.

The NLF finds only a few faults with Mr Carson's work, firstly Mr Carson is an anarchist, secondly nowhere in his work can be found of the exploitative practices of mass immigration and thirdly the NLF is skeptical of the claims of peak oil. Otherwise the NLF is in substantive agreement with Mr Carson on the matters of political economy, it is a theory that validates standard nationalist critiques of globalisation and the supposedly 'free market', yet shows how nationalistic ideals can be created through the genuinely free market.

Libertarianism 6. The British Movement

The resurgence of the Libertarian movement in Britain occurred in the late 1970s under the direction of Chris Thame who's life was tragically cut short in 2006. During his life he was the key person in organising the Libertarian Alliance, which aimed not to repeat what it saw as the errors of American Libertarianism. Firstly it would not contest elections believing these to be a waste of time and effort serving only to divide the movement and exhaust the movement over matters of triviality. Secondly, the Libertarian Alliance sought to avoid the conflict endemic in the Libertarian movement such as the conflict between Objectivists and Austrians and provide a forum for genteel debate.

The Libertarian Alliance saw its role as not engaging with the masses but in targeting the intellectuals - the 5% of the population that were interested in political ideas. Taking its cue from the Fabian Society, it published scholarly articles, organised conferences, spoke at University and appeared on radio debates in the expectation that these ideas would eventually be picked up by the political classes and implemented, much like the ideas behind the Institute of Economic Affairs were eventually picked up and became the template of thatcherism.

Needless to say it didn't, the Libertarian movement in Britain which peaked in the early 1990s has been in decline ever since with its aging membership not being replaced with young members, to the point where the pessimistic amongst them predict that eventually there will be too few living libertarians to sustain a movement and it might die just as Libertarian ideas were dead through much of the twentieth century. This decline prompted Sean Gabb in conjunction with Chris Thame to resurrect class analysis, which for many has been regarded as the preserve of marxism. They concluded that Libertarian ideas whilst true were not being given the light of the day because they were a threat to the wealth, power and status of the class of individuals who draw, wealth, power and status from an activist state.

The Libertarian Alliance, in spite of this analysis continues its strategy of courting the intellectuals even though their ideas is not in the self-interest of the many statist intellectuals suckling at the states teat. The National Libertarian Front argues that radical political change cannot be achieved by publishing a few more pamphlets rather it must engage in the sorts of visible activism traditionally associated with the 'far right' and 'far left'.

Libertarianism 5. Austrian School

Murray Rothbard whilst remaining an anarcho-capitalist his view on what attitude libertarians should adopt to the current political issues changed over his life time. He began as a member of the Old Right but left in the 1950s as the Cold War hotted up and most conservatives supported an activist foreign policy to deal with the communist threat. In the 1960s he aligned himself with the New Left and joined in the protests over the Vietnam movement, whereas following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the last years of his life he turned his attention to more cultural matters and wrote the first important critiques of mass non-white immigration.



Upon his death in 1995 his student Hans-Herman Hoppe elaborated on Rothbard's earlier work and despite himself being an anarcho-capitalist has provided the most cogent argument against open borders and has proved controversial to say the least, with his detractors in the libertarian movement preferring to examine the motives and character of Mr Hoppe rather than the substance of his claims. This fracture has led to the emergence of the Property and Freedom Society where normally taboo subjects such as racial differences and IQ can be discussed openly.

The greatest weakness of the Austrian School in general has been as an apologist of the Corporation, for example the the standard Austrian analysis of the current recession will level apportion blame on the state but avoid any serious criticism on the role of corporations as enablers of such state activism. Also the Austrian School is purely an intellectual movement and does not contribute to any activism beyond the publishing of scholarly articles and the holding of conferences.

Libertarianism 4. Austrian School

The Austrian school refers to the group of intellectuals influenced by the work of Ludwig Von Mises, an economist from Austria. Austrian economic theory provides a very detailed defence of the free market in a very sober and academic way. The two famous students of Ludwig Von Mises were Hayek and Rothbard. Of the two students Hayek ideas have proved more influential in the political mainstream and provided the basis for the Thatcherite economic policies of the 1980s. It should be noted in passing that the Thatcherism did not entail a rolling back of the state, but rather its aims were limited into making the state more efficient and encouraging the further cartelisation of the British economy by corporations.

Rothbard on the other hand was more influential on the Libertarian movement itself. He became more radical than Von Mises developing a new stand of libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism, which arguing against 6,000 years of civilisation claimed that all states were tyrannical and needed to be overthrown and replaced by competing private security agencies who could be trusted to provide law and order and to such territories liberated from the state. The NLF on the other hand are minarchists believing states are legitimate and useful to the extent they protect individual rights.

Rothbard's anarchism has helped ensure Libertarianism remains in the political ghetto as it has created a rather rigid inflexibility amongst many libertarians, of taking the non aggression principle to the point of dogma. For example on state borders many libertarians would view it as tyrannical instrument as it prevents migrants from coming into the country and engaging in voluntary exchange. The fact that many who would otherwise enter the country in the face of firm border controls would become a burden on the welfare state and, given the forced association due to anti-discrimination laws, would in practice be trespassing on private property is simply brushed aside.