Desperately Seeking Lenin

Having updated the small ranks of the Francis de Groot Brigade, I thought I may as well update the Trot Guide, last overhauled in August 2006. In the intervening two years, there’s been a number of exciting developments.

Plan A

First, unfortunately, I can find almost bugger-all information on the following vanguards, rendering them almost certainly Dead Parrots:

1 ) Committee for a Revolutionary Communist Party in Australia: A Maoist groupuscule associated with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), formed as the result of an expulsion from the Communist Party of Australia in 1984, the CRCPA was previously known as the Committee to Reconstruct the Communist Party of Australia (PDF) and may also be known as the Marxist Workers Party of Australia. RIM was established in 1983/4, in an attempt to consolidate the global forces adhering to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Now, I’m not absolutely sure about this, but the RIM appears to have done its job, and dissolved. Or at least, the journal associated with RIM, A World to Win, no longer provides links to any groups belonging to it. In fact, the journal itself appears to have ceased publication in 2006. AWtW does, however, maintain a blog, the most recent entry for which is dated May 20, 2008

As for the CRCPA, the most recent missive I can find is dated 1996, from the magazine Rabblerouser, No.11, June 1996, and concerns The Glorious People’s War in Peru, conducted under the auspices of the Communist Party of Peru (Partido Comunista del Perú) aka Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) of Presidente Gonzalo, aka Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reynoso. The Glorious Leader is currently incarcerated at the Callao naval base, near the city of Lima, Peru, and has been since 1992. In 2004, a bloke called Artemio popped up claiming to be the (new) leader, and announced a new wave of activity. Note that it’s estimated that the Dirty/People’s War between the Peruvian state and armed rebels claimed the lives of approximately 70,000 people during the period 1980–2000. On a flimic note, the Peruvian war formed the basis of a novel (Nicholas Shakespeare, The Dancer Upstairs, Harvill, 1995) and John Malkovic’s directorial debut, The Dancer Upstairs (2003).

2 ) Communist Left Discussion Circle: A tiny mob adhering to the Left Communism propounded by the International Communist Current. Nothing’s been heard of them for several years (2005).

*3 ) Marxist Initiative: Um, as far as I can figure out, ‘Marxist Initiative’ — whoever or whatever it is — is actually alive, well (presumably), and taking some part in the publication of the Australian Socialist, “A Progressive Independent Marxist Journal of Ideas and Discussion”. Three cheers and a loud huzzah!

4 ) National Preparatory Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Australia: A sad fate for a group with such an awesome name, the National Preparatory Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Australia appears to be an urban myth, which is disappointing news, as I especially like the name, and will run with any excuse to repeat it. That number again: National Preparatory Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Australia.

5 ) New Era Communist Party of Australia: See above. Sad, but not as sad as above.

6 ) October Seventh Socialist Movement: Um… er… ah… hello?

*7 ) Socialist Appeal: Socialist Appeal is extraordinarily limited, its adherents claiming affiliation to the fabulous legacy of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT). The IMT was formerly known as the Committee for a Marxist International, which emerged as a split from Militant in the UK in 1992, renaming itself in 2006. Its chief ideologue was Ted Grant (1913–2006), who has since been replaced by Alan Woods (1944–). …Oh! Socialist Appeal also has an awesome new website: Fightback.

8 ) Socialist Democracy: Still dead.

9 ) Socialist Labor Party of Australia: See above.

10 ) Trotskyist Platform (TP): Off hunting wabbits?

11 ) Workers’ League (WL): Also likely to be found off hunting wabbits. Since 2003.

12 ) Workers’ Power (WP): WP expelled 33 members of its Fifth International in July 2006, including 5 members from Australia. Happily, the Australian section has survived, and continues to eke out an existence as ‘Revo Australia’. “Revolution is a socialist youth organisat[i]on based in Melbourne, Australia”. If correct, I think Revo must have found the Fountain of Eternal Socialist Yoof.

Plan B

While some groups may (or may not) have disappeared into the dustbin of history, others have dissolved only to re-appear in a new form:

1 ) Communist Party Advocate(s): The Advocate or Advocates have since morphed into an online journal called Labor Tribune, and constitute a tiny left-wing fraction within the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

2 ) International Socialist Organisation (ISO): The ISO has merged with the SAG and Solidarity.

3 ) Marxist Solidarity Network (MSN): The MSN has re-named itself ‘Direct Action’.

4 ) Socialist Action Group (SAG): The SAG has merged with the ISO and Solidarity.

Plan C

1 ) Communist League (CL): The CL lives! CL member Ronald Poulsen contested the seat of Watson in NSW in the 2007 Federal election, and got 424 votes, or 0.5% of the total, for his trouble.

2 ) Communist Party of Australia (CPA): The Party Formerly Known as the Political Artiste “Socialist Party of Australia”, it changed its name in October, 1996.

It has a yoof section.

3 ) Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) (CPA-ML): Maoist party established in 1964. Dying a long, slow death in Melbourne.

4 ) Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP): Until very recently, the DSP was likely the largest organisation on the left outside of (arguably) the ALP and the Greens. Unfortunately, earlier this month, the DSP underwent a split, with approximately 1/5 of its membership departing. (DSP statement, May 13, 2008.) The DSP’s yoof wing, Resistance, has also been going through difficult times, while its Socialist Alliance is in seemingly terminal decline…

5 ) Direct Action (DA): When a half-dozen members of the DSP left it in 2006, they formed the Marxist Solidarity Network. Then Workers & Community First. Now they appear to have settled on Direct Action. Worryingly, however, DA has made overtures to another mob to have left the DSP (the Leninist Party Faction), so who knows how long DA will last?

    Gah! Exactly two days after posting, DA announced its merger with the LPF to form the RSP. XYZ!

6 ) Freedom Socialist Party (FSP): The glorious marriage of feminism and Trotskyism.

7 ) Leninist Party Faction (LPF): NEW! The LPF consists of a few dozen former DSP members expelled earlier in the month. Its status as an independent party is a little tenuous at the moment. Most recently, DA has offered the LPF the opportunity to join them in a new vanguard.

    Hah! An offer which has been courteously accepted.

8 ) Progressive Labour Party (PLP): Prior to the emergence of SA in 2001, the PLP — formed in 1996 — was the most recent attempt to forge a left-wing workers’ party to rival the ALP. Like the CL, SA, SEP and SP, it contested the last Federal election in November 2007. The results? In the race for a seat on the NSW Senate, the PLP gained 948 votes or 0.02%.

9 ) Revo Australia (Revo): As indicated above, Revo formed a couple of years ago, and meets in a phonebox somewhere in Melbourne.

10 ) Socialist Alliance (SA): Formed in 2001 as an alliance of eight or so parties of the (far) left — the AWL, DSP, ISO, FSP, SAlt, Socialist Democracy, Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (in Australia) and Workers League — the Alliance has gradually unravelled over the last seven years. SAlt was the first go, followed by Socialist Democracy (dissolved in December 2005), WP (April 2006), ISO (January 2007) and the FSP (March 2007). The Worker-Communist Party, Workers League and Workers Liberty apparently remain part of the alliance, if an inactive one, and SA was joined by the DSP’s yoof wing Resistance in 2003 and the Chilean Popular and Indigenous Network in 2004/5. Meaning that the de facto reality for SA is that it functions as an electoral front for the DSP. Electorally, SA battles the LaRouchite Citizens Electoral Council as least popular electoral grouping.

11 ) Socialist Alternative (SAlt): next to and perhaps even exceeding the DSP, SAlt is one of if not the largest groups on the (far) left. Forming as a split from the ISO in 1995, SAlt was, unlike the ISO, savvy enough to avoid joining the SA, and in subsequent years has gained a good deal of recruits on University campuses, especially in Melbourne, effectively displacing Resistance and the ISO as a transmission belt for Trotskyism. On the other hand, it has undergone one minor split in Brisbane, when SAG was formed; SAG has now re-joined the ISO in the new party called Solidarity.

12 ) Socialist Appeal: In exciting news (to me), Socialist Appeal has a website! Called Fightback! Fightback aims “to bring you articles about the struggle for socialism both from Australia and around the world. Articles on this site will also present socialist analysis and theory which are indispensible weapons in the struggle for socialism.” Live long and prosper!

13 ) Socialist Equality Party (SEP): The SEP is the name given to the efforts of the wsws.org to get bumped into Parliament. As is the case with other groupings on the (far) left, the results have been equivocal. Or as Marx, Engels, Lenin and/or Trotsky may have put it: abysmal. For last year’s Federal election, in NSW, the SEP ran candidates in Charlton, Chifley, Grayndler, Kingsford Smith, Newcastle and Parramatta; in Victoria, Calwell and Melbourne; and in WA, Swan. The SEP also called on proletarians to vote for them in the Senate contests in NSW and Victoria. In Charlton, Terry Cook got 404 votes; in Chifley, James Cogan got 1,069 votes; in Grayndler, Patrick O’Connor did less good, gaining just 328 votes, and coming last; so did Alex Safari (1,096 votes) in Kingsford Smith, and Noel Holt in Newcastle (277 votes). Chris Gordon, on the other hand, with 261 votes, beat some bloke called Alistair into last place in Parramatta. Across the whole of this wide brown land, 4,542 people voted for the SEP to join the Senate; 12,983,272 people did not. Check yourself before you wreck yourself: SEPElectionSite07.

14 ) Socialist Party (SP): As far as I can tell, the SP is pretty much where it was mid-2006. It has the unique distinction of being the only Marxist mob in the country to have someone elected to local office; its returns in the last Federal election, however, were very poor. See also: UNITE, “Australia’s fighting union for fast food and retail workers in Victoria”.

15 ) Solidarity: Shazam! Solidarity has been completely reinvigorated in the preceding period, having merged with the ISO and SAG, and it is now the official, authorised, accept-no-substitutes embodiment of Tony Cliff/Yigael Gluckstein Thought in Australia. As such, Solidarity/the iSt is likely to once again rival the DSP and SAlt for the hearts and minds of today’s Marxist-inclined yoof.

16 ) Spartacist League of Australia (SL): The SL remains both incredibly bad-tempered! and obscure! But still brimming with revolutionary enthusiasm! for the teachings of Marx! Engels! Lenin! & Trotsky! “It is the class struggle of the multiracial proletariat, led by a Leninist-Trotskyist party, that can open the road to overthrowing this deeply racist, decrepit, capitalist system through workers revolution. Only under the rule of the working class and based on a planned collectivised economy will it be possible to address the special needs of Aboriginal people created by more than two centuries of capitalist injustice and oppression. The multiracial working class must come to the defence of their Aboriginal brothers and sisters now! Cops/military out of Aboriginal communities! For proletarian-centred defence of Aborigines against racist terror! For a workers republic of Australia, part of a socialist Asia!

Alright!

17 ) Workers’ Liberty (AWL): Who?

18 ) World Socialist Party of Australia: Write: PO Box 1266, North Richmond, Victoria, 3121.

    “Fukui-san?”
    “Yes, Ota?”
    “The Slack Bastard has, indeed, created quite possibly the most entertaining Trot Guide in blogging history!”

    Bang a gong, ideological battle is on!

    But whose ideological cuisine will reign supreme?

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2024 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Trot Guide. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Desperately Seeking Lenin

  1. Dr. Cam says:

    Wasn’t fightback.org.au a neo-Nazi website? Wif instructions on how to beat up lebs and all?

  2. Dean says:

    G’day Andy, Just thought I’d help with your update… FYI the Marxist Workers Party is alive, they put out a publication every so often called Red Flag… October Seventh Socialist Movement is alive and kicking, I know the founder of the group quite well, he was still in the CPA when I joined… but I wonder as to your enthusiasm for the Spartacist League… a more moronic pack of drongos you’ll never meet, yet you waxed lyrical about them in the post above. The CPA (ML) are still kickin’ on too, they are very involved in community actions (aren’t we all)… I have a question for you though… seeing as you list parties of the radical left, why don’t you mention any of the Bakunin/Malatesta groupings? I’m sure you’re familiar with the IWW, then there’s the ASF once linked to the Black Star Club I believe (the crew I used to knock around with used to do benefits for them to help set up Barricade, then one by one the punks and crusties were kicked out…lowlifes), not sure which mob A-House were linked to, now there’s the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group getting about, they have an article called The Anvil… that’s about all I can think of at the moment.
    I’m pretty sure I’ve met you before mate, I was the bloke trying to catch up with Brenton the last time he was stayin’ at your joint, it may have been on the Crawl a couple of years past. Bloody shame about the state of the scene now, seems that the boneheads have given up trying to look like headbangers and now have spikes and fins (the Hammerskins tattoo still shows through though)… Good blog, keep it up. When the NA dickwads turned up at Mayday, my mate Dave linked me to this blog to find out about the arsewipes. I took the liberty to cut and paste the info and spread the news…

    [Attack of the Anarchoids from Neptune! (June 1, 2008)]

  3. @ndy says:

    Cam: Your Cuban cigar is in the mail!

    Dean: Sweet. I’ll update the Guide inre the Marxist Workers Party and the October Seventh Socialist Movement (do they have a regular publication?). (Re the Sparts: it’s tongue-in-cheek.)

    As for the anarchists, I’m gonna do that next. In the meantime:

    http://anarchy.org.au/?page_id=4

    I know the IWW, ASF, Barricade, Black * and MAC-G mobs: they’ll all be going in the guide.

    The NA are scum, pure and simple. Some anarchists produced a statement after they rocked up at APEC:

    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=908

    Please continue to spread The Good Word, as there’s no doubt the scum will be attending future events, and the more people know about them, the better they’ll be able to respond when they do.

    Cheers!

    @ndy.

  4. lumpnboy says:

    I didn’t know the Marxist Workers Party was previously known as the Committee for a Revolutionary Communist Party in Australia, though they were called the Marxist Workers Organisation for a long while before becoming, apparently, a party some years ago. The ones I knew were secretive, very much maoist, and quite sweet.

  5. Tony says:

    “Please continue to spread The Good Word, as there’s no doubt the scum will be attending future events, and the more people know about them, the better they’ll be able to respond when they do.”

    You only refer to these people as ‘scum’ because they seek to alleviate the suppression that white, working class families face every day.

  6. @ndy says:

    Tony:

    No. I call these people scum — that is, despicable or worthless — because that’s what I think they are. I also don’t believe that they “seek to alleviate the suppression that white, working class families face every day” — whatever that means — but rather that they seek to use anarchist imagery and rhetoric to advance a reactionary, racist form of politics, one which is antithetical to anarchism and to the interests of the working class, of all colours.

  7. Stolz patriotisch says:

    [Fly Away Peter.]

  8. grumpy cat says:

    Hi @ndy there is also a group of Maoists in Brisbane called ‘The Praxis Network’ who put out a zine called Surplus Value. Normally comes out for May Day, and is one of the best little left publications out there at the moment.
    rebel love
    Dave

  9. Dr. Cam says:

    When all hope is lost!

    “It’s hopeless!”

    When the people cry out for a hero!

    “Who can save us now?”

    Who will answer their call?

    “Praxis! Let’s roll!”

    THE PRAXIS NETWORK

    In Cinemas, July 19.

  10. Tony says:

    Here’s a question for you, Andy: Why should myself, as a White Australian, fight against the likes of these concerned Australian’s ([whom] you refer to as Nazi’s) when they serve to promote better opportunities to both me and my family?

  11. @ndy says:

    Tricky question to answer Tony.

    To begin with, it’s your life, so who, what, where and when you fight — for, against, or with — is obviously up to you. Further, I’m not trying to convince you of anything in particular: why would I bother? Especially when, in any case, it’s your job to convince yourself, not mine. And as Uncle Fred said: “A very popular error: having the courage of one’s convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one’s convictions.”

    That said, my ‘opposition’ to the NA — which consists of little more than analysing their views and their (very sloppily-applied) make-up — stems from my own political convictions as an anarchist. In my view, as I’ve stated on a number of occasions, their politics are antithetical to anarchism and to the interests of the working class.

    I’ve written about my reasons for taking this view at some length, and my reasons for viewing the NR/NA as I do may be summarised as follows:

    A) The origins of the New Right and ‘national anarchism’.
    B) The political activity and composition of the New Right and ‘national anarchism’.
    C) The incompatibility of anarchism and nationalism.
    D) Their attempted appropriation of anarchist imagery and rhetoric as a mask for racism and reactionary politics.

    A)

    In the English-speaking world, the NR and ‘national anarchism’ owes its emergence to Troy Southgate, an English neo-Nazi activist, and former member of an array of far right/neo-Nazi organisations. NR was established by Southgate in late 2004/early 2005. Aside from the production of the usual array of propaganda (zines, sites, lists), the NR has also organised, over the last three years or so, a series of events in London. Every single one of these events has provided a platform for an array of far right speakers and views.

    In Australia, an NR franchise was established by Welf Herfurth in late 2005. Herfurth regards Southgate, as his philosophical mentor, with enormous admiration. Like Southgate, Herfurth is a lifelong neo-Nazi activist, from being a youthful fascist militant in Germany in the 1980s, through to the yuppie businessman of today in Australia, his adopted home. During the course of this period, Herfurth has been a member of or sympathiser with the Australia First Party, Blood & Honour, One Nation, and a number of other, similarly-inclined political groups and projects. He is also a Holocaust denialist, a comrade of Frederick Toben’s, and during the last few years has arranged for, or attempted to arrange tours by, members of the German neo-Nazi party, the NPD (of which he was formerly a member). He has also functioned as the MC for the far right Sydney Forum from its inception in 2001, to the last event in 2007.

    These then are the principal architects of NR and ‘national anarchism’ in the UK and Australia.

    B)

    Aside from their London meetings, I know very little about the activities of the NR in the UK. My impression is that they are regarded with contempt by anarchists, and receive a mixed response by other members of the British far right. antifa.org.uk provides a rather amusing summary:

      THE NATIONAL ANARCHISTS

      As an ideology National-Anarchism would appear to be about as logical as the creation of an organisation of Catholic Orangemen. That does not stop Troy Southgate however.

      Attempts at finding anyone in the Anarchist movement to speak to them have been unsuccessful (can anyone forget Jamie DeBayo/Damji leaving the Anarchist Bookfair in 1998 head first?) whilst Southgate and co are just a little bit too weird for the rest of the British far-right. More years in no-mans land beckon.

      Do say “National-Anarchism – now that is a brave innovation.”
      Don’t say “But how can you be a nationalist and an Anarchist?”

    In Australia, the NR/NA, in addition to maintaining a blog and a website, have organised three public demonstrations: the first in Sydney at the APEC meeting last year, the second in Canberra last month, and most recently in Melbourne, on May Day. I’ve written about their inaugural protest at length; the second was a rather dull affair, and the most recent was also rather dull (and also very, very brief). Most recently, the NR/NA have produced some stickers, posters, tee-shirts and the like.

    In terms of the social composition of the NR/NA in Australia, all (apart from one or perhaps two) are male; white; and quite young (teenagers and men in their early- to mid-twenties). All have some had some previous involvement in the far right, whether formal or informal, and all are motivated and informed by a racialist discourse — whether crude or slightly more sophisticated — and rather obvious racial anxieties.

    C)

    This is fairly straightforward. Anarchism, in both theory and practice, is the negation of nationalism, and the attempt to reconcile the two gives rise to all sorts of nonsense, of which ‘national anarchism’ is the most absurd. (Which is why the fascists dingbats make so many genuflections in the direction of what they call ‘meta-politics’.)

    D)

    This is also fairly straightforward, and explains why a twerp like Darrin Hodges got to play-act the anarchist in Sydney. It also has an historical precedent, which is contemporary Germany (and, to a much lesser and less-successful extent, the UK). In aping anarchists, the fascist twats are attempting to accumulate whatever political cachet images of militant anarchism have among the young, especially the politically-conscious right. “Nazis Go Pop” as they say. A more detailed analysis of this attempted recuperation is provided by Graham D. Macklin:

    ABSTRACT Formed in 1996 by former National Front activist Troy Southgate, the National Revolutionary Faction (NRF) is a ‘national-anarchist’ groupuscule. In contrast to the International Third Position, the reactionary Catholic fascist sect from which it emerged, the NRF promotes a radical anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist ‘anarchist’ agenda of autonomous rural communities within a decentralized, pan-European framework. While the NRF retains an ideological core that is readily identifiable as fascist, that ideology is far from a mimetic atavism. As a result of its increasing radicalization the NRF has attempted to move ‘beyond left and right’, transcending the traditional limits of national-Bolshevism, to forge a seemingly incongruous synthesis of fascism and anarchism. Through its print and online publications, the NRF seeks to utilize its unique ideological position to exploit a burgeoning counter culture of industrial heavy metal music, paganism, esotericism, occultism and Satanism that, it believes, holds the key to the spiritual reinvigoration of western society ready for an essentially Evolian revolt against the culturally and racially enervating forces of American global capitalism. A detailed examination of its history, activism, structure and continued ideological morphology reveals the NRF as an ideological crucible for a growing international network of dissident ‘national-revolutionaries’ who are currently recalibrating their ideals in order to overcome their acute marginalization…

    The most intriguing ideological innovation, however, was Southgate’s conversion to ‘anarchism’ and his subsequent formulation of a doctrine of ‘national-anarchism’. At first glance the ‘total insanity’ of this incongruous ideological syncretism might be dismissed as little more than a quixotic attempt to hammer a square peg into a round hole or a mischievous act of fascist Dadaism. When put into its wider context, however, ‘national-anarchism’ appears as one of many groupuscular responses to globalization, popular antipathy towards which Southgate sought to harness by aligning the NRF with the resurgence of anarchism whose heroes and slogans it arrogated, and whose sophisticated critiques of global capitalist institutions and state power it absorbed and, in the case of anarchist artist Clifford Harper, whose evocative imagery it misappropriated…

    In order to ‘change society completely’ the NRF purloined anarchist thinkers like Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin, using their revolutionary rhetoric to justify the overthrow of liberal social democracy, which coincidentally led Southgate to jettison the ‘socialist trappings’ of Strasserism and ‘reformist’ distributism as incompatible with his Evolian racial vision. Indeed, Southgate is vehemently opposed to immigration and miscegenation, which he believes have severely disrupted the ‘organic balance of nature’. The depth of his contempt for those who contravene this ‘natural order’ can be surmised from his attack on glamour model ‘Jordan’, whose child was fathered by a black footballer. ‘She has been rewarded for her racial treason’, jeered Southgate, ‘her picaninny has been born blind. just [sic] like his father, it would appear. still [sic], he can always become a Stevie Wonder impersonator when he grows up.’

    As such sentiments reveal, NRF ideology is totally devoid of anarchism’s humanistic social philosophy, which is rejected as ‘infected’ with feminism, homosexuality and Marxism. In its place Southgate has propagated a ‘third position’ anarchism based not on ‘moral’ rights but on Darwinian struggle, which would illuminate the ‘natural order’ from which every group with ‘insurrectionist potential’ could unite to destroy ‘One World’ tyranny with a ‘primal bloodlust’. NRF propaganda revels in this discordant Conradian stereotype of anarchism, glorifying both Bakunin’s ‘propaganda of the deed’ and Sergei Nechayev’s ‘science of destruction’…

    ~ Co-opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction, Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005 [PDF]

    In the short-term, this may prove to be a productive enterprise. It’s certainly the case that there is a potential audience, however tiny, for these kinds of antics, which provide a means of organising politically which is more attractive, especially to fascist youth, than does older methods of rallying support.

    Finally, I don’t refer to the NR/NA as Nazi, but neo-Nazi. I also believe that, under this general categorisation, there is actually some degree of ideological complexion. How ‘complex’ remains to be seen. The rhetorical claims of NR/NA are one thing; their ability to realise the interests of you and your family, another altogether.

  12. @ndy says:

    Dave,

    While I look fwd to the film, I can’t deliver my own verdict on Praxis as none of the links on the site seem to work. Is it just me?

  13. grumpy cat says:

    No the links don’t work. I do like the palm tree though…

  14. @ndy says:

    …but it’s hardly a replacement for a thorough-going analysis of contemporary Australian society. At this point, the addition of a recipe for Coconut-Scented Rice with Almonds might constitute a political breakthough:

    Coconut-Scented Rice with Almonds

    Ingredients

    2 cups fat-free milk
    1/4 teaspoon salt
    2 cups uncooked instant rice
    1 ounce sliced almonds (1/4 to 1/3 cup)
    1/2 teaspoon coconut extract

    Instructions

    In medium saucepan, bring milk and salt to a boil over medium-high heat, about 12 minutes. Stir in rice; return to a boil, about 1 minute. Reduce heat and simmer, covered, for 5-6 minutes, or until liquid is absorbed.

    Meanwhile, heat a large nonstick skillet over medium heat. Dry-roast almonds until golden brown and fragrant, 1-5 minutes, stirring frequently. Transfer to a small plate and let cool for 1 minute. Using back of a spoon or fork, finely crush almonds. Or put almonds in a plastic bag and crush. Add extract to rice, fluff with a fork, and stir in almonds.

    Yield: 4-6 servings

  15. Stolz patriotisch says:

    [Fly away Peter!]

  16. grumpy cat says:

    @ndy wrote:

    but it’s hardly a replacement for a thorough-going analysis of contemporary Australian society.

    Or is it?
    The latest issue has a bench of short (1500 word) articles – McQueen, Eagleton, Bellamy Foster, etc. The whole thing is very Monthly Review feeling.

  17. Tony says:

    Ok, in your type of society, where would people like Darrin, Saleam, and Baron be placed?

    And will it affect White European’s?

  18. @ndy says:

    Where would Darrin, James and David go? I dunno. That depends on where they wanted to go. In the case of Darrin and James, somewhere in Sydney I guess. In the case of David, somewhere in Perth. As for what the situation of White (as opposed to Black?) Europeans in an anarchist society might be, I imagine that they would occupy roughly the same position as non-White, non-European individuals; which is to say, they/us would be free to participate in the life of the community.

    I think you need to be more specific in outlining your concerns.

  19. Tony says:

    What is the goal of an Anarchist in relation to people who hold views similar to that of Baron, Saleam, and Darrin?

  20. @ndy says:

    Generally speaking, to ensure that such ideas do not become popular, and to the extent that they are, to fight them. To be precise, this applies only to those views which are considered to be racist, reactionary, or otherwise prejudicial to ideas of human freedom and equality.

  21. Tony says:

    “Generally speaking, to ensure that such ideas do not become popular, and to the extent that they are, to fight them.”

    As a person of European heritage, why do you feel the need to fight them, when they mean no harm to you? They only push such propaganda, because they reject how society is changing. Many of these average folk (referred to as “neo-Nazis” by your mob) see left-wing politics as a breach of their freedom to choose what kind of lifestyle they wish to pursue. Talking to quite a few of my workmates, they don’t see the need for multiculturalism: If you wish to explore other cultures, that’s what the travel agencies are for. You can – and will never – destroy the system of “us and them” … which brings us to the question: why is it only enforced on Europeans, and myself being of European extract – why should I be forced to accept it?

    “To be precise, this applies only to those views which are considered to be racist, reactionary, or (otherwise prejudicial to ideas of human freedom and equality).”

    I had to put that statement in brackets, because opposing racism and “the ideas of human freedom” are contradictory. If we are opposed in our beliefs of a society which serves Europeans, then how can that relate to freedom? Going on to “equality”, one part of the Leftist movement is land rights for the indigenous ( http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/325/20790 ) entailing a separate land mass which the Indigenous population has control over. However, coming from this debate is why shouldn’t a collective representation of Europeans be given equal rights? From how you describe an Anarchist, opposition should be minimal.

  22. @ndy says:

    Tony,

    To begin with, I doubt Darrin Hodges, David Innes and James Saleam (or going by their SF aliases, ‘Proud to be an Infidel’, ‘Baron von Hund’ and ‘radnat’) would enjoy being lumped into the same category. For example, Saleam wrote:

    It can only be concluded that Innes was never any sort of serious Australian nationalist. Rather, he was more some variety of ‘actor’, a psychological type unsure of his place in politics or anywhere else, someone ready to turn this way or that, as [the] mood took him. Evidence of mood disorder and other depressive illness was obviously there, if one looked hard enough. And in any case, he had actually admitted the latter. The narcissist was present too, someone ‘big noting’ himself, centring the political world around himself. There were warning voices on these matters – but they were ignored by too many…

    There can be little doubt that, as ‘Baron von Hund’, he had an impact. Invited into disputes within Australia First, Innes fueled them and demanded of a at least one certain plotter some sort of role in a ‘new’ Australia First. Allowed to deal with New Right, he eventually crashed their web site. Through Stormfront he turned people against each other and destabilised groups. It was all quite an achievement. The ranting, the sheer volume of invective, could convince the new-comer, if he was not careful, that this or that person or idea – was no good.

    For his part, Innes denied that Saleam could truly be considered a ‘White nationalist’, as he was (is) of Middle Eastern descent. Hodges, on the other hand, has denounced Saleam as a bullying, corrupt, stupid liar, and possible state agent, whose job it is to suppress White nationalism in Australia. (Apparently, Saleam engineered Hodge’s removal from the AF on the basis of his constituting a threat to Saleam’s dominance over the party.)

    Assuming, however, that the three could all be described, as I believe they wish to be, as ‘White nationalists’, then it may be possible to consider their views as a whole. In essence, this amounts to the (re-) construction of a ‘White’ Australia, however they may define the term ‘White’, and leaving aside the fact that the indigenous peoples are normally considered ‘Black’.

    Previously, Hodges objected on my blog to his being described as belonging to the extreme right-wing. In reply, I wrote:

    The term ‘right-wing’ is usually used to denote political conservatism; that is, the desire for society to remain largely as it is. (The left/right distinction derives from the French Revolution and the position of members in the Legislative Assembly. Left in the case of republicans, right in the case of monarchists.) Further, to term someone an ‘extremist’ or a ‘moderate’ is to place them on a spectrum of political opinion, whether nominally ‘left’, ‘right’, or according to some other measurement. The more ‘extreme’, the more deeply-held and broader-based the opinion. It’s also the case that the position an individual or group occupies on such a spectrum is measured across a range of different issues, and is usually understood as being a reflection of the individual or group’s position in general, rather than with regards each and every possible political position they may adopt.

    In the context of contemporary Australian politics, a racial conservative is someone who wishes to retain a White Australia. This, clearly, is your considered opinion. You express hostility towards homosexuality. This is partly a function of your support for the bourgeois family unit (mother, father, children) as constituting one of, if not the, cornerstones of Australian, or indeed perhaps any decent society. It is also, I think, the product of a much more visceral reaction to non-heterosexual expressions of sexuality in general, and a certain conception of the right and proper place of men and women in society. In other words, it is in part an expression of a conservative conception of gender politics. You express hostility to Islam, because you believe it to be hostile to the maintenance of a White (mono-racial), Christian (mono-religious), mono-cultural and mono-ethnic Australia. This is partly why you are member of a political party that has adopted the name ‘Protectionist’.

    In terms of political economy, you express hostility to ’socialism’, trade unions and ‘globalisation’, and wish the Australian state to play a more interventionist role in maintaining its racial and ethnic identity, as well as (re-)stablishing a manufacturing base, and imposing tariffs on imported goods and manufactures in order to ‘protect’ Australian manufacturing and rural industries.

    In all the above respects, your politics are in accord with an Australian political tradition, one which has usually been termed ‘conservatism’.

    As for extremities, a little over two years ago you wrote:

    “I’m more interested in the purer form of fascism… and while I don’t subscribe to the whole ‘worship Hitler’ thing, his comments on multiculturalism and politics in general are still just as relevant today as they were 70-odd years ago.”

    I, on the other hand, and unlike Hodges, Innes and Saleam (and despite Hodges’ participation in the APEC ‘national anarchist’ ‘black bloc’), consider myself an anarchist. That is, I wish to live in a society without rulers, of whatever colour; in which property is held in common; and in which individuals, of whatever colour, participate directly in managing their own affairs, whether through workplace councils, community assemblies, or via a wide range of other mechanisms that are collectively decided upon as being most appropriate by those concerned. Beyond this, I wish to see economic production geared towards satisfying individuals’ basic needs, and for this to take place within a sustainable — which is to say, environmentally and socially-friendly — manner.

    ‘White nationalism’ has little if anything to do with this, and for Hodges, Innes and Saleam, amounts to little more than a racist platform about which they assemble a number of other, equally unappealing doctrines. Historically speaking, their racism is more often than not conjoined with a highly authoritarian form of politics, commonly referred to as fascism, a political system in which the state plays an overriding role in social affairs: in this case, regulating population levels and flows so as to ensure Whites remain/become once again the overwhelming majority of the population.

    So: the fact that I am of European heritage, that Hodges and Innes are also (presumably) of European heritage, or that Saleam is of Middle Eastern descent, is irrelevant to my concerns and my opposition to their racism and broader political vision. Regarding what harm they mean to me personally, I don’t know. On the other hand, the political consequences for anarchists, in the incredibly unlikely event that any of the trio were to actually participate in a White nationalist government, or such a government were to independently emerge, are very likely to be severe, just as they have been for anarchists under previous such regimes.

    –> “Many of these average folk (referred to as “neo-Nazis” by your mob) see left-wing politics as a breach of their freedom to choose what kind of lifestyle they wish to pursue. Talking to quite a few of my workmates, they don’t see the need for multiculturalism: If you wish to explore other cultures, that’s what the travel agencies are for.”

    I don’t know which average folk you’re talking about. In their open espousal of White nationalism, participation in Stromfront.org, membership of political parties such as AF and APP, and — in Saleam’s case — over 30 years involvement in a variety of racist, fascist and even neo-Nazi groups, as well as a string of criminal convictions for violent offences, I’d say that — for these and other reasons — Hodges, Innes and Saleam are far from ‘average’. Regarding your mates, I fail to see how the presence of non-Whites in Australia cramps their style. Further, if your mates have a right to their ‘lifestyle’, all things being equal, so do others, including those who aren’t their mates. You’re also conflating ‘culture’ with ‘race’. There are lots of different cultures or ways of life being pursued in Australia, and many of them have very little to do with ‘race’, but quite a lot to do with gender, religion, philosophy, politics, sexuality and a whole lot more besides.

    –> “You can – and will never – destroy the system of ”us and them” … which brings us to the question: why is it only enforced on Europeans, and myself being of European extract – why should I be forced to accept it?”

    This statement doesn’t make a great deal of sense. What, exactly, is forced on ‘Europeans’ (by which I take it you mean Australians of European descent)? By whom?

    –> “I had to put that statement in brackets, because opposing racism and “the ideas of human freedom” are contradictory. If we are opposed in our beliefs of a society which serves Europeans, then how can that relate to freedom?”

    Again, this statement doesn’t appear to me to make much sense. Apparently, you believe that racism — which is a way of understanding and responding to the world based on the categorisation of individuals into racial categories — is compatible with human freedom. In a sense, you’re correct: individuals are ‘free’ to be racist. That is, to espouse racist views and to behave accordingly. However, if racism is understood as being a form of oppression — of the exercise of dominance and control by one racial category of persons over another — then racism is incompatible with human freedom. In any case, an anarchist society also serves the interests of ‘Europeans’, only in a different way.

    On land rights and leftism, later.

  23. Tony says:
      “That is, I wish to live in a society without rulers, of whatever colour; in which property is held in common…”

    What you just described is unattainable, and improbable as society will always have a ruling class. It is a fact that not everybody is born on the same boat, and those with the intellect, luck, and motivation will hold power. Mankind would never have achieved – nor succeeded – so much through the creation of modern society if those didn’t take full advantage of the opportunities available.

    …you should know asking for that is like trying to convince mankind to love and respect each other.

      “…in which individuals, of whatever colour, participate directly in managing their own affairs, whether through workplace councils, community assemblies, or via a wide range of other mechanisms that are collectively decided upon as being most appropriate by those concerned. Beyond this, I wish to see economic production geared towards satisfying individuals’ basic needs, and for this to take place within a sustainable — which is to say, environmentally and socially-friendly — manner.”

    This can most certainly be obtained in a system that is constructed to serve, primarily, the interests of Europeans. You state, “participate directly in managing their own affairs”. That description is what the movement is basically about – and that is the ability of White Europeans to directly manage their own affairs – not including others. Mainly one that doesn’t include multiculturalistic views that wish to disintegrate us.

      “‘White nationalism’ has little if anything to do with this, and for Hodges, Innes and Saleam, amounts to little more than a racist platform about which they assemble a number of other, equally unappealing doctrines.”

    It would all depend on the individual if they are “unappealing doctrines”.

    “…in this case, regulating population levels and flows so as to ensure Whites remain/become once again the overwhelming majority of the population.”

    I fail to see why there would be the need to oppose a doctrine you just stated – and why that would be a bad thing. I see a predominately European nation as one of great influences, culture and competitive nature. Many years ago, Europeans made up approximately 40% of the world’s populations… now you’re looking at around 7%.

    Let’s take America for example [US], over the next 50 years there will be a population increase of 300% for both Asians and Blacks:

    From 2000 to 2050, the non-Hispanic, white population would increase from 195.7 million to 210.3 million, an increase of 14.6 million or 7 percent. This group is projected to actually lose population in the 2040s and would comprise just 50.1 percent of the total population in 2050, compared with 69.4 percent in 2000.

    Nearly 67 million people of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race) would be added to the nation’s population between 2000 and 2050. Their numbers are projected to grow from 35.6 million to 102.6 million, an increase of 188 percent. Their share of the nation’s population would nearly double, from 12.6 percent to 24.4 percent.

    The Asian population is projected to grow 213 percent, from 10.7 million to 33.4 million. Their share of the nation’s population would double, from 3.8 percent to 8 percent.

    The black population is projected to rise from 35.8 million to 61.4 million in 2050, an increase of about 26 million or 71 percent. That would raise their share of the country’s population from 12.7 percent to 14.6 percent.

    I don’t know your stance on this, but I personally do not want to see this happen – certainly not at this rate. So, as one who opposes this trend, I tend towards the more “conservative” side.

      “So: the fact that I am of European heritage, that Hodges and Innes are also (presumably) of European heritage, or that Saleam is of Middle Eastern descent, is irrelevant to my concerns and my opposition to their racism and broader political vision. Regarding what harm they mean to me personally, I don’t know. On the other hand, the political consequences for anarchists, in the incredibly unlikely event that any of the trio were to actually participate in a White nationalist government, or such a government were to independently emerge, are very likely to be severe, just as they have been for anarchists under previous such regimes.”

    OK, you state “the consequences for anarchists”. I must ask you, have you ever thought of maybe questioning the motives behind your movement, and how does it relate to yourself? My impression is: you’re presumably raised in middle-class suburbia, on a very reasonable income, living on a property of a large asset value? What I am getting at here is the same state that you oppose is keeping your backside out of the gutter. Before pointing displeasures towards others, who may differ in their personal beliefs, why not read into the negatives of your own, maybe you can understand this way.

      “Regarding your mates, I fail to see how the presence of non-Whites in Australia cramps their style. Further, if your mates have a right to their ‘lifestyle’, all things being equal, so do others, including those who aren’t their mates.”

    The large presence of non-whites in Australia cramps their lifestyle through objection to drastic change, and preference of White Australians over non-whites. Answering “all things being equal, so do others, including those who aren’t their mates” are two conflicting instances – and the former shouldn’t be ostracized for personal opinions.

      “You’re also conflating ‘culture’ with ‘race’. There are lots of different cultures or ways of life being pursued in Australia, and many of them have very little to do with ‘race’, but quite a lot to do with gender, religion, philosophy, politics, sexuality and a whole lot more besides.”

    Hmmm, that goes back to the statement, “Muslims are not a race, therefore, can not be racist”. You are correct in this instance, but I think it’s that negative changes that are happening in society which contribute to the combining of two separate issues. Leftism is a very questionable phenomenon.

      “Apparently, you believe that racism — which is a way of understanding and responding to the world based on the categorisation of individuals into racial categories — is compatible with human freedom. In a sense, you’re correct: individuals are ‘free’ to be racist. That is, to espouse racist views and to behave accordingly. However, if racism is understood as being a form of oppression — of the exercise of dominance and control by one racial category of persons over another — then racism is incompatible with human freedom.”

    Here’s 3 debatable definitions of racism
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

    “1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”

    The 1st definition, I could sit here comparing Africa to Europe to East Asia, etc. However, there are a number of reasons why that may be the case. The 2nd definition is just an extension to the first one, so we’ll skip that. Now, the 3rd definition relates closer to my argument. My view is simply not promoting hatred – hatred is a belligerent in which is not what Europeans should seek. The intolerance aspect is taken out of context, if White Europeans seek to emigrate into a White society, it is freedom of expression – not racism.

  24. juancastro says:

    I’m surprised you’re printing that fucker Tony’s views given that you’re trying to stop fascist and neo-nazi ideas spreading…

  25. juancastro says:

    “Leftism is a very questionable phenomenon.” – Sounds like the words of a would-be fascist if only the historical conditions were more helpful.

  26. @ndy says:

    1)

    “What you just described is unattainable, and improbable as society will always have a ruling class. It is a fact that not everybody is born on the same boat, and those with the intellect, luck, and motivation will hold power. Mankind would never have achieved – nor succeeded – so much through the creation of modern society if those didn’t take full advantage of the opportunities available.

    …you should know asking for that is like trying to convince mankind to love and respect each other.”

    Is a classless society unattainable? I don’t think so; you do. No need to hold the front page. Moreover, I don’t view class society as being the result of marked variations in the ability of individuals to do stuff, but instead such things as social structure, which are rooted in history. To explain further would require a lot more time and patience on my part, and I think it would be easier if you simply read an introductory text on sociology.

    2)

    “This can most certainly be obtained in a system that is constructed to serve, primarily, the interests of Europeans. You state, “participate directly in managing their own affairs”. That description is what the movement is basically about – and that is the ability of White Europeans to directly manage their own affairs – not including others. Mainly one that doesn’t include multiculturalistic views that wish to disintegrate us.”

    A racially-exclusive society — such as one composed of ‘Whites’ or ‘Europeans’ — could be structured in a number of ways. What each of these imaginary societies would have in common is their ethnic or racial composition.

    The kind of society whose characteristics I very briefly describe makes no such distinction, and could conceivably be composed of any number of ethnic and racial variations. Obviously then, when I refer to the ability of individuals to participate in ‘managing their own affairs’ / ‘freely constructing their own lives’, I don’t mean the ‘White European nation’ as a whole. Further, this nation — as I’ve already indicated — is riven by all sorts of contradictions, and it makes little sense — in fact, it’s delusionary — to imagine that anything like this exists, or ever has. This point has thus far escaped you, and I get the feeling that it’s probably long gone by now, and never coming back.

    The purpose of the ‘movement’ — which in reality, in Australia, barely exists outside of the imaginations of perhaps a few hundred individuals — is not about constructing a classless society for ‘Whites’, but, in Australia, attempting to organise on the fringes of the far right in order to argue for a return to a White Australia. To the extent that it has a shared ideological framework, ‘White nationalism’ is classically fascist.

    Later.

  27. @ndy says:

    juan: Most, but not all comments I receive I publish, including those that express racist views. There’s a number of reasons for this, none of which have anything to do with the power that inheres in their expression. Frankly, I don’t think allowing Tony the opportunity to demonstrate the degree of his racist inarticulation is going to bolster the fascist cause.

  28. @ndy says:

    3)

    “I fail to see why there would be the need to oppose a doctrine you just stated – and why that would be a bad thing. I see a predominately European nation as one of great influences, culture and competitive nature. Many years ago, Europeans made up approximately 40% of the world’s populations… now you’re looking at around 7%.”

    The reason you fail to see the re-introduction of a White Australia policy as objectionable is because you’re a racist. In any case, Australia is already a “predominately European nation” in you terms, so you should be happy. Regarding what you assume to be the essential nature of ‘Europeans’ and ‘European society’, together with undertaking Sociology 101, I recommend a course in History 101.

    I dunno about 40 or 7 or 47%, and wish you’d stop pulling things out of your arse: they stink.

    On US population trends, I couldn’t care less. Your objections to them — a predicted increase in the relative size of the Hispanic, black and Asian populations — as well as your support for the re-introduction of a White Australia policy, are straightforwardly racist, as well as ‘conservative’.

    4)

    “OK, you state “the consequences for anarchists”. I must ask you, have you ever thought of maybe questioning the motives behind your movement, and how does it relate to yourself? My impression is: you’re presumably raised in middle-class suburbia, on a very reasonable income, living on a property of a large asset value? What I am getting at here is the same state that you oppose is keeping your backside out of the gutter. Before pointing displeasures towards others, who may differ in their personal beliefs, why not read into the negatives of your own, maybe you can understand this way.”

    I did state ““the consequences for anarchists”, and my meaning was clear. That is, that “in the incredibly unlikely event that [Hodges, Innes, Saleam & Co.] were to actually participate in a White nationalist government, or such a government were to independently emerge”

    the consequences

    for anarchists

    are very likely to be severe, just as they have been for anarchists under previous such regimes”.

    The point you raise above is on a different subject altogether.

    Translated into standard English, you appear to be suggesting that the anarchist critique of the state is hypocritical. That is, being a movement of the middle class, and relying on the continued existence of this state for its prosperity — which is considerable — it is therefore in no position to object to that state’s existence. Or, rather, to do so is simply to indulge in a perverse form of moral posturing, and little else.

    This is not a serious criticism, and simply re-confirms your ignorance of anarchism. You seem largely impervious to reason, but maybe you’ll learn otherwise: it’s entirely up to you.

    Go read a book.

    See you in a month.

  29. dj says:

    I suggest Morris Dancing for Dummies, as Morris Dancing is an essential part of European culture and will therefore be compulsory when Tony’s dreams come to pass. If that is out, then check out a book on preparing rotten fish while listening to some fine Welsh mining choir music and sipping some fine Rigas Balsams.

  30. Tony Whitemore says:

    “I’m surprised you’re printing that fucker Tony’s views given that you’re trying to stop fascist and neo-nazi ideas spreading…”

    Yeah, why don’t you prove of my “Neo-Nazi” ideas? When it comes down to racism, you would be lucky to find anything that suggests it.

    …some negative comments referring to me as a racist:

    Juan: “Leftism is a very questionable phenomenon.” – Sounds like the words of a would-be fascist if only the historical conditions were more helpful.

    Andy: Frankly, I don’t think allowing Tony the opportunity to demonstrate the degree of his racist inarticulation is going to bolster the fascist cause.

    Andy: The reason you fail to see the re-introduction of a White Australia policy as objectionable is because you’re a racist.

    Andy: …your support for the re-introduction of a White Australia policy, are straightforwardly racist, as well as ‘conservative’.

    Whoa!

    I am referred to as a “racist” by your mob, because I state a concern towards the influx of non-Europeans in Australia. I have stated reason for it, none of which includes racial hatred in any shape or form.

    Just like how things are, I suppose: Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for everybody.

    …now you tell me what’s racist?

    “I dunno about 40 or 7 or 47%, and wish you’d stop pulling things out of your arse: they stink.”

    Let’s do some checking:
    http://library.thinkquest.org/27629/w1900text.html

    “In 1900, China had 467 million people Europe – 325 million North / Central & South America – 178 million Africa – 13.5 Australia and New Zealand – 0.5 million. In the 20th century, there has been rapid population growth in Africa and the USA. Their populations are now much greater than Europe.”

    If you do the maths, the European population in 1900 amounts to 1/3 (a little short of 40%) of the world’s population. The white population is close to 10%.

    “I suggest Morris Dancing for Dummies, as Morris Dancing is an essential part of European culture and will therefore be compulsory when Tony’s dreams come to pass. If that is out, then check out a book on preparing rotten fish while listening to some fine Welsh mining choir music and sipping some fine Rigas Balsams.”

    I would rather indulge in the Morris dance then anything that doesn’t present as European.

  31. @ndy says:

    Tony: As well as being a racist, an historical, philosophical and political ignoramus, you’re a poor mathematician chronically incapable of distinguishing between sources. You’re also completely impervious to reason, logic, and basic rules of argument. Nevertheless…

    1)

    ThinkQuest: The source you refer to was authored by three high school students: ‘Jason’, ‘Sizwe’ and ‘Janine’, at some point around 1998 or 1999. A worthy endeavour, but not especially authoritative.

    The United Nations Population Division provides the following figures (PDF):

    In 1900, it’s estimated that the world population was 1.65 billion, divided according to geographic region as follows (in millions):

    Africa: 133
    Asia: 947
    Europe: 408
    Latin America and the Carribean: 74
    Northern America: 82
    Oceania: 6

    In percentage terms:

    Africa: 8.1
    Asia: 57.4
    Europe: 24.7
    Latin America and the Carribean: 4.5
    Northern America: 5.0
    Oceania: 0.4

    The meaning and significance attached to these figures is another matter altogether.

    2)

    I refer to you as a racist because you express racist views. You confuse racism with the expression of emotion; that is, hatred. I’ve already provided a number of definitions of racism, which, like almost everything else I’ve written, you’ve obviously chosen to ignore. As such, the inescapable conclusion is that you’re genuinely a rather stupid person — although whether or not your racism proceeds from your stupidity, or your stupidity merely shapes the depths of your racist bigotry, is uncertain. In either case, goodbye and good luck with mashing your keyboard elsewhere in future.

  32. John says:

    I’ve been reading into what “Tony” is trying to spill out, and it seems that he holds his grudges towards the shift of society in favour of diversity over presumed homogeneity – rather than the thought of races as “lesser” confirming racial hatred. He feels that it will have a profound impact on the integrity of the White-Euro social construct – to which he believes is the reason behind high living standards experienced in the Western world.

  33. dj says:

    China = Asia = Geography Fail

  34. @ndy says:

    “John”,

    Yeah… “Tony”.

    “John”, I’m so glad you’ve popped up to explain “Tony”‘s thinking.

    “John”.

    “Tony”.

    “Tony”.

    “John”.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.