OMG!Violence is real!LOL! Neo-Nazi beliefs blamed for murders! And attempted murders!ROFLMAO!

    “As I stated on the Bombshell forum Andy, you are a liar, a hypocrite and no better than the trash that you fight against.” ~ Dion, December, 2007
    Anarchy is a fag. Thanx to the people who have supported us… and to the random people letting us know about this anarchist knobjockey Mr Moran.” ~ Chunga (The Worst), September 2007

Neo-Nazi beliefs blamed for murders
The Dominion Post
December 5, 2008

A South Korean mother lamented the loss of her “perfect son” as two-time killer Hayden Brent McKenzie was sentenced today to at least another 21 years in jail for the slaying of backpacker Jae Hyeon Kim.

McKenzie’s name suppression was lifted today, meaning it can now be revealed he is already in jail for the 1999 murder of a gay Westport man.

Justice Simon France said in the High Court at Wellington today that both killings were the result of McKenzie’s “abhorrent” white supremacist neo-Nazi “hatreds”, with the first victim being homosexual and Mr Kim being Asian.

McKenzie pleaded guilty on the second day of a depositions hearing in Greymouth in October.

This afternoon, Justice France sentenced him to life in prison, to serve at least 21 years.

McKenzie’s name suppression was lifted today, but Justice France made an order preventing publication of images of McKenzie or any description of his appearance.

McKenzie looked around the court, appearing unconcerned as Mr Kim’s mother broke down reading a statement about the effect the death of her son had on her.

Leebun Kim, 60, read victim impact statements from herself and her husband, which were translated in the court.

Breaking into tears and slamming the desk with her grief, she detailed the grief and pain the family had been through in not knowing where their son was, and to find out he had been murdered in a far away country.

“You heartless and cruel man, why did you kill such a precious life?”

She described Mr Kim as “a perfect son” who worked and studied hard and of whom the family was extremely proud.

The family had lived five years of pain without knowing of his fate.

Mr Kim had left home in February 2003 and they had been in constant touch with him until he disappeared in September that year.

The economics student is believed to have been killed on the West Coast between September 29 and October 22, 2003.

He had come to New Zealand to study and improve his English

Another man allegedly involved in the crime gave police the approximate position of the body and McKenzie led police to it recently. Mr Kim’s clothing and possessions had been burned.

Four years earlier, in October 1999, West Coast eccentric and McKenzie family friend James “Janis” Bambrough, disappeared.

McKenzie and another man were convicted of murdering Bambrough. The body was found years later.

McKenzie has already served four years of the 10-year minimum imposed for that killing.

McKenzie’s lawyer, Greg King, argued that if McKenzie were sentenced for 25 years it would be too much for two murders.

It was a senseless and needless death of a thoroughly decent young man.

“His death was random and he did nothing to provoke it.

“The ripples of his demise have travelled most forcefully to the other side of the globe, it has also been felt by New Zealand and New Zealanders. We are a nation that prides itself on how we welcome visitors.”

McKenzie had led police to the exact location of Mr Kim’s body after earlier evidence, Mr King said.

He had pleaded guilty at an early preliminary hearing and it may be that others may yet enter guilty pleas, he said.

If McKenzie had not helped police it was likely Mr Kim’s remains might never have been found. Mr King said McKenzie had led police to the body in Mr Bambrough’s case also.

McKenzie had shown genuine remorse, genuine cooperation and a genuine change of attitude and his physical involvement in both murders was a matter for debate, he said.

Justice France said McKenzie had been associated with a white supremacist group at the time of both killings, although in 2004 he had married and moved away from the lifestyle.

Two other people are still to face the courts over Mr Kim’s death.

Nelson fisherman Shannon Flewellen [below] will defend a murder charge in Greymouth in June next year. A second man, whose name and the nature of the charge he faces are suppressed, will also be on trial.

– with NZPA

OMG that is so funny! Ha ha ha!

NB. McKenzie was a member of a bonehead gang calling themselves the Fourth Reich. (Leighton Wilding, currently imprisoned for the murder of James John (Janis) Bamborough in 1999 — the “gay Westport man” referred to in the above article — was another founding member.) “McKenzie, 28, was a white supremacist who infamously had Die Nigger Die tattooed on his forehead… The Fourth Reich was not so much born as ripped from the womb. Boneheads uniting in petty crime, drugs and a whole lot of empty posturing was nothing new. But this was something else. Formed in 1994 in Paparua Prison, near Christchurch, the Fourth Reich quickly became the most fearsome force in the South Island underworld. “They love to hate,” one police source says. “Hate’s a big part of their whole philosophy. They’re angry men.” Men capable of stomach-churning violence. Victims were shot, stabbed, menaced and bashed as up to two dozen Reich followers went on the rampage through the mid to late-1990s” (Reign of the Fourth Reich, Matt Conway, The Press, June 25, 2005).

See also : Ku Klux Kiwis, Michael Shannon, Review 23.1, February 1–February 17, 1998 | Pride, Strength & Honour : Kiwi bonehead on trial for murder (October 16, 2008) | White nightmares (June 17, 2008)

Nazis suspected of political arson attacks
The Local
December 4, 2008

Police suspect Swedish neo-Nazi groups of burning down a Stockholm cultural centre and setting fire to an apartment occupied by a young family in two separate arson attacks in the last week.

In both cases, the perpetrators are thought to have deliberately targeted people affiliated with the Syndikalist trade union.

On Saturday evening, the Cyklopen social centre in the Högdalen suburb burned to the ground in what police believe was a deliberate attack. The fire broke out at the same time an anti-racist group was scheduled to meet at the centre, though the meeting had been cancelled a few days earlier.

Two nights later, a couple and their young child were forced to evacuate their Högdalen apartment after flammable liquid was poured through their letterbox and the premises set on fire, Dagens Nyheter reports.

The father, 27, and mother, 24, fled to the balcony as the apartment became engulfed in flames. They managed to pass their 2-year-old daughter down to their neighbour one floor below before hoisting themselves over over the balcony to safety.

“We are working on the theory that Nazis were behind this,” police investigator Christer Söderheim told the newspaper.

With both parents active in the Syndikalist movement, Söderheim said he believed the two recent attacks were linked.

The events of the last few days come nine years after Syndikalist Björn Söderberg was murdered by two Nazis outside his front door in the Stockholm suburb Sätra.

Swedish security police Säpo said it was not unusual for clashes to intensify in the period leading up to December 6th, when Swedish neo-Nazis stage an annual march in the small town of Salem to mark the violent death in 2001 of 17-year-old white power advocate Daniel Wretström.

Daniel Wretström (1993–2000), bonehead and member of nutzi band Vit Legion (White Legion):

In December 2000, 17-year-old bonehead Daniel Wretström was beaten to death by a youth gang of mixed Swedish and immigrant origins in Salem, south Stockholm. He has since become a neo-Nazi martyr and the most important rallying point for neo-Nazis and the extreme right in Sweden. Shortly after his murder, more than 1,000 neo-Nazis held a torchlight meeting at the scene of the killing, the largest Nazi demonstration in Sweden since the 1940s. Again in December 2001, on the anniversary of Wretström’s death, Nazis of all stripes gathered at the scene. Both events were organized by Robert Vesterlund. In 2001 Vesterlund was arrested on illegal arms charges, and sentenced to one year in prison. He was due to begin his sentence in the course of 2002…

The Salem Fund, set up by the Nazi prison organization Yellow Cross, together with Info-14 and Blood & Honour for organizing the annual commemoration, is supported by the entire fascist [‘nationalist’] spectrum, except the Sweden Democrats. There was a decline in the number of participants, from 2000 in 2003 to 1,400 in 2004…

[2004] …the main Swedish nazi event of the year, the Salem march in south Stockholm on 6 December… has now surpassed the 30 November King Karl XII commemoration, as the most important annual gathering… Officially, the Salem rally is organised as a “protest against immigrant violence against Swedes” by the Salem Fund, a front for Robert Vesterlund’s Info-14, but, in reality, it is a joint enterprise by the National Democrats, the National Socialist Front, Swedish Resistance and Blood & Honour. The event has rapidly grown in importance and is today an event that paralyses the small municipality of Salem for a whole day each year…

In summary, the numbers of those commemorating the murder of Daniel Wretström seems to have gone up and down over the last seven years, as have the number of those protesting against the nazi march. What does not appear to have changed greatly is the massive and overwhelming police presence guarding the march and attempting to keep the two sides separate.

It will be interesting to see if the recent arsons and attempted murders make any difference to the outcome of this year’s event.

    Nowave: “No offence but honestly who gives a shit about some skinhead in Russia / Korean backpacker in New Zealand / syndicalist in Sweden.”
    Fruitsalad: “If Russians / Kiwis / Swedes are so interesting to you, move to Russia / New Zealand / Sweden.”
    ~ Melbourne Punx Forum, October 2008

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 2019 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Anti-fascism. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to OMG!Violence is real!LOL! Neo-Nazi beliefs blamed for murders! And attempted murders!ROFLMAO!

  1. Robert says:

    And what are you going to do about it? How would an Anarchy society deal with issues like these?

  2. @ndy says:

    “Robert”,

    Could you be a bit more specific? You mean issues like racism? Anti-social behaviour? Violence…?

    I.5.8 What about crime?

    For anarchists, “crime” can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or “original sin,” but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel “secondary drives” that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 — “What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?”)

    “Crime”, therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman’s words, gets the criminals it deserves. For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the “free market” and “individual responsibility.” It was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could have had no other effect, for “the government’s powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality.” [Anarchy, p. 46]

    Hence the paradox of governments committed to “individual rights,” the “free market” and “getting the state off our backs” increasing state power and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no paradox at all. “The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and a vast increase in state power,” argues Carole Pateman, “is not unexpected at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion, contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed long ago that contract — all the way down — requires absolutism and the sword to keep war at bay.” [The Sexual Contract, p. 232]

    Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued “it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience — be it only at the stage of an instinct — of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one’s happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own.” [Mutual Aid, p. 16]

    The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society – namely human solidarity – and hierarchy crushes the individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with others and so understand why we must be ethical and respect others rights.

    We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour. Kropotkin originated the accurate description of prisons as “Universities of Crime” wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect the social conditions which promote many forms of crime.

    We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e. rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not “sit back” and say “it’s society’s fault.” Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part of the current problem with “law codes” is that individuals have been deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so are less likely to develop “civilised” social standards (see section I.7.3).

    Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of “court” system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens.

    These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the “court” in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a “court” appointed to look into the issue. These “courts” would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, “when differences were to arise between men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?” [Anarchy, p. 43]

    In the case of a “police force,” this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would “not be entrusted, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune.” [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371] This system would be based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social activity as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more.

    Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a “police force”) than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.

    Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the “guilty” party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such a group would be given the necessary “authority” to investigate the crime and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that, suggestions.

    As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out its causes as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also available at the right price — hardly an environment which encourages consideration for others, or even for oneself.

    In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also tend to produce anti-social activity because the free development and expression it suppresses. Thus, irrational authority (which is often claimed to be the only cure for crime) actually helps produce it. As Emma Goldman argued, crime “is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away with, crime” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 57]

    Eric Fromm, decades later, makes the same point:

      “It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man’s sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies — either against others or against oneself — are nourished” [The Fear of Freedom, p. 158]

    Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum.

    Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others.

    An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, “when we imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the so-called ‘barbarians’ after having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes.” [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 18]

    Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice) anarchists contend that offenders should not be punished but justice achieved by the teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer would remain part of the community and so see the effects of their actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would be likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends for their act by community service or helping victims and their families.

    So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons on both practical grounds (they do not work) and ethical grounds (“We know what prisons mean — they mean broken down body and spirit, degradation, consumption, insanity” Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul Avrich in An American Anarchist, p. 146]). The Makhnovists took the usual anarchist position on prisons:

      “Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. . . Free people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free. . . In keeping with this attitude, they [the Makhnovists] demolished prisons wherever they went.” [Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 153]

    With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all anarchists are against the current “justice” system which seems to them to be organised around revenge and punishing effects and not fixing causes.

    However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare.

    So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilitate those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued, “liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us” and not a parasitic legal system. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 117]

Leave a Reply

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