Synthesis Editor
TROY SOUTHGATE

THIS INTERVIEW will also appear in a new Romanian publication whose title is unconfirmed at this time, and was conducted in the latter part of 2001.

I am afraid that I am starting this interview with a possible prejudgement, that of having radically opposed aims and conceptions, but a position that, in the end, will only guarantee our objectivity. Going back in time and remembering the first years of your political activism, what can you tell us about your initial motivations, ideas and the personal history that made you into the well known Traditionalist and anti-Capitalist thinker of today?

I was born and raised in Crystal Palace, South London, and come from a typical working class background. My mother was just sixteen when I was born, so I am part of a very young family. She eventually became an auxiliary nurse, whilst my father earned the qualifications to become a chartered surveyor. Apart from being very patriotic in a purely instinctual sense, I did not show a great deal of interest in politics or philosophy as a youngster, although I did vote for the Labour Party shortly after my eighteenth birthday in the mistaken belief that it was somehow capable of overthrowing Margaret Thatcher's dominant Conservative Government and heralding a new age of social justice. However, by 1984 I was attending a Bad Manners concert in Croydon, Surrey, when a friend introduced me to several members of the local National Front (NF). I was rather cautious, to say the least, and would never have described myself as a 'racist' of any description. Consequently, I joined the NF because I found myself in agreement with two main principles: Popular Rule and Distributism. The former is a socio-political system based upon Muammar al-Qathafi's The Green Book (1977), advocating the establishment of decentralised area and regional committees in accordance with the authority of the people. The latter is an economic current which was originally started by Hilaire Belloc (The Restoration of Property, 1936) and G.K. Chesterton (The Outline of Sanity, 1926), two giants of English literature who converted to Catholicism and forged their unique alternative to Capitalism and Marxism from the key papal encyclicals of Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum, 1831) and Pius XI (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931). My acceptance of the NF's more prominent stance on racial separation developed much later, although by this time I had accepted that the universe is governed by Natural Order and, therefore, that multi-racialism was - and remains - disastrous for the whole of humanity. This belief was further strengthened by my conversion to Catholicism in 1987, a decision which had been partly inspired by Douglas Hyde's I Believed (1950) and Chesterton's Orthodoxy (1959). Another major ideological figure in my political and spiritual awakening - and one well known to readers of l'Ecole Europa - was Corneliu Codreanu, a man whose selfless crusade against Judaeo-Communism has already inspired several generations. Others were William Morris (News From Nowhere, 1890), Robert Blatchford (Merrie England, 1893), John Jenkins (Prison Letters, 1981), William Cobbett (Cottage Economy, 1821) and Otto Strasser (Germany Tomorrow, 1940).

The tumultuous and revolutionary beginnings of the 1990s found you in the position of a conservative Catholic, being strongly involved with the circle of Final Conflict and the International Third Position. How were those times and how were they manifested within you?

When the official NF began its penultimate demise in the Autumn of 1989, the International Third Position (ITP) seemed to be a logical response to the irrepressible personality differences which had torn the NF leadership apart. After serving an eighteen-month prison sentence for my involvement in a street battle with the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) in Brighton, I became a leading ITP organiser, being responsible for writing, producing and publishing a variety of regionalised publications like The Kent Crusader, Surrey Action, Eastern Legion and Catholic Action. At that time, the ITP appeared to be the legitimate heir to the National Revolutionary movement in the British Isles, although the lies, dishonesty and political hypocrisy of individuals such a Roberto Fiore and Derek Holland soon led to a major split in the ranks of the organisation. At this time, the ITP's present magazine - Final Conflict - had only just been conceived and the aforementioned publications (including Northern Rising) were under the control of those of us who eventually left to form the English Nationalist Movement (ENM) in September 1992. Thus, whilst our departure absolutely decimated the ITP it also saved many worthy and committed individuals from becoming pointlessly embroiled in crypto-fascism.

The decision of departing from Derek Holland's crew and the ITP did come almost inevitably. What were the real motivations behind this act? Personal conflict, the apparent dogmatism of the ITP, or what else?

The ITP completely turned its back on the true principles of Revolutionary Nationalism and had begun to adopt a position of reactionary clerical-fascism. Indeed, this was perceived as a major step backwards and whilst both myself and the various other radicals within the group were trying to promote a form of patriotic socialism amongst ordinary people on the streets, our opponents on the Right were rediscovering figures such as Mussolini, Petain and Franco. This attitude was chiefly a result of the organisation's emerging tendency to adopt a more overt expression of Catholicism, but this became a great embarrassment to those of us who were trying to advance the principles of Revolutionary Nationalism in a more gradual and organic sense. Indeed, whilst the majority of us were doing most of the real work by selling in excess of 30 magazines door-to-door every night and organising various pickets and demonstrations, self-appointed 'leaders' like Roberto Fiore were courting French, Spanish and Italian neo-nazis and lining their pockets by exploiting travelling students who were charged an absolute fortune to live in squalid and decrepid bedsits in West London. These problems were eventually compounded when Derek Holland and Roberto Fiore stole thousands of pounds in property from ordinary ITP activists who had invested their savings in the group's disastrous rural project in Northern France. Unsurprising, several years later it emerged that these converted farm buildings were collectively up for sale in the name of Fiore's wife.

A surprising decision came with your renunciation of Roman Catholicism, a symbolical gesture which was seen as a betrayal and a blasphemy by third positionists and conservative Right-wing nationalists.

My decision to reject Traditional Catholicism and, inevitably, The Society of St. Pius X, was a personal decision. If my judgement has upset anyone in conservative circles then that is their problem. The Catholic Faith was extremely dear to me at one time, but I saw with my own eyes the deep-set bigotry amongst those who consider themselves the occupiers of the moral high-ground. For most people this attitude soon develops into conceit and bigotry. Those who spend their time moralising to others should find time to look into their own hearts. I have seen Catholics leave the confessional and, within five minutes, begin ranting or gossiping about others. One of my closest friends has remained a Traditional Catholic and there is no conflict between us whatsoever. We simply respect one another's personal beliefs. When all is said and done, of course, it is the individual who has to face the consequences of his or her own actions. The ITP, for example, may seem respectable when they are kneeling in the pews amid grey-haired widows and unsuspecting priests, but it is they who will have to answer for their duplicity, deception and false piety. But this is simply one perspective. I would gladly have stifled my growing disgust and even endured a whole army of self-satisfied Catholics if assured of my place within the heavenly scheme of things, but I was slowly becoming exposed to a variety of new and exciting influences. One such current was Mithraism, the Roman sun cult which had almost eclipsed Christianity during the fourth century and become the world's chief religion. But I was not about to replace one form of monotheism with another, on the contrary, my interest lay not in personal conversion but in the historical and theological considerations which marked the struggle between Mithraism and Christianity. After studying works such as Franz Cumont's The Mysteries of Mithra (Dover, 1956) and D. Jason Cooper's Mithras: Mysteries and Initiation Rediscovered (Samuel Weiser, 1996), I soon came to realise the extent to which Catholicism had blatantly plagiarised the ritualistic and liturgical trappings of its Mithraic adversary. For many years, of course, I had chosen to ignore the fact that many Christian feast-days were deliberately engineered to obscure the traditional pagan festivals which had long preceded them. As far as I was concerned, this latest revelation became the straw which finally broke the camel's back. This process helped to remove the blinkers from my eyes and I have been exploring the spiritual alternatives ever since.

Your views on the Living Tradition of Europe seem to contradict with the scholastical Christian views of the first Fathers and philosophers, your own philosophical system being closer to a certain neo-pagan culture. Why is this radical position necessary, to split Europe's Tradition between the Christian and the Heathen?

I don't view things in this fractured context at all. I must admit that when I first rejected monotheism I did approach cosmological matters from a fundamentally 'heathen' or non-Christian perspective, but I suppose that I was pretty used to evaluating the universe in a systematic fashion and therefore I rather reluctantly embraced the 'pagan' epithet because it appeared to represent everything outside of Christianity itself. Three or four years later, however, I am more inclined to search for evidence of Tradition within a whole multitude of esoteric categories, be they Catholic, Gnostic, Sufi, Hermetic, Yogic or Cabbalistic. Tradition is an underlying current which both permeates and transcends all.

As we understand, you no longer support the Catholic Church, but it still cannot be said that you are a heretic. I know that you also studied Theology for some time. Which are the most important ecclesiastical figures, Holy Fathers or Saints that you still find appropriate in terms of your current ideas?

I am descended from the famous Scottish clan of Maclean, whose Catholic luminaries include the last two abbesses to serve on the Isle of Iona and the more well known St. Columba. I still find myself inspired by a vast range of Catholic figures, but the main problem I have is with the rigid dogmatism of the Church itself. At one time, the mere suggestion that Catholicism was not completely perfect would trigger a series of tiny alarm bells in my head. Nowadays, however, I prefer to look at certain saints or particular events in isolation. But not in order to detach them from what I consider to be a much wider Tradition, but simply because it is easier to study given examples of mysticism and the miraculous without them being quantified or tarnished by religious stricture. I believe that the Church has consistently approached the supernatural in one of two ways; indeed, when it is not burning people at the stake it is claiming them for its own. Joan of Arc and St. Francis, for example, are but two mystical figures with whom the conscience of the Church has been forced to wrestle. Catholics will argue that the Church is God's representative upon earth, but it is due precisely to the overpowering stench of human involvement - and, thus, corruption - that I have come to reject its validity. I think that when it comes to obtaining inspiration from the saints and scholars of yesteryear, we can each judge for ourselves without the interference of the codifiers and the law-makers.

The so-called Anarchism of the National Revolutionary Faction (NRF) differs from what is usually understood by this concept. Being heretical by its intrinsic nature (anti-dogmatic, non-spiritual, anti-conservative), you claim the possession of a form of Anarchism which has no definitive roots in the Leftist context. Can we speak then about a Right-Anarchism of the NRF, and what are more precisely the ideas behind National-Anarchism?

National-Anarchism essentially transcends the Left-Right spectrum, concluding that both epithets are simply convenient terms for the political establishment. We do not emanate from the Left, as you say, but then neither do we come from the Right. The NF was undoubtedly a Right-wing organisation, at least prior to the mid-1980s, but political movements are nothing more than vehicles for the realisation of ideas and objectives. In fact their memberships are often extremely diverse. One thinks of the conflicting ideas that prevailed within the early Fascist and National-Socialist movements, for example. National-Anarchism is also very different to the vast majority of ideological tendencies in that we completely reject the Protestant work-ethic which runs through Western society. Bob Black explains this perfectly: "Curiously - or maybe not - all the old ideologies are conservative because they believe in work. Some of them, like Marxism and most brands of anarchism, believe in work all the more fiercely because they believe in so little else . . . Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working." (From The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, Loompanics, 1985, pp. 1-2). Another feature which distinguishes us from the mainstream 'anarchist' movement, is our profound belief in racial separatism. Here in England, National-Anarchists have consistently been labelled 'fascist' by a minority of self-seeking Trotskyists and anarcho-dogmatists, but despite their threats and cajoling our enemies are beginning to realise that this term is a complete misnomer given that we wish to establish or own areas in which to live according to our own principles. Indeed, we have no desire to rule over an administrative structure or disaffected population of any kind. This is what makes us so unique. Whilst they choose their own destinies, we shall choose ours. National-Anarchists also have an interest in Synarchy and the so-called 'Anarchism of the Right', which has developed in France. The German philosopher Ernst Junger has also discussed the concept of the 'Anarch' in his novel, Eumeswil (Quartet, 1995), with the main character being used to represent a purely sovereign individual.

You collaborate with and support one of the most 'repugnant' (at least for conservative New Right activists) ideological groups, the National-Bolsheviks. How are your relations with this current?

We have a fairly good relationship with Alexander Dugin, but see him more as an independent sage than as a representative of the National-Bolshevik current per se. Indeed, he appears to be an extremely talented and multi-faceted thinker and is bringing together political, cultural and spiritual personalities from around the world. We also have an excellent relationship with National-Bolsheviks like the American Front (AF), who, despite the fact that they do not share our anarchistic tendencies, are basically working for very similar objectives. Thus we differ with National-Bolshevism when it comes to supporting a State infrastructure, but we do share their attitude towards Eurasian geopolitics.

Eurasia - a theory built for justifying the new Russian imperialism and, on the other hand, the perspective of the creation of an invisible Islamic spiritual domination within the heart of Europe. This tends to become the general impression of the persons from outside of the National-Anarchist & Traditional perimeter regarding the Eurasian issue. What are your concrete thoughts about this concept?

I understand perfectly well that critics of Eurasianism will inevitably suspect that Russia is secretly preparing to dominate the world by bringing together the opponents of Americanisation and the New World Order, but despite her messianic reputation I sincerely believe that Russia offers us all a golden opportunity. I do not believe that Islam will be the dominant trend in the coming Eurasian alliance, although it will definitely have an important role to play. When Alexander Dugin launched his 'Eurasia' movement on January 1st, 2001, it was made absolutely clear that religious dogmatism and monotheistic bigotry has no place within the Eurasian plan. Indeed, just four months later Eurasia staged a meeting at which delegates from fifty-one regions of the Russian Federation included Talgat Tadzhuddin (Supreme Mufti of Russia), Ioann Ekonomtsev (Chairman of the Department of Theological Education and Catechesis of the Russian Orthodox Church), Ioann Bogoslov (Rector of the Russian Orthodox University) and Andrey Lupsandashievic Dondukbayev (Chassidic rabbi and leader of Bead Artzein). At the same time, however, the NRF believes that Eurasia must take the form of a decentralised imperium comprised of like-minded allies. Not a uniform bloc in which cultural diversity and regional autonomy are stifled or obliterated, but a general stream of life, love and liberty which flows in the same direction for the general interest of all. But this is not simply a utopian dream designed to convince humanity that we can live in peace for all eternity, it is a realistic appreciation that we can only survive Coca-McDeath if we learn to join forces with other freedom fighters and pool our resources. Perhaps one of the best examples of positive collaboration between ideologically or religiously-opposed groups, is that of the great rapport which took place between the Knights Templar and their Sufi Assassin contemporaries during the Crusades. Julius Evola wrote about the vision of a new imperium in his Revolt Against The Modern World (Inner Traditions, 1995), pointing out that one of the very final vestiges of Tradition in Europe was led by the Ghibbelines during the Middle Ages. He also made an important distinction between medieval imperium as represented by the Holy Roman Empire, and the imperialistic shenanigans which later characterised the internecine struggle between competing nation-states. More importantly, of course, Eurasianism is part of a long and unbroken esoteric strand and must always retain its spiritual content. In the words of Alexandre Blok, a Eurasian poet who attempted to compare the dynamic 'mystical-anarchism' of early twentieth-century Russia with the fading shadow of the dying West: "Centuries of your days are but an hour to us / Yet like obedient slaves / We've held a shield between two hostile races - Europe, and the Mongol hordes . . . From war and horror come to our open arms / The embrace of kin / Put the old sword away while there's time / Hail us brothers . . . Ah, Old World, before you have perished, join our fraternal banquet." (Quoted in The Secret of Eurasia by Mehmet Sabeheddin, New Dawn, Issue 68, Autumn 2001, p. 84).

Your sympathy and support for Islam surely maddens the conservative traditionalists. What, in your opinion, is the principal success of Islam in one of the most profound Christian countries of Europe (France and England being just a few notorious examples)? Could this come in accordance with the grave moment of social and doctrinal weakness through which the Church seems to have passed in the last decade (something which has already culminated with the sudden conversion of the oldest and most glorious part of Christianity to Islamicism in the seventh and eighth centuries)?

I think the reason Islam has managed to achieve so many victories within the heart of Europe is due to its vitality and dynamism in the face of a decaying civilisation. The decline of institutional Christianity has left a huge spiritual void, and one which - in England, at least - is now being filled by second and third generation Asian immigrants, many of whom are often far more radical and devout than their parents ever were. But I think that whilst Islam is potentially very rewarding for many young Pakistani and Indian immigrants, it is foolish to dismiss Mohammedanism as a purely racial entity. Right-wing organisations like the British National Party (BNP), for example, are trying to make great capital from the recent upsurge in Islamophobia. The NRF supports Islam from the perspective that many of its adherents are vigorously opposed to International Zionism, although those groups which act as mere pressure-valves for opponents of immigration will achieve very little if they do not attempt to awaken a spiritual consciousness within their own people. In France, of course, Islam has also attracted the interest of many leading intellectuals.

There is a whole current nowadays (promoted especially by Jean Parvulesco and Alexander Dugin) that speaks about a new Axe, under the slogan Paris-Berlin-Moscow. How do you see the role of Russia at the beginning of this new year, considering that at the beginning of the 1990s (just after the fall of the Iron Curtain in Europe) Russia was seen by all Western countries as the perpetually evil Mr. Hyde of Europe?

I think that due to its great influence within Asia and Eastern Europe, Russia has proved invaluable in the American quest for world domination. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB spy, now appears to be forging a close relationship with President George W. Bush. In fact the eagerness of the Washington administration to get Russia 'on-side', so to speak, must come as no surprise to those of us who understand the mechanics of geopolitics. The only problem we have, is that if we are to put forward the Eurasian plan and unite the opponents of America throughout the world, it is vitally important for Russia to retain her 'dissident' status. Therefore we do not welcome the alliance between Russia and America because it helps to postpone the inevitable division between Russia and the West.

You recall being influenced by Mircea Eliade and Julius Evola, to mention just a few. Also, it is no secret that you once had sympathies for the ideas of Corneliu Codreanu and the Legion of St. Michael the Archangel. How do you see the austere Tradition of the Iron Guard within the general context of the Traditional European Idea nowadays?

We must take great inspiration from Codreanu, not least because he continues to symbolise one of the finest examples of a true synthesis between the political and the spiritual. The 1920s and 1930s gave birth to a pan-European backlash against the increasing technocracy and materialism of the modern world, but today we have a situation in which we must both think and act in a more cosmological and global fashion. In other words, whilst we should indeed be very proud of our Indo-European heritage, we must also break out of the Euro-centric mould within which we have become imprisoned. In other words, we have to relinquish the very idea of the West. As Guillaume Faye points out: "This is the hideous face of a civilisation, which, with an implacable logic, has forced itself onto every culture, gradually levelling them, bringing all peoples into the gamut of the one-world system. What use is the cry 'Yanks out!', when those who shout the slogans are Levi customers? More successful than Soviet Marxism this civilisation is realising the project of abolishing human history in order to ensure the perpetual well-being of bourgeois man . . . This system, this civilisation, which is eradicating the identities of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas has a name: it is called Western Civilisation." (Quoted in Spotlight On The New Right by Michael Walker, The Scorpion, Issue #10, Autumn 1986, p. 9). I am certain that Codreanu - whilst seeking to conserve and maintain his own Romanian Orthodox tradition - would have appreciated the subtleties which lay behind this sentiment, not least because like Che Guevara both he and other martyred comrades such as Mota and Marin understood the importance of fighting common struggles in other lands. We Europeans are residing deep within enemy lines, therefore we must support revolution on the periphery whilst encouraging dissent and resistance from within.

Did you have any contact with the legionary circles from Romania in the first part of the 1990s? And I am thinking here of the notorious Gazeta de Vest publication of Ovidiu Gules, an organisational magazine well known and directly supported by the English Right-wing and Traditionalist forums. Or perhaps other circles or persons?

I had no personal contact with Romanian organisations during that period, although we did receive copies of Gazeta de Vest from time to time. My own impression of this publication was that it was a thinly-disguised propaganda outlet for the ITP. In fact it probably appeared in English because the ITP were keen to portray themselves as the 'heirs' of the Legionary ideal in England, despite the fact that the NRF has itself been conducting forest camps and cross-country hikes for many years now. We have also held torchlight rituals during which small bags of earth were distributed in the manner of the Iron Guard.

Decentralisation or Centralism? As a Traditionalist thinker how do you conceive a perfectly decentralist authority in the modern society?

National-Anarchists wish to create a series of village communities. These communities will be politically and culturally independent of one another, although at a higher level each village may or may not wish to form part of a confederated alliance. We do not presume that National-Anarchist communities will live in perpetual harmony, on the contrary, human nature determines that there will always be people wishing to infringe upon the lives and property of others. Therefore our villages will have to be primed for self-defence. At a higher level still, the regional alliance will give its allegiance to any group of individuals who - regardless of their spiritual or cultural aspirations - wish to maintain and preserve their own identities and freedoms. It is a fact that new communities are usually forged by the most pragmatic and superior individuals, therefore by the time the Capitalist System finds itself in a position of acute decline National-Anarchists will have grasped the practicalities which are demanded by an alternative lifestyle. As far as authority is concerned, we have no desire to create a governmental infrastructure in the way that nations and states are run today. Who knows, perhaps we will see the return of the Anglo-Saxon moot system? Furthermore, of course, the collapse of Capitalism will be accompanied by an inevitable regression of technology and, whilst we are not strictly advocating the establishment of primitivist or hunter-gatherer societies, there remains little doubt that without people working day and night in the factories to produce the so-called 'luxuries' of the fool's paradise, we will all have to knuckle down and get to grips with the harsh realities of the real world.

These are unfortunate years, in which the cultural elites have a tendency to identify themselves with the political elites. Where is the place of the elites and what is (or should be) their role in a National-Anarchist state?

Elitism is a natural phenomenon and, thus, we perceive it to be a perfectly ordinary (or, in some cases, extraordinary) part of human endeavour. We also believe that political revolutions usually succeed on the coat-tails of their cultural counterparts. National-Socialism is a prime example of how politicians managed to tap the cultural vein of Germany and appeal to the sensibilities of the masses. We, on the other hand, do not wish to appeal to the masses. In fact we are rather misanthropic in that we choose to shun the trappings of the mass society and create alternatives from without. One of my favourite quotations is that of E. Gunther Grundel: "The new man is still evolving. Indeed, he is not yet visible to everyone, for he does not come from the noisy centre which constantly attracts the attention of the crowd, but from the quiet periphery. Every force that is destined to topple an age which has run its course comes from the periphery of that age with all its values and pseudo-values. It is in the moments of great crisis in the emergence of the new that the 'outsiders' take on their special function of forming the nucleus of a new centre around which the coming world will henceforth order itself." (From Die Sendung der jungen Generation, Munich, 1933, p. 337)

You support and have contact with the circles of Robert Steuckers, Pierre Vial, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist and Alexander Dugin. What do you think separates them and what do you think unites them? How much of their programme do you support?

I have only had contact with two of these individuals, namely Alexander Dugin and Robert Steuckers. I think each of us differs in various ways but what makes our contact so exciting and constructive is that we are consistently searching for common ground. The differences between various thinkers often seem multifarious and irreconcilable, at least until one examines the possibilities that can arise from the similarities. There is no single person in the world with whom I could agree on every principle, so it is always a question of weighing up the positives and negatives. This, after all, lies at the very root of all synthesising processes.

How do you view the regionalism, federalism and their tendencies these days?

In England we have quite a number of regionalist groups, one of which - the Wessex Regionalists - was closely involved with National-Anarchists during the successful Anarchist Heretics Book Fair we organised in May 2000. I support regionalism wholeheartedly, right down to the lowest possible denominator. On the other hand, I do realise that in order for us to achieve our objectives it is necessary to exhaust the centralist alternatives. In other words, I happen to believe that a one-world government is inevitable. I don't like the idea, but unless people learn by their mistakes it becomes far more difficult to obtain political, social and economic decentralisation in the long term. Therefore, real progress can only be made from a position of total and utter defeat. Within the New World Order we must agitate for European autonomy; this must be succeeded by a campaign for an independent England; followed by the quest for regionalism and village communities.

What role has tolerance within the context of National-Anarchism?

This is a difficult question. Anarchists are usually in favour of absolute freedom, but I think that it depends on the community. The NRF has long opposed issues such as abortion and homosexuality, believing them to be non-negotiable because they conflict with Natural Order. Alternatively, we are not reactionaries in the sense that we are seeking to impose our beliefs upon others because that would indeed be contrary to genuine Anarchist principles. We accept that people should be free to practice whatever they choose within their own areas, but at the same time we uphold the right to form communities in which like-minded people live according to a series of distinct beliefs. Not in a governmental capacity, but due to the fact that there remain inviolable laws of nature. According to Cicero: "There is in fact a true law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands it summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. To invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissible ever to restrict its operation; and to annul it wholly is impossible" (From De Republica, III, xxii, 33). So when Natural Law is applied to the whole of humanity, it actually creates a form of true and just equality. Likewise, simply because Anarchism is defined as the absence of government it is not necessary to reject authority at the same time.

Monarchism represents an integral part of the English soul and holy tradition. What are your own thoughts on the limitation of monarchism in front of a decayed and desacralised civilisation?

I would not describe myself as a complete opponent of monarchism, not least because I have closely studied the system which prevailed during the Heptarchy of Anglo-Saxon England. The kings and queens of the past were often warriors and philosophers, hardly comparable to the unworthy corpse that presently squats its rotting arse upon the English throne. It is natural for aristocrats to spring from the ranks of humanity, but when they deteriorate into dynastic parasites who maintain their grip on power by using their wealth to fund an army of paid mercenaries, it becomes a travesty and a farce. In tribal societies monarchs are duty-bound to serve their people rather than to rule over them with an iron fist, but these 'kings' and 'queens' are more often than not the strongest or most intelligent within their communities. In the animal kingdom - and I use the word 'kingdom' deliberately - this is known as the peck order.

Thank you for this short interview, the last word is yours.

I would like to thank Dan Ghetu for his very thorough and cordial interrogation and hope that the readers of l'Ecole Europa will find my replies stimulating. The NRF can be contacted by writing to The Secretary, BM Box LCRN, London WC1N 3XX, England or by sending an e-mail to arktos-anarch@homechoice.co.uk More of our work can be found on the Synthesis website at http://obsidian-blade.com/synthesis and the National Revolutionary Faction site at http://www.nationalbolshevik.com/nrf/nrfindex.html Finally, it is a pleasure to be conversing with the sons and daughters of such a fine and proud nation as Romania. Hail the Captain!

Dan Ghetu has established the Letters from the Nuovo Europae website.