Interview with Troy Southgate

The House of Iconoclast interview with Troy Southgate is now available for all subscribers.

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Troy Southgate regrading the political philosophy of National-Anarchism.

Troy Southgate graduated from the University of Kent at Canterbury in 1997 and is most known for his past political activism with a number of revolutionary nationalist organisations. In addition, he co-founded the “New Right” think tank with the late Jonathan Bowden, is an established author and advocate of National-Anarchism, and founded Black Front Press in 2010, in which he continues to serve as editor-in-chief to this day.

---

TH: Could you provide an initial summary of the political philosophy of National-Anarchism?

TS: The most succinct way to describe National-Anarchism is to imagine a decentralised village-community that is entirely self-sufficient and in which the inhabitants each agree with the general consensus. Anarchism is the most important principle, of course, but there must also be a central or unifying vision that binds the community together. This relates to a pre-arranged commitment to a particular lifestyle, which can be anything from vegetarianism and naturism right through to Christianity, Islam, Judaism and anything in between. It could, in principle, even involve some kind of fantasy, with themes such as medievalism or science-fiction. As long as the society itself is Anarchist, anything is possible.

TH: How does National-Anarchism differ from Anarcho-Primitivism?

TS: It doesn't, in many cases, but then it does in others. What I mean by this, is that National-Anarchism is so diverse that it can adopt an entire multitude of forms. Some communities will be either consciously or deliberately primitivist, i.e. setting out to pursue that specific type of existence, but others will be centred around something else. We are certainly not opposed to primitivism, and for me personally it has great value. John Zerzan's 'Against Civilisation' is a decent guide in that respect. What I would also say, however, is that modern civilisation is by nature unsustainable - as all empires are - and will eventually decline. This means that many forms of technology that we now take for granted will no longer be available. Factories will simply not be producing them and will stand idle, whilst the transport infrastructure will come to a grinding halt. This will not be a sudden phenomenon and will affect some parts of the 'developed' world before others, but it does seem to be something of an inevitability when you take into account the fact that the earth's resources are finite. The most important thing of all, is how we react to this process. The key, as always, is to build viable alternatives on the periphery that can withstand this peacemeal dissolution.

TH: In what manner would the recruitment process for a National-Anarchist community occur?

TS: This would work in the same way as any political initiative, but at a time when dissident activities are being so heavily monitored the best and most reliable method is word-of-mouth. After all, if you're going to live side by side with others in a community there has to be a high degree of trust and therefore it makes sense to recruit friends or loved ones rather than people you barely know from the other side of the world. That's the more idealistic approach, I think, although in practice it is often a mixture of the two.

TH: In which countries do you see National-Anarchism taking root and how would that work logistically?

TS: National-Anarchism is already taking root around the world, most notably in Italy (or what most people know as 'Italy,' a country that seems to have enormous potential for our ideas) and various parts of eastern Europe. Many of these projects are taking place beneath the radar, for the reasons I stated above, but they do demonstrate that we are not waiting for some 'glorious day' upon which our political, social and economic ideals will be put into operation, and that revolution can take place immediately. Besides, if we don't have some kind of loose infrastructure in place we, like millions of others, will end up going down with the sinking ship.

TH: If people are free to come and go at their leisure in a National-Anarchist community how do you cultivate commitment amongst the people?

TS: Commitment must revolve around the unifying principle that I mentioned above, but of course if people no longer feel any affinity with the ideas that bind the community together they are free to leave at any time. I would to think that there will be a proliferation of National-Anarchist communities around that can allow people freedom of choice. It is also the case that certain personalities need to work separately in order to avoid conflict, something that has affected many alternative communities in the past; be it the Guild of St. Joseph and St. Dominic in England or the Owenite communities that were transplanted in America. In a more positive vein, I think we only need look at some of the Amish communities that are thriving today, as well as the many thousands of tribal communities that exist in the so-called 'Third World'. The most important factor of all, from our perspective, is that each community must be entirely non-coercive.

TH: If people of various different principles; pagans and christians, and different sexual preferences are permitted within a National-Anarchist community how would you ensure that conflict does not arise and the subsequent breakdown of that society does not occur, such as if a historically documented dispute arose between the Catholics and Protestants, the Christians and the pagans, the Christians and the homosexuals et al?

TS: What you describe sounds rather similar to what we have today, in many respects, the fake 'pluralism' one finds in modern societies that like to give the impression that all tastes are catered for. In reality, this kind of 'pluralism' never works because it involves a degree of compromise and then you end up with diluted forms of religion, sexuality or anything else. We would prefer communities to retain their fundamental beliefs and principles, something that can only really work through separatism. Rather than throw a hypothetical net over a group of people, therefore, expecting everybody to get along as best they can, it seems far more logical to plan these things from the very beginning and take into account the fact that certain beliefs are utterly incompatible. That doesn't mean that a community cannot be founded upon Christian sexuality, for example, or erotic paganism. Things that sound incompatible to some, may be perfectly acceptable to others. Saying that, unity is everything - however people choose to live their lives.

TH: You mentioned that National-Anarchist communities can be mono-racial or multi-racial and that National-Anarchists seek to preserve natural biodiversity among humans, but what is to stop a multi-racial National-Anarchist community from undergoing demographic change, and then eventually transforming into a mono-racial community, and then members of that community joining other National-Anarchist communities to repeat the process?

TS: Be they multi-racial or mono-racial, National-Anarchist communities must be strongly defended. Forced change, in either case, would obviously be a transgression or violation of the community's original principles and you would expect that to be met with swift resistance. At the same time, if the general consensus is that more (or less) diversity is suddenly required then it must be decided by the members of the community itself. Naturally, those who disagree will go elsewhere. Just as many of us are detaching ourselves from modernity today.

- June 29, 2025