Update : see/hear also : Angry Anderson’s opinions on youth violence, Shane McLeod, The World Today (ABC), March 1, 2010. The report contains no reference to Angry’s observations about culture and violence | (March 4, 2010): Ethnic groups and crime, Australian Institute of Criminology.
March 2010
In September last year I began to write a post about Angry Anderson and his jihad crusade campaign against violence gang violence the use of weapons by violent gangs.
Or something.
Anyway, today news.com.au reports that Angry, speaking before a Senate Committee enquiring into yoof and violence, is angry about the impact foreign cultures have had on street violence, viz, the introduction of weapons into fights where previously fists were considered sufficient.
Y’know. Marquess of Queensberry and all that.
Fairfax, on the other hand (and by way of AAP), has chosen to report Angry’s contention that The Young Need Discipline, especially at skool. Precisely what Angry said to the Committee has not been published (at least not to my knowledge), but news has titled his contribution Angry Anderson blames ‘other cultures’ for corrupting good old Aussie violence — the ‘other cultures’ nominated as being Lebanese, Indochinese and Pacific Islander.
See : Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth | Step Back Think.
September 2009
Huh. That’s odd. An article in today’s edition of The Age (Streetwise trio calls for action on attacks, Andra Jackson, September 19, 2009) describes how three men — rock singer Angry Anderson, youth worker Les Twentyman and Father Bob Maguire — have ‘announced a national campaign against what Mr Twentyman called ”a serious problem about carrying weapons, and about gangs”’.
Mr Anderson said: ”Have we gone crazy? Have we lost the plot?” There were racial and cultural issues behind the violence that had to be faced honestly. ”These things can be changed … you can break the chain of events,” he said. The national campaign’s message is: ”It is not manly, it is not Aussie and it is not us.” ”In my day, if you knocked a person down, that was it,” Mr Anderson said. ”People fought with fists, but did not ‘put in the boot’.”
Angry Anderson features on the new album, same, by Sydney band T.H.U.G., lending vocals to the track ‘Gunnin’ 4 U’:
- I got a gun in my pocket
A razor in my boot
Just been let out the nick
Now I’m on the loose
Makin’ up for time in stir
Settle a few old scores
Get a few [drugs?] on the boil
Then we’ll break some laws
[Chorus:]
I’m out now
And I’m looking for you
Watch your back boy
I’m gunnin’ for you
Not long ago
This city was mine
‘Til you turned dog on me
Put me back inside
But now I’m out again
I’m lookin’ for you
When I’m knockin’ on your door
What you gonna do
[Chorus]
It’s been [?] thirty years
That you stabbed me in the back
That’s the day you cut out my heart
Now I want it back
Fought our way to the top
When we were just boys
Then you threw it all away
For some filthy whore
[Chorus]
same has been released on Randale Records, a German label. Of T.H.U.G., its website states: “Founding members Chuml[e]y and Simon had long been talking about getting another band together after playing in numerous Oi and Rock ‘n’ Roll bands in the early 80s and 90s… ”
One of those bands was the neo-Nazi band ‘White Lightning’.
White Lightning released one album, We Rule, the title track of which T.H.U.G. still performs. The opening track on We Rule is titled ‘Australian Youth’: “Make a stand for your great nation / Against the scum who are going to die”.
The album was subsequently re-recorded and released as ‘Destiny’ on French RAC label Rebelles Européens (1987–1994) in 1990 (RE332190).
Although apparently collapsing in 1994, in 1995 Rebelles Européens made a short-lived recovery, assisted by an Australian label, White League. White League released a handful of CD recordings before it too dissolved. In addition, another former member of White Lightning, ‘Aussie’ Nigel Brown (No Remorse, Celtic Warrior, Raven’s Wing, Wolfseye), together with a bloke called Billy, re-recorded and re-released We Rule on Welsh label ‘Independent Voice Records’ in 1998.
T.H.U.G. is thus one of a tiny clutch of bands with roots in the neo-Nazi rock ‘n’ roll of the ’80s and ’90s; another is the UK band Tattooed Mother Fuckers (TMF), whose vocalist is Steve “Jonesy” Jones, formerly of neo-Nazi band English Rose.
Numerous other ‘patriotic’ bands attempt to hide their reactionary politics behind the flag: Ross of UK oi! band Scum, for example, has recently been outed as a Hitler fetishist by Benson & Hedges. Scum, in turn, played a gig with TMF in October 2008, while Australian band The Corps toured Europe with TMF and Retaliator.
Retaliator, TMF, The Corps and Scum were all once available through local mail-order Deadset Music (whose proprietor was a patron at the 2006 Ian Stuart Donaldson (ISD) memorial gig).
As for T.H.U.G., in 2000, Simon was interviewed by a Dutch neo-Nazi zine Out of Order. Simon says:
All my mates were into oi! and white pride as well. I did not know any skinheads that were into oi! and were not white and proud of it. Lefty skinheads would never dare to show their face on the street for fear of getting severely beaten. And that’s the way it should always be…
Old time skinheads rule!
In the same interview, Simon says:
What is your best memory of White Lightning?
Best memory was playing a gig in Melbourne, in some pub, can’t remember which, full swing into it and about 30 Maoris drinking in the front bar… I’m sure you can picture what happened. Bedlam. We managed to protect all our gear however. Mic stands make magnificent clubs.
As for Chumley, in 1988, in an interview with The Stormtroop (an Australian RAC zine), Chumley comments:
Do you have any opinion on the current crisis in the West Bank between the Jews and the Palestinians?
As everyone can see the ever troublesome Jews are up to their old tricks by causing mass disorder. So we think that the Palestinians should wipe the Jews out and take back Palestine, then we should go in and wipe the Arabs off the face of the Earth.
What do you think of the Australian Nationalists Movement?
It makes a lot of sense.
On the political level, yes, I admit it is frightening that the Australian government is taking advice from a man with neo-nazi connections (though hardly surprising, as I’m sure enough of them have such connections themselves). But it’s also frightening how the racist ideology is publicly enforced. This morning, on channel 7’s “Sunrise Show” (or something similar) there was what was surely meant to be a hard-headed interrogation of Angry’s remarks. “Racist or telling it like it is?” They brought on two commentators to discuss the remarks.
Commentator number 1 (right-wing populist): Angry was absolutely right. It’s dem foreigners. Police should be on the look-out for foreigners.
Commentator number 2 (left-wing politically-correct multicultural wuss): Angry was absolutely right. But to base police procedure on these undisputed facts would, nevertheless, be racist. We shouldn’t divide everyone up into groups.
I have no idea what #2’s alternative suggestion would be if he accepts “the facts” and denies “the solution.” Probably even more totalitarian than the first one, really: some kind of “culturally sensitive” police crackdown. The show’s presenters left viewers to draw their own conclusions about what needs to be done… Again, I’m not sure if the scary option is that they’ll go out and join fascist gangs, or even elect a fascist government, but that they’ll accept racist repression as an acceptable and necessary part of a “moderate” government.
…a man with neo-nazi connections…
To clarify: Angry is not a neo-Nazi, and his connections, such as they are, to any such ideology are very loose, and I imagine he would be horrified at the thought that anyone considered him in any way sympathetic to fascist doctrines. I, for one, do not.
That said, what struck me about his participation (September 2009) in a campaign against violence, on the one hand, and lending his vocals to a song like ‘Gunnin’ 4 U’, on the other hand, was the seeming discrepancy between abhorring violence in one context and glamourising it in another. I’m also a little bit skeptical about the accuracy of his recollections of the nature of (male) violence in the 1970s, especially given the nature of ‘family’ or ‘domestic’ violence. In other words, much (male) violence takes place behind closed doors, not on the streets, and this fact should not be ignored when it comes to understanding its changing nature.
With regards Angry’s role at the Committee, his voice is merely one of many, and the Committee is under no obligation to act upon his advice. Fwiw, and from what I understand, in his later years Angry has become a little more reflective and, given his celebrity, has begun to create a profile as someone with an interest in a range of different issues, including yoof affairs, but also men’s health.
Finally: yeah, tabloid TV.
It’s shit.
I didn’t see the program you refer to, but must contribute…I’m not that old, much younger than Angry A, but I also remember back when fights were just fights, get a flogging, learn a lesson or two (if you’re smart enough), and come back to fight another day. Culture in Australia has changed…and not for the better. Just because people in other countries stab each other, or kick the shit out of each other, doesn’t mean that us in Australia should emulate that behaviour. What’s next…blood feuds? Suicide bombings? Or Uzi gunfights at 20 paces? I think that Australian culture…of all nationalities and backgrounds…should be promoted, respected (the good bits, not the nationalistic crap), and held up as an example of how we all here in this stinking hot place can get along without killing each other…
Just a thought?
@ndy, it feels like there is a bit of a discrepancy between the facts you note in the post – i.e. Anderson providing vocals for the recording efforts of people who appear to have been fairly unsubtle about such political commitments – and your response to J – i.e. that you think the issue about Anderson is a discrepancy between some campaign about violence and the tough-guy nonsense he sings.
Like, exactly why would he lend his celebrity vocals to this project, do you think, seemingly run by people comfortable in the racist far right, and presumably, if successful, for the profit of same? I mean, beyond the question of the content of the lyrics in this particular instance, how exactly would this come about?
As someone who was reasonably harsh on people for playing at a pub which sometimes hosted nazi gatherings, you seem much less harsh about Anderson actually providing direct assistance to projects of, well, whatever the term for these people is. I mean, maybe he would be horrified, but then maybe he should suffer such horror…
Or am I missing something?
The connection between T.H.U.G. and Angry, besides anything else, is provided by way of Steve King, who’s played bass for both bands. As for T.H.U.G.’s current outlook, I dunno. Some folks in Sydney who’ve seen them play reckon there’s no trace of their (that is, Chumley and Simon’s) previous affiliations or political perspectives on stage. I did write T.H.U.G. a coupla years ago to ask them about Chumley and Simon’s previous role in White Lightning, but they never replied. So, who knows what they honestly believe? On the one hand, White Lightning was pretty straightforwardly — and unapologetically — neo-Nazi; on the other hand, that was 20 years ago. The matter is slightly complicated by the fact that in the interview Simon gave to the neo-Nazi zine extracted above he clearly indicated that leftists should be beaten — and that was only 10 years ago.
On Angry in particular: in reply to J, I wanted to stress what had originally (September 2009) sparked my attention, and that was, mostly, the fact that Angry’s public persona has been based on being ‘tough’, that his involvement in the campaign implied a re-assessment of the virtues of being ‘tough’, and yet he’d recently recorded the track ‘Gunnin’ 4 U’… which is all about, like, being tough / settling scores / seeking revenge / employing violence. The controversy over his most recent remarks simply reminded me of the fact that I’d drafted this post, but never finished it.
So:
1. I dunno what Angry knows about members of T.H.U.G. having been members of White Lightning, or if he’d care if he did know;
2. There’s evidence to suggest that the band maintains links to some elements of the current neo-Nazi milieu;
3. I dunno if Angry knows or would care about 2 if he did know;
4. What T.H.U.G. believes, and what Chumley and Simon in particular think about their neo-Nazi past etc., I dunno;
5. T.H.U.G. don’t appear to currently be promoting neo-Nazism, fascism, or racism;
6. Randale Records is a generic oi! record label (afaik, and having asked a German-speaking acquaintance to look them over);
7. Moar later.
NB. Everything changed for Angry in 1987.
Fair enough.
My mum used to live in Richmond in the 1970s. She had a party at her house and some bloke got knifed in the eye. THE EYE. My point being that this view being pushed by Anderson has absolutely zero evidence put forward to support it and that bad things have happened for a long time now. Maybe since, like, forever.
There has always been levels of shocking violence in Australia, particularly being a nation founded on it (Aborigines, of course and don’t forget the convicts). That isn’t to say that the nature and the direction of the violence doesn’t change (does anyone target the Irish for violence anymore?), but there is no evidence to say that there is a culture of weaponised violence attached exclusively to race, and specifically to certain races. That includes whites, btw.
If my dog whistle interpreter is correct, the suggestion is that violence may by afflicting white people and that this is unacceptable.
BONUS ‘Bad Boy For Love’ lyrics:
I’m suspect if Anderson himself heard similar lyrics coming from someone with the wrong religion in a rap-like format, he’d call it an “imported” attitude.
I really, really like a couple of Rose Tattoo songs (the one quoted above and, of course, this one). That doesn’t mean Anderson isn’t a bit of a knob who confuses his own opinions/concerns with fact.
The committee appears to be a bit slow on the publication of transcripts of its hearings, the last one they put up was for the 15th of Feb.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fchy/youthviolence/hearings.htm
Twentyman and Anderson were always self important wankers but I am disappointed with Father Bob. I can imagine it was better back in the day for white straight males but it sure wasn’t for a lot of other people. If they really think it isn’t white Australians who started the violence they should try living in a rural area for a while.
To clarify: Angry is not a neo-Nazi, and his connections, such as they are, to any such ideology are very loose, and I imagine he would be horrified at the thought that anyone considered him in any way sympathetic to fascist doctrines. I, for one, do not.
That said, what struck me about his participation (September 2009) in a campaign against violence, on the one hand, and lending his vocals to a song like ‘Gunnin’ 4 U’, on the other hand, was the seeming discrepancy between abhorring violence in one context and glamourising it in another.
I don’t actually listen to Angry Anderson’s songs, except Kylie and Jason’s wedding song that was so big in 1987 omg I cried as an 8 year old!! But here you see @ndy is a balanced guy, maybe he finds common hypocrisy, hypocrisy is everywhere, I’m not supposed to get drunk as a Christian, but damn you right now I’m getting hammered. Apathy is pretty cool, non-violence is the best the best the best.
what struck me about his participation (September 2009) in a campaign against violence, on the one hand, and lending his vocals to a song like ‘Gunnin’ 4 U’, on the other hand, was the seeming discrepancy between abhorring violence in one context and glamourising it in another
You know I’m just wondering, isn’t this the separation of art from reality that so many musical artists, including Tupac Shakur of the 90s, were trying to get across to those who couldn’t see a difference? And should we make a distinction when the line seems blurred to the layman? Is art literal and actions lying in abstraction, should it be considered damning evidence of the artist’s views in subversion? There’s been plenty of offensive art works in the past that have pushed that boundary. There seems to be, at least to me, no solid answer presented. Art is just art, or is it.
The transcript of Angry’s testimony has been published.
He makes a handful or references to ‘culture’; most of his commentary stresses the importance of providing good role models and nurturing, loving environments for children…
Back in the good old days, when fair dinkum Aussie blokes settled their differences using their fists, not guns or knives or bats or…
Back in the good old days, when fair dinkum Aussie blokes settled their differences using their fists, not guns or knives or bats or…
Should we be portraying all regular typical Aussie blokes as bikies? I don’t think so. That’s just a trashy bushranger-like element that continues on from the colony days. Back then, I don’t think Aussies considered bushrangers the mainstream colonial population, so why assert it about bikies.
Should we be portraying all regular typical Aussie blokes as bikies?
I’m not. Obviously. The point I’m making is fairly simple, and that is: it’s not true to suggest that the use of weapons in gang fights only began recently (the last few decades), or that it may be blamed upon members of particular ethnic groups (Lebanese, Indochinese and/or Pacific Islander). The Milperra Massacre was a highly spectacular and hugely violent incident in which a variety of weapons were used and seven people died — including a teenage girl. The Massacre was conducted by ‘fair dinkum’ — that is, predominantly ‘Anglo’ — ‘Aussie blokes’.
The Massacre also points to the fact that, when it comes to ‘street’ violence, there’s actually a whole range of different factors which determine its nature and frequency, and this is true of yoof violence as well. Angry’s testimony is based on his personal experience; he’s not presenting the findings of his own, long-term study. The evidence he presents to justify his views — that is, this particular contention — is fairly slim. He cites various mates of his, and makes one reference to one government study (on the effectiveness of peer pressure upon yoof behaviour). This does not mean he is wrong; it does mean that the evidentiary basis to support his conclusions about the impact of particular ethnic cultures upon street violence is unconvincing. A serious examination of the issue deserves more: in which context, it should be understood that he was one of a number of individuals giving evidence to the Committee; its investigation into the impact of yoof violence is continuing; I might write moar later if I could be arsed.
On bikies as exemplars of a particular form of masculinity:
As noted, you are of course right to state that ‘all regular typical Aussie blokes’ aren’t bikies, and that to portray them as such is false. (The 1%ers are just that — a tiny proportion of the adult male population.) Nevertheless, in their misanthropy, exclusivity, lawlessness, and propensity for violence — whether real or alleged — bikies do provide a masculine ideal (for some), especially male yoof; certainly, tho’ not exclusively, working class male yoof.
Y’know… Hyper-masculinity And All That?
Anyway, moar later. In the meantime:
XY online
sorry andy but i can’t agree with that. bikies have always been a fringe element of australian society and their appeal has always been limited to people with a proverbial chip. a possible exception to this would be the vietnam veterans who, upon returning to australia, felt justified in rebelling against the society which they perceived treated them deplorably. however, the idea of roaming the streets in armed bands is completely at odds with the typical australian male who has traditionally been self reliant, individualistic and has a basic sense of decency born of an anglo-saxon up-bringing. please read the official history of australia during the great war, particularly vols. 1-6 for a glimpse into the basic character of an australian male 100 odd years ago. the traits found during this period still exist today, albiet less and less. the diversification of australia’s cultural spectrum as well as the overwhelming influence of american popular culture means that the disgruntled youth of today (of all backgrounds) are more likely to find american gang culture as the basis for their behavior. here in lies the problem and is what, i think, angry is trying to say. because this culture is so attractive to the mind of a teen as well as being extremely violent, the urge to mimic this behavior is great. the question becomes, “how far will i take it? how far will i let myself become absorbed into this lifestyle?” this is where ethnic identity is crucial in determining the likelihood of an altercation or perceived sleight turning into something far more serious than the circumstances would suggest…
lest we forget:
The appeal of the bikie is not universal, obviously, and I noted as much. My point, in any case, was merely that, if you have the eyes to see and the willingness to look, deadly violence did not emerge the moment Lebanese and/or Indochinese and/or Pacific Islanders stepped ashore (in which context, the practice of ‘blackbirding’ is germane, as is the occurrence of anti-Chinese rioting in the nineteenth century: the reason ‘Lambing Flat’ is now known as Young).
In summary, your account is a mythological reinvention: urban gangs have been a part of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ culture for centuries, whatever the effect of hip hop on Australian popular culture, and hence the forms that such activity has taken in recent years.
Whatever Charles Bean wrote concerning the Gallipoli campaign and the Australian Imperial Force in France is one thing, a characterological study of The Australian Male (c.1910) is another matter. In any event, Russel Ward’s The Australian Legend is likely a better, more straightforward account, one which stimulated ongoing debates, including sharp rejoinders, the most obvious of which concerns the absence of the missus. Anyway, this talk of (masculine) national character/identity reminds me of nothing so much as the old crack about the Nazi ideal: oh to be blond as Hitler, slim as Goring, handsome as Goebbels. Besides, murderous devotion to the state is not exactly my cup of tea and — surprisingly enough, if the results on the conscription referendum were anything to go by — for the members of the Australian Imperial Force, it wasn’t much chop either.
Moar l8r maybe.
whoa, andy mate. don’t be too hasty to throw me into that camp. when i say typical australian male, i’m talking averages, not bigoted stereotypes. i am also well acquainted with the history of violence within our history. you’re right in saying gangs have always been present but i was refuting your comment that bikies have a relatively broad appeal. i despise bikies, i despise gangs of any sort. i consider a gang to be a form of security blanket for little boys. a man who knows himself doesn’t need the reassurance of others no matter what the motive.
as for the conscription thing, didn’t that prove the nobility of our men. they knew weak bastards were back home, fucking their women, drinking beer and eating steak for dinner, but did they force these men into the hell that was their lot? no they didn’t. touche perhaps. lastly, you shouldn’t be so harsh on people’s motives. do you have a ‘murderous devotion’ to your cause? at least theirs was plausible, as borne out by the result.
again, stating the bleeding obvious. i can just imagine the original writer trembling with self-righteous joy as he penned these words. no longer would the masses be ignorant of the hideous conspiracy that drove them like sheep to the slaughter. the truth, hidden for so long, will now be brought forth like a shining beacon for all man kind. rise up, down-trodden peasants, and cast away the shackles of your masters. my god, what bullshit. any half educated man is well aware of the inequities in society. i’m sure [there] is a considerable class difference between the intellectuals who concoct these blissful theories, and the peasants they require to put them into practice. after all, you couldn’t use the bright ones as combat troops…who would be left to remind the stupid peasants what they were fighting about?
oh, by the way…it’s Sir Charles Bean. have some respect hey andy. he he he.
g’day champ. pretty nice track. i sympathise with what you’re trying to do mate, and i kind of admire your vision, but where you might call me apathetic, i consider myself a realist. if there’s a revolution in my lifetime, you can bet your arse i’ll be on the winning side.
I’m disturbed by anyone who thinks there’s a “manly” or “Australian” way to fight.
Reminds me of the Christian Brother who addressed an assembly when I was at school. He explained that he was horrified by a recent schoolyard fight because there was kicking involved, which is just not manly, but he could understand why the fight happened, because someone had been called a poofter, which is even less manly.
If I ever have zero choice but to fight, then I’ll resort to whatever unmanly and unAustralian tactics are necessary to survive. But if we really have to spread the idea that a certain approach to fighting is “manly” or “Australian”, let’s get everyone believing the idea that the “manly, Australian” thing to do is to just walk away.