The Daily Stormer’s neo-Nazi Nathan Sykes : ‘one of Australia’s worst online trolls’ (also: Jewish!)

Below : Nathaniel Jacob Sassoon Sykes (L) and Dr Jim Saleam (R), attending a Reclaim Australia rally in Sydney, 2015 (see also : The rise of the Australian far right, Late Night Live, Radio National, November 26, 2015).

File Under : TOP KEK.

Sydney resident and Australia First Party (AFP) member Nathan Sykes — AKA ‘Hamish Patton’, ‘Stanley Dangerfield’, ‘Michael Slay’, ‘Great Australian Bite’ et. al. — has been revealed as both ‘one of Australia’s worst online trolls’ … and as being of Jewish descent:

In a ramshackle inner Sydney boarding house, surrounded by his collection of Adolf Hitler dolls, a 48-year-old unemployed neo-Nazi plies his trade as one of Australia’s most aggressive online trolls.

Nathan Sykes – a former journalist and bankrupt – has spent much of the past few years under various pseudonyms harassing and baiting left-wingers and Muslim activists through social media, and writing anti-Semitic articles on neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer …

But what makes Nathaniel Jacob Sassoon Sykes particularly unusual is that, despite his neo-Nazi persona, he himself is a Jew.

Sykes was born in December 1968. Virtually everything else about his upbringing is shrouded in mystery and he has gone out of his way through pseudonyms to obscure his identity.

But Fairfax Media can now reveal that Sykes is part of an international network of trolls, and has been crucial in the campaigns to vilify a number of high-profile Australians, including Racial Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane, Muslim activist Mariam Veiszadeh and Guardian journalist and left-wing commentator Van Badham …

See : Revealing the secrets of one of Australia’s worst online trolls, Luke McMahon, The Age, April 16, 2017.

A few additional notes:

• As noted, this is not the first time that a Jewish man has been revealed as being a major contributor to Andrew Anglin‘s Daily Stormer website, ‘the best-read English language neo-Nazi website in the world’, which fact is rather … odd.

• As well as contributing articles to the Daily Stormer, Sykes was also a contributor to the now defunct neo-Nazi Whitelaw Towers (WLT) blog. The WLT blog was established over ten years ago by neo-Nazis Peter Campbell (NSW) and Jim Perren (QLD), both formerly members of the ‘White Pride Coalition of Australia’ (WPCA : 2002–2004), an online forum for neo-Nazis, Klan members, and assorted other White supremacists. Campbell deaded in August 2013, with Sykes seemingly joining Perren at some point thereafter; all three have been fulsome supporters of Dr Jim Saleam’s White nationalist AFP. In February 2016, Perren was also responsible for helping to organise the United Patriots Front (UPF) tour of Toowoomba in Queensland.

• Sykes has also been active on the neo-Nazi/White supremacist website Stormfront since December 2011 as ‘Great Australian Bite’, posting over 12,000 comments. His contributions to Daily Stormer number well over one-hundred-and-fifty separate articles.

• Sykes wrote a piece about me for Daily Stormer back in March 2015 (slackbastard ~versus~ Australia First Party, Daily Stormer, Reclaim Australia (etc.).) I could be wrogn, but I don’t believe he’s much of a fan.

• Sykes is a big fan of fellow AFP member Chris Shortis, one of three men currently facing charges as the result of a UPF stunt in Bendigo in October 2015. Sykes attended court last month in Melbourne, along with Dr Jim Saleam, to express support for Shortis. Looking rather stylish in his blue suit, Sykes was also sporting several rings, including one with a Golden Dawn symbol. Prior to this, in December 2016 in Sydney, Sykes attended a rally outside the Russian consulate, where he was joined by other AFP members (including Saleam), Golden Dawn members, and assorted other far-right elements. Oh, and University of Sydney academic Tim Anderson.

But that’s another story

Above : (L to R) : Sykes (w camera); Tim Anderson, Simeon Boikov (Zabaikal Cossack Society of Australia), Dr Jim Saleam (AFP), Iggy Gavrilidis (Golden Dawn Australia).

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 2017 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in !nataS, Anti-fascism, Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Daily Stormer’s neo-Nazi Nathan Sykes : ‘one of Australia’s worst online trolls’ (also: Jewish!)

  1. ablokeimet says:

    Q: Mr Sykes, you’re both a Nazi & a Jew. Is that correct?
    A: Yes, that’s correct.
    Q: As a Nazi & a Jew, would you volunteer to be first into the ovens?
    A: No. I’ll go in last and shut the door behind me.

  2. Professor rat says:

    The confusion and conflation of religion with some sort of ethnicity (?) or something more to do with Marxist-style-socialism, is not something anarchists should encourage imho. Many anarchists are born into religious families. That doesn’t make them religious.
    This isn’t just a “Jewish Problem” (sorry) either.
    It’s seen a lot in the confusion and conflation of Islam with ‘race’ of some, usually considered undesirable, sort. We really need more clarity in politics – not less. And these are not academic issues either. Stalin managed to get his class-war Holodomor a pass when ‘genocide’ was being defined.
    Yrs for lucidity and anarchism
    Professor rat

  3. ablokeimet says:

    Professor Rat: “The confusion and conflation of religion with some sort of ethnicity (?) or something more to do with Marxist-style-socialism, is not something anarchists should encourage imho.”

    1. It’s racists who define race. The Nazis, for example have an openly biological definition of Jewishness. You can’t escape it by conversion, as you could traditional Christian anti-Semitism. I have a friend who’d dearly love to stop being Jewish, but he can’t. Despite his atheism and his complete opting out of Jewish cultural identity, he knows the Nazis want him dead. He’s Jewish because the Nazis say he is.

    2. On the topic of genocide, I seem to recall the time Professor Rat spoke up in favour of it. The genocide in question was the Indonesian Genocide of 1965-66, where General Suharto (using death lists provided by, amongst others, the CIA & ASIS) organised the Army and some mass Muslim organisations to murder as many members & sympathisers of the Communist Party of Indonesia as they could lay their hands on. The rivers were choked with bodies. Few credible commentators estimate the death toll as less than 600,000 and there is reason to think the total number of people murdered could be as high as 2,000,000.

    Professor Rat praised this genocide, because the victims were supposedly Communists (and most, in fact, probably were PKI members or sympathisers). I objected when he said it at the time and I’ve continued to object whenever he’s popped his head up somewhere I can see it. There is no excuse for genocide. Ever.

  4. professor rat says:

    “It’s the racists who define race”

    Similar to race being an important category in Marxist economics?

    Look if someone says they are at war with me I won’t query that. I’m querying why the media are buying into this ‘racists define a person’s religious belief by their parents’ ‘argument’.

    The anarcho-communist (oxymoron alert) Greg seems to also buy this thesis. I don’t and I suggest no anarchist should accept the category of ‘race’ in any context let alone the religious one.

    As for my alleged support for genocide, I made the provocative argument that in the context of the times (Great Leap Forward) it was understandable that some Indonesians went crazy in ’65. Especially the Balinese. This was NOT to suggest that many innocent people died but the ‘bait’ aspect of it worked enough to get the neo-Marxist Greg to rise to it.

    That he misrepresents me so badly is firmly in the tradition of Marxists attacking anarchists since 1917 and so HE is unfit for activism, let alone anarchism.

    Now, out of respect for Andy’s work I don’t propose to ever address this lying, neo-Tankie turd ever again at this site.

    Goodbye ‘Lenin’!

  5. Insouciant Twat says:

    Professor, if you believe that “… race … [is] an important category in Marxist economics …” then you must’ve read different parts of Marx (or Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin or Mao, etc.) to those that I’m familiar with. If you’re going to make such a claim you need to provide specific references so as not to mislead the gullible. Even the homicidal Khmer Rouge regime conducted its mass killings on the basis of class.

  6. ablokeimet says:

    Professor Rat:

    1. “I don’t and I suggest no anarchist should accept the category of ‘race’ in any context let alone the religious one.”

    This is an example of the “I don’t like it, therefore it doesn’t exist” school of thought. Scholars agree that “race” is an illogical and incoherent concept. The problem is, however, that this concept exists in the minds of racists and is given material reality by the practice of racists. Racists create race by acting out their racism. Accordingly, race is whatever racists define it is in practice (which may or may not be what they say it is). The fight against racism will therefore be won, not by achieving equality between races, but by abolishing race as a category.

    2. “Neo-Tankie”. Well, this is the first time anybody’s ever called me that. It doesn’t surprise me, though, since he’s been projecting political positions onto me ever since he first read me describe myself as a communist. He seems to think that to be a communist is to be a Marxist, a Leninist or even a Stalinist. For the benefit of readers:

    (a) Communism is the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. There is nothing in it that necessitates support for the State.

    (b) Many of the most famous figures of historical Anarchism have called themselves communists. Kropotkin & Berkman are just two that come to me off the top of my head. Berkman’s classic introductory text “ABC of Anarchism” was first published as “What is Communist Anarchism?” and later re-issued as “ABC of Communist Anarchism”.

    (c) Property cannot exist without the State. If there was no coercive body, over and above society, to dominate it regardless of its wishes, employers would not be able to extract profits or to sack workers. Landlords would not be able to compel the payment of rent. And banks could not demand the repayment of debts, with interest. The only viable economic basis of a stateless society is communism.

    (d) Most Anarchists are communists – even ones who vehemently deny it. If, as most Anarchists maintain, you advocate the abolition of the institution of property, you are in favour of communism. If you advocate the abolition of property but maintain an opposition to communism, it is because you don’t understand what communism is and instead identify it with the vile regime that ruled the former USSR.

    (e) People who identify communism with the USSR aren’t as sceptical of authority as they think they are. There are only two possible reasons for calling the USSR communist:

    (i) That it meets an objective definition of communism; or
    (ii) That the ruling regime of the USSR described itself as communist.

    Firstly, the USSR did not meet the only universally agreed definition of communism – the one I gave at point (a) above. People did not contribute to society according to their ability and did not receive according to their need. It didn’t even come close.

    Secondly, we need to consider the truthfulness of the tyrants that ruled the USSR. People who reject the concept of communism because of the USSR are pretty universal about their pathologically mendacious nature. In short, they lied about their friends and they lied about their enemies; they lied about the arts and they lied about science; they lied about industry and they lied about agriculture; they lied about the news and they lied about history; they lied about war and they lied about peace.

    These critics of the USSR are, I find, in agreement with me up to this point. I have a question for them, however. If the co-called “communists” lied about everything else, why should we believe them when they tell us who they are?

    I don’t call the regime that ruled the former USSR “communist”. I call it Stalinist.

    3. Genocide. It’s over 10 years ago now, but here’s the link that I’ve preserved (though it could well be dead now). Professor Rat’s contribution in italics:

    Vanessa again…

    ‘… As for the ‘boo hoo hoo’ of the left in Indonesia over their PHYSICAL destruction, well there was not a lot of boo hoo hoo at all – especially by the West. So many people were killed or imprisoned (estimates of up to 3 million of anyone linked to any leftist movements- yes you would probably have been wiped out as well in that time, PR). Do you condone this?…’

    As during my lifetime Marxist – Leninist pogroms conservatively created red fascist holocausts of over 33 Million innocent men, women and children I do condone this.

    So, Professor Rat condones genocide of up to 3 million people on ideological grounds. He has disqualified himself from civilised discourse and I propose to Slackbastard that he be banned from this blog. Let him spout his genocidal so-called “Anarchism” somewhere else.

  7. Insouciant Twat says:

    Ablokeimet, just a few points.

    (i) Property can exist without the state. Take the example of the ‘wild west’ era in North America. Occupation of the land went well ahead of the appearance of the state, and disputes over property claims and contract breeches were often prosecuted by force of arms. It’s not as though anarchist communism would suddenly appear if the state were to disappear. It’s more likely that a chaotic Hobbesian capitalism would develop, with private police forces, etc., a situation that would invite the re-establishment of the state so as to regularise proceedings between parties involved in the market and society.

    (ii) The Soviet Union never described its socio-economic system as communist. It described it as socialist, being the stage, according to its ideology, between capitalism and communism. Under Brezhnev it was decided that Developed Socialism had been achieved, and this then became the official position. Of course, the party in power was the Communist Party whose stated aim was the eventual development of communism, so this is where the confusion originates. With the advent of the Cold War, US agencies of state insisted on calling the USSR ‘communist’ in order to avoid confusions with many of the US’s political allies in Europe who were nominally ‘socialist’.

    (iii) Communism, in a complex socio-economic setting, has never existed and has never shown any sign of coming into existence, primarily because its premise — from each according to etc., etc., — is a load of ideological horse-shit that goes against the grain of what it is to be human. The anarchist theorist with perhaps the most nuanced, sensible and realisable approach to libertarian socialism was Proudhon because he understood something about human behaviour and human needs. Of course, the world as it manifests itself today shows no signs of approaching mutualism, communism, democratic socialism or anything else that might improve upon capitalism.

Leave a Reply