On September 8, 2007, approximately 15—30 individuals, all white, mostly young, and overwhelmingly male, dressed in black clothing and wearing caps, dark glasses and scarves, gathered in a group outside of Sydney Town Hall as part of a public protest against the APEC summit, scheduled to take place elsewhere in Sydney that weekend. The group carried with them three long banners — with slogans reading ‘Australia: Free Nation – Or Sheep Station?’, ‘Globalisation is Genocide’ and ‘Power to the People, Not Political Parties’ – which were joined together to form a three-sided bloc, within which those gathered assembled to form a ‘black bloc’. The group also distributed a leaflet, and claimed to belong to a group known as the ‘New Right’, one which — as other statements on the banners and on the leaflet stated — consists of ‘National Anarchists’ espousing a ‘Traditional-European Revolutionary’ philosophy. This brief essay examines ‘New Right’ philosophy and its origins in Europe, the emergence of this groupsucule in Australia, and argues that it can best be understood as the latest incarnation in a European-based trend in neo-fascist ideology and practice.
Who or what is the New Right? In Australia, the group was established in late 2005, largely via the efforts of one man, a German-born, Sydney-based businessman named Welf Herfurth. Herfurth has a long history of involvement in the far right, having been a member of the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) prior to his arrival as an immigrant in 1987, and following that a member first of the Democrats, and then of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party (ONP), serving as the vice-president of the New South Wales state branch (under David Oldfield) and as President of ONP’s Riverstone branch. More recently, from its inception in 2001, Herfurth has served as MC, and as one of the principal organisers — along with Dr. James Saleam of the Australia First Party (AF) — of the annual Sydney Forum. In this capacity, in 2007, Herfurth helped to arrange the visit to Australia of Croatian fascist Dr. Tomislav Sunic, a key New Right thinker, and in previous years has attempted, unsuccessfully, to arrange for a number of key members of the NPD (Gerd Finkenwirth and Udo Voigt) to tour Australia and to address the Forum.
Subjected to a liberal, middle-class upbringing in post-war Germany, as a young man in the 1980s Herfurth rejected his parent’s liberal values to embrace those of the neo-Nazi movement, establishing a role for himself as a fascist militant. Since then, his politics have developed into a more sophisticated version of the crude neo-Nazism of his youth, one which retains an overriding commitment to race and nation, but shorn of the naked bigotry and crude political analysis which remains one of neo-Nazism’s hallmarks. In particular, Herfurth is part of a generation of far right activists heavily influenced by the philosophies of figures such as Alain de Benoist (1943–), a French intellectual who, beginning in the mid- to late-1970s especially, and together with a small group of others centred around the ‘ethno-nationalist’ think-tank GRECE (1968–), reinvigorated post-war fascist thinking. Part of this project consisted of popularising and critically re-examining the ideas of earlier thinkers such as Carl Schmitt (1888—1985) and Julius Evola (1898—1974), and thereby attempting to craft a philosophy that would somehow transcend the divide between the political left and right; all in the name of establishing a new political order in Europe – a ‘communitarian’ one consisting of nation-states, but under the domination of neither the then-Soviet Union or the United States. It was this posture which also fed into the (re-)development of ‘Third Position’ politics within the far right, one which even attracted the intellectual support of nominally Marxist thinkers such as Paul Piccone (1940—2004), editor of the US journal Telos.
Such is, necessarily, a much-simplified version of the political etymology of the New Right. Of most importance in relation to Herfurth and the New Right in Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand), however, is their embrace of the idea of the transcendence of the left-right divide, and their commitment to elaborating a contemporary form of fascist politics; one attuned to the history of ideas, and one which recognises the necessity of building an extra-parliamentary social movement which is capable of responding to contemporary political realities, especially in the realm of popular culture. And it’s in the realm of popular culture that the idea of ‘national anarchism’ has greatest relevance.
Briefly then, ‘national anarchism’, at least as it’s understood by the New Right, is the means by which those grouped around Herfurth in particular, and New Right philosophies generally, seek to intervene in political struggle: “National-Anarchism represents the political embodiment of the European New Right — it is the political wing”. Before examining what this means in practice, however, it’s worth also briefly examining the short history of this rather unlikely doctrine.
In the English-speaking world, the figure most commonly associated with ‘national anarchism’ is the English activist, writer and musician Troy Southgate (1965–). A member of the National Front in the mid-80s, Southgate left it in the late ‘80s to join the ‘International Third Position’; left the ITP to form the ‘English Nationalist Movement’ in the early ‘90s; abandoned this not especially successful group in 1998 to form the ‘National Revolutionary Faction’; and following that declared himself to be a ‘national anarchist’. What this actually means in terms of ideology is a difficult question to answer. However, Graham D. Macklin (‘Co-opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction’, Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005 [PDF]), for one at least, has tried to do so. He argues that:
When put into its wider context… ‘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… Central to ‘national-anarchism’, however, is a far older paradigm drawn from conservative revolutionary thought, namely, the Anarch, a sovereign individual whose independence allows him to ‘turn in any direction’…
In practice, what this means, at least in part, is demonstrated by the emergence of the so-called ‘black bloc’ at APEC in September (from which the ‘Anarch’ Herfurth was conspicuously absent). Specifically — in addition in adopting the name of anarchism to advance a far right agenda — fascists seek to appropriate anarchist imagery and rhetoric. Like Herfurth himself, this tactic appears to have been born in Germany, where in the last 5—10 years, the neo-Nazi movement has increasingly sought to use the radical chic associated with ‘anarchism’ and ‘autonomism’ to recruit youth. (For example, in addition to appropriating fashions associated with anarchists and leftist youth, “autonomous nationalists” have for some years now formed ‘black blocs’ at public protests.)
In Sydney, the APEC ‘black bloc’ was the first public protest attended by the ‘national anarchists’ of the New Right, but given its success – in his online account of the protest, one pseudonymous member writes that “We were tremendously pleased, afterwards, that no arrests had occurred and that none of us had been physically assaulted. We had avoided identification, too” – it is unlikely to be the group’s last. Further, while the majority of its members appear to have been drawn from Sydney and Newcastle, a few travelled from Melbourne to attend, and it’s possible that others came from other parts of the country as well. It’s therefore possible that there will be other demonstrations in other cities; certainly, the New Right, on the basis of this success (however meagre), has the potential to draw towards it the many competing factions of the extra-parliamentary far right (including remnants of AF and the Patriotic Youth League (PYL), the more straightforwardly neo-Nazi Blood & Honour and the Hammerskins, as well as others) and in turn help stimulate the growth of a reinvigorated, if still tiny, fascist movement in Australia.
Finally, while the New Right’s adoption of ‘national anarchism’ may be considered bizarre, even comical, it nevertheless retains the potential not only to confuse the broader public with regards the nature of contemporary anarchism, its aims and methods, but also to confuse some who may be approaching anarchism as a serious political philosophy for the first time. As to the question of how to respond to the emergence in Australia of a small group of fascists in anarchist drag, it is beyond the scope of this very short introduction to the New Right to address. At a minimum, it would appear necessary to ensure that this confusion is addressed publicly, in both theory and practice, and the sooner, the better.
- Further reading: Kevin Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International, Autonomedia, New York, 1999, provides an exhaustive account of the far right in Europe and North America following the end of the Second World War, and much of the background to the emergence of the New Right and associated ideologies and movements in the last few decades, and is highly recommended.
* ‘All Hail the New Right’ is a song (1988) by Sydney band The Trilobites. I’m pretty sure that ‘Yes they’ve got a video’, but I can’t find it anywhere on YouTube, unfortunately. Anyway, searching for some further scraps of information, I stumbled upon Wilfully Obscure, a blog dedicated to resurrecting some (other) choice musical cuts. Or, kinda like an online review of all the albums you might find at Dixon’s. As for The Trilobites, “Like The Godfathers and The Jam, whom the Trilobites appear to be heavily deriving their influences from, these Sydney bad boys dispensed taught, no-nonsense rock and roll with all the penetrating hooks and vigorous guitar chops one could ever hope for”. So there. And on a related note, here’s The Rifles:
slackbastard/fight dem back, it is a bit sexist and racist to say that white men and German white men are neo-Nazis. The New Reich is not a party nor is it National Socialist. If you look hard you will see it is neither left nor right. Neither the National Democratic Party nor One Nation are National Socialist. It seems to me that you anarchists call any one who opposes your ideas “Nazis”.
Peter,
You need to work on your reading and comprehension skills.
@ndy.
In a bizarre way, it’s quite understandable that “Anarchists” of your persuasion might feel some empathy and affection for those that feel themselves to be Chosen and entitled to the unconditional deference of others. The PhiloSemitic Anarchist applauds the destruction of the races for reasons that I don’t quite understand, and the Chosen demand destruction of the races as part of their manufacturing of what they call “Goyim” and purely as a function of their repugnant religious narcissism that demands the debasement of others’ existence through racial levelling.
Please post links to some Anarchist literature that detail why preserving identifiably different people is dangerous. Or share with us your own ideas on race.
You say you don’t care about race, but do your best to ensure the erosion of the earth’s racial landscape consistent with the extinction of other species. Have you noticed that an indigenous Chinaman looks different to an Indian who looks different to a Scandinavian who looks different to a Nigerian?
Please spare us the convoluted lecture on what it means to be indigenous.
Are you in the employ of others, mischievous, or a seer of the future that we others cannot possibly hope to comprehend, or should we all visit a Jewish psychoanalyst so that we may be redeemed.
@ndy, I too have a question as to your ideology. Are you an anarchist or an anti fascist?
A true anarchist wants a non-state controlled society, regardless of how organic groups form post anarchism, so long as the controlling government is removed. These organic groupings would form along racial lines, religious lines or even sporting teams (such as you with a one eyed pied group of both mixed race and religion!). This is perfectly acceptable under true anarchist ideology. If these national anarchists do indeed want a municipal societal system, what is the problem if they use racial identity as the glue in which to form their specific organic community? Hence the question is; if you are an anarchist, why are you so intent on attacking these guys, I don’t see the problem so long as they want to “smash the system”. You cannot state that you are both an anarchist AND an anti fascist, as one ideology must take precedence over another. Therefore, if you are more of an anarchist, any group (including fascists) should be accepted by us so long as they want to remove the current governing system. Otherwise, as an antifascist, you would be more concerned about racial policies of other anarchist groups or any other group out there. Hence, perhaps you should update your blog – rather than anarchy and apathy battle it out on @ndy’s blog, perhaps you could change it to “Anarchy and Anti-fascism battle it out on @ndy’s blog”. Which does beg the question, what is your exact ideology? Further, if you disagree with the policies set out by a specific group, why do you attack the individuals? For example, I see you have this guy Darrin Hodges with his photo splashed all over the blog. You’re obviously an intelligent and witty guy, at least attack his ideology rather than the individual. Also, if you’re going to put people’s photos up on your blog, and you are so sure that your way is correct ( as opposed to right! 🙂 ) why don’t you put your photo up on your blog for the world to see. Surely a man as proud of what he has achieved and [of] his ideology [as you are] would put [his] money where [his] mouth is and put [his] photo out there? So again, the question: Do you consider yourself an anarchist or an anti fascist?
Wow. ^
Well I have really started the debate now haven’t I? Races are not real. There are no pure ones because all peoples have had sex with other peoples thus creating mixed race peoples. Even Mussolini, the Italian dictator of the ’30s, said so himself.
KB,
As an atheist and an anarchist, I feel no particular allegiance to Judaism. In the context of anti-fascism — and in particular anti-Nazism — however, obviously, there’s a little matter of (attempted) genocide to address. If I feel empathy for people of Jewish descent, in this context, it’s partly because I’m human, and partly because, as an anarchist, I would have joined them as victims of Nazi persecution. As, indeed, many anarchists — including Franz Bunget, Julius Nolden, Emil Mahnert, Wilhelm Schmitz, Ernst Holtznagel and Michael Delissen — did… but not without a fight. As for ‘unconditional deference’ — yeah. Right!
As far as race is concerned, I understand race and racialist ideologies in a manner quite different, and largely antagonistic, to your own understanding. For example, I care little for the preservation of categories of being that are based upon the imposition of hierarchies, whether between individuals or groups. Racialism does violence to the facts, to history, and to peoples. “Please post links to some Anarchist literature that detail why preserving identifiably different people is dangerous.” Sure. But first, post links to any anarchist literature in which “Anarchists” of “my persuasion” express empathy and affection for those that feel themselves to be Chosen, and which argues that such people are entitled to the unconditional deference of others.
JC,
“@ndy, I too have a question as to your ideology. Are you an anarchist or an anti fascist?”
Leaving aside questions regarding ideology, identity, politics and the politics of the unconscious — I’m an anarchist, and my commitment to fighting fascism flows from that. And I’ll address the rest of your comment later.
JC,
To begin with, anyone is free to call themselves an ‘anarchist’, and to ascribe to it any meaning they desire. However, a standard definition — and one which reflects both its etymology and its practical usage over the last 150 years or so — is that an ‘anarchist’ is someone who advocates a society without rulers. In other words, while the implications of this political position have often been limited to an ‘anti-statist’ perspective, literally and historically, to be an ‘anarchist’ has involved more than a simple opposition to the state (or wanting, as you term it, “a non-state controlled society”). After all, what, exactly, is ‘the state’? For my money, I think that the German anarchist Gustav Landauer (1870–1919) has provided one of the most useful definitions, and that is:
===
“The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.”
===
Further, ‘anarchism’ — or the history of attempts to realise anarchy — may be understood as being not only ‘negative’ in content, but ‘positive’ as well (the urge to destroy is a creative urge ‘n’ all that). Or to put it another way, there have been numerous experiments in the construction of a free society, and to study these experiments is to learn something about the nature of the societies in which they’ve been conducted, and the kinds of challenges such attempts will likely face in the future. In other words, my ‘anarchism’ proceeds not only from a desire to live in a certain kind of society, but also comprises a critique of society as it’s currently constituted. Having made that point, I think I’m able to respond to your other comments.
To begin with, I think that the notion of ‘organic’ groupings, as you call them, is deeply problematic. The kinds of ‘lines’ upon which society may form in the absence of the state and other coercive structures would, in my opinion and in my understanding, proceed from quite different bases, both theoretical and practical; further, these ‘lines’, as you call them, take shape within the existing society. In other words, ‘the way we struggle is the struggle’, and anarchists engage in what is sometimes termed ‘pre-figurative politics’, meaning that the kinds of organisations anarchists build, and the relationships they seek to develop, are modeled on those they wish to see become generalised in the future.
Leaving aside your idle speculation about racially pure or religiously pure communities forming ‘organically’ in a ‘non-state controlled society’, you ask “If these national anarchists do indeed want a municipal societal system, what is the problem if they use racial identity as the glue in which to form their specific organic community?”
First, I’m not absolutely sure what you mean by “a municipal societal system”, but I gather it may be a reference to the concept of ‘libertarian municipalism’, one which I associate with some of the writings of Murray Bookchin and which, to my mind, is an attempt to rationalise the intervention of radicals onto local councils (although it has assumed a slightly different tone in, for example, parts of Italy and even, arguably, Argentina via the formation of various kinds of ‘community assemblies’). But really, I think your following question is more pressing, and answering it goes some way towards answering the first:
“If you are an anarchist, why are you so intent on attacking these guys?”
Simply put, I’m “intent on attacking these guys” precisely BECAUSE I’m an anarchist. They are racists. And, like anarchism, ‘national anarchism’ has a history. In fact, I’ve written about it, right here, and I’ve even provided a reference to a much lengthier treatment by a bloke called Graham. If you wish to respond to that, feel free, but I think it’s beyond question that their ‘anarchism’ is utterly fraudulent, a superficial pose which they somehow believe, wrongly, will allow them some kind of entre into the radical left.
Two further remarks on this subject: one, they are not recognised by a single anarchist group in this country; secondly, and judging by everything that I’ve read to have been written by its proponents in Australia, both on this blog and elsewhere, they’ve got absolutely no fucking idea what anarchism is.
“I don’t see the problem so long as they want to “smash the system”.”
Yeah well, I’m not so naive.
“You cannot state that you are both an anarchist AND an anti fascist, as one ideology must take precedence over another.”
Nonsense. Even on its own terms, this statement is illogical. In theoretical terms, an anarchist opposes fascist rule just as much as they do any other form of hierarchy.
“Therefore, if you are more of an anarchist, any group (including fascists) should be accepted by us so long as they want to remove the current governing system.”
More nonsense. First, you misunderstand ‘fascism’. Secondly, lots of political tendencies claim to want to remove “the current governing system” (as you call it). Some Islamists, for example, claim to want to overthrow “the current governing system” — and to institute Sharia law; Leninists too, claim to want to overthrow “the current governing system” — and to institute a dictatorship of the proletariat; neither are my comrades.
And while you claim to be ‘Just Curious’, neither, by the sounds of it, are you.
Once more the Stalinist League and I get ignored. I just have to wonder why.
@ndy, I thoroughly enjoy reading your responses! So eloquent, styled, and ever so slightly sarcastic. Just delicious! Thank you for your genuine response, and I assure you my questions are intended for erudite purposes only.
At the risk of jumping to the defence of a group I only superficially know anything about (the New Reich as you’ve affectionately described them), you stated that anyone can call themselves an anarchist? Hmmmm… I guess they just did!
Further, I am perturbed by your use of the term “pure” as an argument against natural or “organic” groupings of communities. Firstly, there is no such thing as a “pure group”; secondly, call me nihilistic, but groupings are a part of human nature, and organic grouping doesn’t equate to a “pure” grouping, just naturally formed. (Which could mean anything!)
Let’s talk about sport for a moment. If you watch the footy, the Magpie fans will have a section in the stands where the majority of them reside, and this is separate from the Bombers or Eagles, as everyone barracks for their own “side”. This is human nature, and like any process, a thermodynamic mixing occurs (i.e. you get the odd brave Bomber sitting with the one eyed Pies!), however, primarily – like prefers like (Magpie fans sit with Magpie fans!). Like minded people will stick together. You say that natural groupings are deeply problematic; however, when it suits you, (like in sport) you have no problem with it. The only answer to no “groupings” is radical egalitarianism aka communism. To enforce this radical egalitarianism would result in the eugenics of either highly intellectual people (such as yourself) as well as anyone with any sort of disability or slight defect. These thoughts are deeply troubling to me, and bring back associations of 1940s Germany. Hence my tolerance and acceptance for people to their right to self determination in their associations.
In regards to your earlier comments:
You said earlier that anyone could call themselves an anarchist!!! I consider myself an anarchist, but no doubt I am not recognised as one by yourself or any other official anarchist group. Does recognition by another anarchist legitimise my identity as one?
I suppose my point is that no-one can state what TRUE anarchism is, nor can or should they judge another group or individual for their interpretation of anarchism, as like any diverse clique, we all have varied ideas.
My final point, and gripe with the capitalist system, which is not necessarily aimed at you, but to the entire community, is that a large majority of people share our views on globalisation/capitalism/consumerism from many differing political spectras. The Globalist or Capitalist motto – “DIVIDE AND CONQUER” has surely worked, as we all bicker over trivial details. A ecumenical approach is required if we are ever to see any REAL change in the world. For this reason, and this reason only, I advocate leaving these and similarly minded groups alone, purely and simply because while we are busy having these (albeit enjoyable) debates, the status quo continues… and our true enemies (those in power) remain unscathed.
On anarchism: yeah, anyone’s free to call themselves an ‘anarchist’, and for any reason. That’s a statement of fact, not approval. Secondly, just ‘cos someone makes a claim, doesn’t make it so. You can change your name from ‘Just Curious’ to ‘Napoleon Bonaparte’ if you like, but I somehow doubt anyone will be joining you as you invade Russia. In other words, identity is not just about self-conception, but social recognition. And as I’ve indicated, no anarchist I recognise, and whose ideology accords with any standard definition of the term, recognises the New Right as ‘anarchist’.
“I am perturbed by your use of the term “pure” as an argument against natural or “organic” groupings of communities. Firstly, there is no such thing as a “pure group”; secondly, call me nihilistic, but groupings are a part of human nature, and organic grouping doesn’t equate to a “pure” grouping, just naturally formed. (Which could mean anything!)”
Then what does ‘organic’ mean? And why should something’s status as being ‘organic’ disqualify it from critical scrutiny? That, it seems to me, is what was implied by your assumption regarding what would emerge in the absence of the state / “a non-state controlled society”. In the context of this discussion, I think it’s reasonable to assume that what you were suggesting was that this was a natural, organic development (ie, “organic groupings … form[ing] along racial … religious … or even sporting” lines), and that ‘anarchists’ are somehow subject to a political imperative to not intervene in this ‘organic’ process. The distinction rests, obviously, on a division between the ‘natural’ and the ‘social’, one which dates back to Ancient Greece.
As for sport: you may have gained the impression, from watching footy on the TV, that crowds at AFL matches occupy different parts of the ground on the basis of allegiance. With the exception of cheer squads, this is untrue. In fact, crowds are mixed, very mixed, and it’s not at all unusual for fans to go to matches with their family and friends, not only despite the fact that they barrack for opposing teams, but precisely for this reason. In other words, the example you provide, in reality, functions much better as a counter-example to your claim that “Like minded people will stick together”.
On the subject of groupings: I don’t deny that people form groups. That much is obvious. It’s also meaningless. In other words, so what? I’m not disputing this ‘natural’ (sic) fact. What I’m disputing is the idea that some groups may be easily categorised as ‘natural’, and others as ‘un-natural'(?). I also believe it’s possible to examine and understand why groups form and dissolve.
But to speak in such terms is to engage with the subject on a highly abstract level. And when it comes down to it, the example you use — AFL supporters — is both badly-chosen and simply banal. The only, partial exception to this rule is mine and others’ support for Collingwood. This, naturally, is a mark of distinction, and connotes that the person in question (with the obvious exception of Luke Connors, who might be best termed a ‘freak’ of nature) is possessed of both handsome good looks, a stunning intellect and a razor-sharp wit.
Oh, and missing teeth; naturally.
The rest of your contribution is just gobbledygook as far as I can tell, especially that stuff about communism, eugenics, 1940s Germany, the incapacity of anarchists to act, make assessments or to form judgments, the nature of capitalism, us and them, me and you.
Anarchism is about folks sticking together in the workplace and in the community to achieve a better standard of living without management, the government, the trade unions, the cops, and so forth. It is the idea that we can run our own communities and workplaces ourselves. It is about recognising that we are all one group – the working class – and shit like race, gender, and so forth are not only bullshit but not conducive to revolutionary struggle as they just divide us. Anarchism is also inseparable from socialism as it is essentially a labour movement and capital only exists to fuck labour – the two are not compatible (from labour’s end anyway). If you are a racist, or a capitalist, you cannot be an anarchist for these reasons. Fascists being not only corporatists but also virulently anti-labour can never be anarchists and quite frankly it is highly offensive for them to call themself anarchist after killing thousands of anarchists as @ndy pointed out. We have been fighting fascists for a long time – not just in Spain – and there is no reason to stop now. Their ideology is violence. There is no reasoning with these retards. They must be derided and singled out and if possible destroyed. Thank you.
“Fascism is not to be debated. It is to be smashed.” ~ Durruti
======
SPAIN :
======
‘Strangle the life out of fascism’
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=310
The Iron Column defended its actions against the campaign of vilification mounted by the Spanish Communist Party and the Republican government in the following manifesto aimed at showing that its militants were not given to rhetoric and meant business:
“. . . As anarchists, we who – under the familiar denomination ‘Iron Column’ – struggle against the clerical and militarist reaction on the Teruel Front are concerned, of course, with the problems of the front, but also with those of the rearguard. Consequently when we realised that in Valencia things were not moving in the direction that we wished, when we noted that the rearguard, far from being a reassurance to us, was a focus of concern and misgivings, we resolved to intervene and, to that end, we dispatched the following requests to the relevant organisations:
(1) that the Civil Guard be disarmed and disbanded;
(2) that all of the armed forces of the state in the rearguard (Assault Guards, Carabineros, Seguridad, etc.) be sent immediately to the front and;
(3) that all records and archives held in capitalist and state institutions be destroyed forthwith.”
These requests had their foundations in revolutionary and ideological considerations. As anarchists and as revolutionaries, we considered the existence of the Civil Guard to be a threat; it is a reactionary corps that has, throughout its life and more especially during the present revolt, clearly displayed its mentality and its intentions. The Civil Guard was odious in our eyes for many reasons and we had no confidence in it. So we asked that it might be disarmed and proceeded to disarm it.
We asked that all of the armed corps be moved up to the front lines because men and weapons are in short supply there, while in the city, under the present state of affairs, their presence was more of a provocation than a necessity. We have been halfway successful on this count and we shall press on until our objective has been completely achieved.
Finally we asked for the destruction of all the documents that represented a whole past era of tyranny and oppression against which our free consciences had revolted. Let us destroy the records and give consideration to requisitioning those buildings that, like the court buildings, have been used in other times to entomb revolutionaries in prisons and have no raison d’être today, now that we find ourselves at the dawning of a libertarian society.
Such objectives brought us into Valencia and this explains all that we did in the manner deemed most appropriate.
Later, during our stay in Valencia, we observed that whereas efforts to acquire weapons foundered due to our lack of funds, there was a huge quantity of gold and other precious metals in many places – this prompted us to requisition the gold, silver and platinum of some jewellers in insignificant quantities which were surrendered to the Organisation. The above is what we have done. Now let us examine what we did not do.
We are accused of looting buildings. This is a lie. We defy anyone to present us with an account of this and to show that our men were not acting out of necessity but from mere caprice and a desire to create confusion. We stand accused of murdering people for amusement. This is a foul calumny. What have we done to deserve this reputation? What crimes have we committed? A deplorable episode, which we are first to lament and to condemn, appears to be the prosecution evidence. We had nothing to do with the death of our socialist comrade José Pardo Aracil. It was shown, on the very night of his death, that no member of our column had any hand in it. It has never occurred to us to attack the socialists nor any other antifascist group, much less to do so in the treacherous fashion in which Pardo was attacked. This does not mean that we renege on our aims, for these are the sole motivations for our fight: we realise, however, that at the present moment, internecine warfare would be a crime. We are facing a formidable enemy and all our exertions must be bent to his destruction. In these crucial times for Spain’s future, our position is clear and unmistakable. We shall fight with all our manpower, all our energies, all our enthusiasm in order to confound the vileness of fascism forever. We struggle to make a reality of the social revolution. Let us march towards Anarchy. Consequently, here and now, we shall stand by everything that makes it possible to live with greater freedom, to smash the yokes that oppress us and to destroy the vestiges of the past.
To every worker, every revolutionary, every anarchist, let us say: struggle, wherever you may be – at the front line or in the rearguard, against all the enemies of your liberty. Strangle the life out of fascism. But see to it also that as a result of your efforts no dictatorial regime is installed, no continuation (with all the vices and defects) of that state of affairs that we are striving to eradicate. With weapons now and with working tools later on, learn to live without tyrants, learn to emancipate yourselves, for this is the only path to freedom. Such, clearly expounded, is the thinking of the ‘Iron Column’.
Comrades! Death to fascism! Long live the social revolution! Long live anarchy!“
======
ITALY :
======
“On February 3rd 1931, Italian police arrested Michael Schirru in a hotel room in Rome. He was Italian by birth but had become a US citizen. He had returned to Italy with one purpose, to kill Mussolini. Schirru was just one of many anarchists in the pre-war years who put their lives on the line in the fight against fascism.
Schirru’s ‘trial’ took place on May 28th. The judge was Cristini, a young fascist cut-throat raised to the highest ranks in the hierarchy. No jury. A contemporary account of the trial in a US anarchist paper described how “Schirru conducted himself with great dignity during his trial – which, under the circumstances could hardly be called a trial. He repeated his former declaration of intention to kill Mussolini and gave his reasons”. The Tribunal sentenced Schirru to be shot in the back.
“At 2:30 o’clock, the next morning, he was awakened from his sleep and told that his execution would take place at sunrise. He asked permission to write his last words to his dear ones; declined the assistance of the priest and then was taken to the Braschi fortress, on the outskirts of Rome, where he was executed – only eight and a half hours after sentence had been passed – by a firing squad of twenty-four fascist militiamen”.
Individual acts like these were just the tip of anarchist organisation against fascism. In this period every western government saw fascism as a useful bulwark against ‘communism’. From the early 1920’s Italian anarchists had physically fought the fascists and even after World War II anarchists were being jailed for fighting the fascist Italian state in that period.”
======
GERMANY :
======
“In Germany the anarchist-syndicalist FAUD (Free Union of German Workers) had decided in 1932 to go underground once Hitler came to power and to work towards a general strike. This proved impossible, the FAUD was far too small to do so on its own and of course once Hitler came to power its numbers were further decimated as many members were either arrested or forced to flee into exile. However with the help of Dutch anarchists they did succeed in setting up a FAUD secretariat in exile in Amsterdam.
Inside Germany FAUD members like labourer Franz Bunget and unemployed steelworker Julius Nolden attempted to continue operating underground. Both were to be arrested by the Gestapo. However with others they succeeded in getting an underground network going that smuggled people out of Germany and smuggled anti-Nazi pamphlets in, often with strange titles to mislead the fascist authorities.
Court records show that one pamphlet went under the title of ‘Eat German fruit and stay healthy’ and became “so popular among miners that they used to greet each other with: ‘Have you eaten German fruit as well?’” The outbreak of the Spanish Revolution in 1936 saw an underground network that raised money for the Spanish anarchists and their fight against fascism and recruited technicians to go to Spain and provide needed expertise.
In December of 1936 however the Gestapo managed to discover the first of these groups and in raids then and in 1937 arrested 89 male and female members of this anarchist underground. In early 1938 these comrades were charged with “preparing acts of high treason”. All but six were convicted.
Julius Nolden was ‘lucky’ and spent the next 8 years in Luttringhausen prison until the arrival of the ‘allies’ in April of 1945. Others were not so ‘lucky’ and were murdered in prison. Lathe operator, Emil Mahnert was thrown out of a window, bricklayer, Wilhelm Schmitz, died in “unexplained circumstances”, Ernst Holtznagel was sent to a military punishment battalion where he died, Michael Delissen was beaten to death by the Gestapo in December 1936 and Anton Rosinke was murdered in February 1937.
The history of the anarchist resistance to fascism is something we are never told about in mainstream or even left histories. The victors over fascism wrote the ‘history’ of anti-fascism after WWII. They gave prominent place to the aristocratic German officers who failed to kill Hitler late in the war but ignored the ordinary workers who struggled in the 1920’s and 1930’s when the western governments saw Hitler as an ally. The account here is but a snippet, based on the valuable work done by the ‘Kate Sharpley Library’ in recovering, translating and publishing this history.
After the war in August 1946, Ernst Binder wrote:
“Since mass resistance was not feasible in 1933, the finest members of the movement had to squander their energy in a hopeless guerrilla campaign. But if workers will draw from that painful experiment the lesson that only a united defence at the proper time is effective in the struggle against fascism, their sacrifices will not have been in vain.””
======
AUSTRALIA :
======
Gianfranco Cresciani, “The Proletarian Migrants: Fascism and Italian Anarchists in Australia”. First published in The Australian Quarterly (March, 1979):
“Anarchists took to visiting clubs, restaurants and boarding houses known to be frequented by Fascists, and provoked the latter to fight. The anarchists were armed with knives, truncheons and even pistols. Uncorroborated evidence indicates that during the 1928 Victorian timber strike they were considering the use of explosives, in support of the strikers. Yet, the most common form of violence during these years was the practice of assaulting members of Fascist organisations and of ripping from their coats the Fascist Party badge, that the anarchists publicly and contemptuously named the nit. Even Fascist Consuls were not exempt from this treatment. Count Gabrio di San Marzano, Italian Consul at Brisbane, while attending a reception given in his honour at Ingham had his badge stripped from his official dress and, adding insult to injury, the triumphant anarchists also encouraged the band to play the Internationale. This same Consul was repeatedly beaten and spat upon during his visits at Ingham, Babinda and Cairns, and was eventually and humiliatingly driven to accept police protection when he went to Innisfail.
This philosophy of direct action, incessantly preached and practised by Italian anarchists, starkly differentiated them from the other Italian political groups who, like the Communists, devoted themselves to organisation or who, like the more respectable Socialists of the Concentrazione Antifascista dell’Oceania, concentrated their effort on commemorations of past victories and defeats. Indeed, it was this recourse to action which made the anarchists so popular and attracted to them such a large following. As Carmagnola said in 1930, ‘we must remember our martyrs not only with speeches and flowers, but with guns, not like slaves, but like men. We must not celebrate, but avenge. A people that does not fight violence by means of violence, that bends its knees and cowardly tolerates the impositions of infamous mercenaries, is unworthy of such a name’…
The political decline of Anarchism in the ‘thirties was considered by many of its followers as a mere temporary setback in the long march towards the form of society that they dreamed of accomplishing. During those dark years of Fascist triumphs they believed stubbornly in the defiant words which end Malatesta’s pamphlet Anarchy [?] and which, in the final analysis, prove to be historically relevant when applied to the anti-Fascist activities of Italian anarchists in Australia:
Whatever happens, we shall have some influence on events, by our numbers, our energy, our intelligence and our steadfastness. Also, even if now we are conquered, our work will not have been in vain; … If today we fall without lowering our colours, our cause is certain of victory tomorrow.”
======
Fuck fascism.
The accusation I make against the Jewish establishment is that they are attempting to manufacture “Goyim” by debasing at every level racially different groups that Jews, including oxymoronic atheist Jews, believe should be forced to fit the disparaging labels espoused in their narrative.
Many suspect the Jewish religion is an extortionate lie that has knowingly included others without consent in its prejudicial relativistic narrative (The Goyim). The Jew demands that we play our role as his debased reference point, and whines when we won’t. The affectatious Jew wants to be able to compare himself to the Goyim and declare that the depraved existence of the Goyim he has engineered is manifest evidence that the Jews are indeed the legitimate recipients of G-d’s benevolent affections.
The races existed long before some self-important Prig decided to attribute to himself the notion of having been “Chosen”, and thus deserving of an unconditional entitlement to the deference of others and accountable to none. The self esteem of these people is directly proportional to their perceived number of subordinates. Does it not make sense that if we refuse to play they will hate, imprison and kill the Goyim? They only “love” the Goyim when the Goyim are enchained and bewildered by Jewish lies.
The Jews suffer from a disease similar to a variant Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, where they purposely damage others so that they can receive the attentions of others and their demented “G_d”.
You know what I’m on about. The Jews have been Manufacturing Goyim with their lies for millennia. They are still at it today and call those who won’t come out and play “Haters”. It is the Jew who hates. It is the Jew who hates that others dare render him irrelevant by seeking to understand “God” without the Jewish middleman extorting his usurious pound of flesh. It is the Jew who fears irrelevance and that others might come to understand what he is. A fraud and a lie.
That you play their game and protect them from accountability is hideous, Marrano Anarchist?
You, Vents, must be a [skilled rhymer]. Ever thought that God, whatever that is, may well be attempting to manifest his truths through each and every one of us, yet you, Jew, feel licenced to silence any of God’s messengers. Kill what you believe to be lies by speaking your truths, you [skilled rhymer with a new album, ‘Hard To Kill’, out on Obese Records, available for purchase at all good record shops and online].
Jewishness is a state of mind, and in this context you are fully Judaised.
You see Vents, it is ever so easy for the bereft of spirit and weak of constitution to kill those you disagree with, because we just keep on at you if you don’t.
“and if possible destroyed. Thank you.”
Hi @ndy,
I really appreciate the effort you put into your responses, thanks.
I don’t believe that recognition of identity by others makes an individual’s identity any less real. Does the failure of the Australian Government to recognise Anarchism as a form of political governance make it any less real to you? No, we couldn’t give a shit what anyone else thinks of us or our ideas, that’s anarchy! Regardless of whether you recognise me as an Anarchist or not, I still identify as one. Further, there are other Anarchist groups including the Green Anarchists or Eco-Anarchists. Does your ability to recognise them as anarchists legitimise their good works? I think not. http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=viewwritingdetail&writingId=150
You raise the question about scrutiny. Does criticism of Israel’s foreign policy make one anti-Semitic, or does criticism of multi-culturalism make one a racist? I truly hope not. In response to my organic question and your accurately labelled banal 🙂 examples, I was merely illustrating that humans naturally form groups to the exclusion of others. Our identity is based on exclusion. I am male, I associate as being of the male gender, and thus it is to the exclusion of females. I am homosexual and am part of the group known as homosexuals, which is to the exclusion of heterosexuals. This does not make me intolerant of others, but merely shapes my identity. Thus, you can identify as being associated with a group, and not necessarily be fascist, racist or heterophobic! Lines exist, and it is human nature to form them. Our identity is based on exclusion. Your interpretation of this as being bad or good is a moral one and beyond the scope of practical anarchism. However, I will apologise in advance for speaking conceptually.
The history of Anarchism and fascism is entwined. Anarchists have a distinguished history of fighting fascism including the examples you have provided above, so I will not reiterate.
To define fascism, so that we can be sure what we are referring to exactly,
1: A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.
2: A totalitarian political system led by a single dictator who allows no opposition, promoting an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
So we see a common thread that fascism is a hierarchical system with one sole leader. The National Anarchists do not meet the above criteria, (that doesn’t mean that they aren’t racist, just not fascist!). However, again, criticism of a thing, doesn’t make you anti- “the thing”. Nor should defence of a thing make you a part of it either.
However, the most important thing I found with your examples of Anarchists fighting fascism, is that the fascism being fought was the current controlling government at the time, (with the exception of the Australian example in 1979). So historically speaking, using your words
“From the early 1920’s Italian anarchists had physically fought the fascists and even after World War II Anarchists were being jailed for fighting the fascist Italian state in that period.”
My point is that the Howard/Australian government is more accurately described as fascist compared to the New Reich. Why fight a group with no power base or state control, as that is what is required to be a fascist. We should spend our time fighting the REAL fascists. That’s what anarchists do, and hence my point about the need for unifying political groups, rather than bickering amongst ourselves. Fight the fascist system!
JC,
I once lived with a guy who genuinely believed that his cat was telling him, among other things, to glue albums to the walls of the living room and to set the house on fire; which he duly did.
Our tenancy ended shortly thereafter.
Later.
“I don’t believe that recognition of identity by others makes an individual’s identity any less real. Does the failure of the Australian Government to recognise Anarchism as a form of political governance make it any less real to you? No, we couldn’t give a shit what anyone else thinks of us or our ideas, that’s anarchy! Regardless of whether you recognise me as an Anarchist or not, I still identify as one. Further, there are other Anarchist groups including the Green Anarchists or Eco-Anarchists. Does your ability to recognise them as anarchists legitimise their good works? I think not.”
Thanks for the link.
I take it your first statement should read “I don’t believe that NON-recognition of identity by others makes an individual’s identity any less real”. Which may or may not be true, but in a way points, in any case, towards what I’m trying to suggest — which is that, while someone may truly consider themselves to be (for example) Napoleon Bonaparte or Superman or Wonder Woman or even (less likely) a ‘National Anarchist’, others are under no obligation to accept this proposition. Further, this non-recognition doesn’t necessarily alter the claimant’s self-conception — but nor is it necessarily intended to. What gives this act (of non/recognition) significance exists on a separate plane (or territory if you prefer) of meaning. Thus, inre to the group that took its banners onto the streets of Sydney last weekend. Obviously, it’s likely that most, if not all, of this group, if asked, would describe themselves as ‘national anarchists’ — thus conjoining, even if only on a superficial level, the concept of ‘the nation’ with that of ‘anarchism’ (or that of ‘nationalism’ and ‘anarchy’, if you prefer).
In terms of the response to this display, I think that very few people are buying the goods, and despite the fact that this mob went to some effort to render it pretty. Certainly, no anarchists are. The reasons for this are two-fold. One is essentially conceptual: ‘national anarchism’ is a load of bollocks. Two, ‘national anarchism’ has a history, and what that history reveals is that ‘national anarchism’ (an oxymoron) is an expression of an ideological development on the far right, one that’s taken place over the last decade or so and which — as that bloke Graham argues — is in large measure a response to the perceived need to respond to changing circumstances, or at least insofar as fascists twats like Troy Southgate are concerned anyway…
Later.
This shit is bananas.
I’m sure the fash that were part of the pageantry at APEC are congratulating themselves at how much consternation they’ve caused, but it’d be no different if they turned up smothered in their own shit waving swastikas.
Proposing that anarchy is about establishing self-contained fiefdoms (e.g. a racist/nationalist one) is useful enough to sharpen the knives of theory, actually espousing it is an extreme provocation.
Why fight a group with no power base or state control, as that is what is required to be a fascist. We should spend our time fighting the REAL fascists.
The first line makes no sense, so that might need clarification (are you saying that opposition to another group or defense of your own is “fascist”? BANANAS).
There a couple of reasons to fight groups like New Right, Nationalist Anarchists, etc. The first is for entertainment. Secondly, because they claim space in our sphere of influence, it is something we can directly act upon (as opposed to, say, the invasion of Iraq or the rate of interest).
KinkyBoy, you are fucked in the head, cunt!!!
For the record, NoCrusties is a teenage fascist from Melbourne. By his own admission, he travelled to Sydney to take part in the ‘anarchist’ ‘black bloc’ organised by Welf Herfurth. On Stormfront, he makes the following comment regarding the photo below, which I think explains why the New Right should be opposed better than I ever could:
In the shadow of horror, SS guardians frolic
International Herald Tribune
September 18, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/19/arts/19photo.php
“…The photos provide a stunning counterpoint to what up until now has been the only major source of preliberation Auschwitz photos, the so-called Auschwitz Album, a compilation of pictures taken by SS photographers in the spring of 1944 and discovered by a survivor in another camp. Those photos depict the arrival at the camp of a transport of Hungarian Jews, who at the time made up the last remaining sizable Jewish community in Europe. The Auschwitz Album, owned by Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum, depicts the railside selection process at Birkenau, the area where trains arrived at the camp, as SS men herded new prisoners into lines.
The comparisons between the albums are both poignant and obvious, as they juxtapose the comfortable daily lives of the guards with the horrific reality within the camp, where thousands were starving and 1.1 million died…”
He swore at me @ndy… and,and,and you let him!!!
[Etcetera.]
You eat too many Bananas Lumpen.
Lumpen,
I think we have crossed lines here! Of course we should defend ourselves against our enemies, that goes without saying! If you read the above posts, you will see that I’ve given a definition for fascism. It requires a dictator to be in control of the state or other authoritarian type of governance. I get a cultural (anarchist) cringe factor when I keep hearing everyone use the word fascism. It’s so over-used, it’s lost its original meaning. My gripe is that the mainstream hear fascist this, fascist that, such that when you try and talk more mainstream politics their eyes glaze over because the term is acclimated – they’ve heard it all before. We need to stop over-using pejoratives, ergo losing what they actually mean, and more importantly the “revulsion” or smear factor. Can you honestly tell me that fighting the new Reich is more important and a better use of our time compared to the more mainstream fascists? That was all I was saying in regards to ignoring NA. However, fiefdom is a much better and more likely accurate descriptor and should be used instead.
In regards to National Anarchism being an oxymoron, I would have thought the same about Green Anarchists/Eco Anarchists, and yet, I would imagine, they are well accepted as part of the mainstream anarchist bloc. Their magazine/newsletter looks pretty impressive, and again, superficially, states all the right things. (Referring to fascism, under your current definition, green anarchists are eco fascists!) Hence, be more reserved and accurate in your use of such language please!
More importantly, these New Right/National Anarchists are just cutting in on existing market share. Take Coke for example: every now and then they bring out a new brand of cola; diet coke, vanilla coke, lemon coke. At the end of the day, they don’t really increase their market share, they just divide it amongst existing product lines. I assume @ndy knows what I’m referring to here. If the National Anarchists are just white nationalists in black clothing, (you mentioned Troy Southgate), then they will just be taking existing market share from the extreme right. (Where’s the problem?). However, if they prove to be something else, then I for one would be interested to see where they go with it. Just because some dope in another country comes up with an idea, doesn’t mean it can’t be co-opted to be something else. Ownership of an idea is not by the person who created it, but rather by the people who shape and change it. What it means to be an Australian is historically (indigenous arguments aside) being an Anglo-Saxon, the definition of which has changed over time. All I’m saying, is this group is very young, and rather than having a knee-jerk reaction, I’m going to wait and see what they have to say/do before making my value judgments. You might be completely correct :-), in your presumptions, but I’d rather attack what they have to say when they say it.
Lumpen, I am really disappointed to hear that you would rather attack preemptively these NA rather than take a stand on the Iraq war because it’s easier! Since when did we anarchists EVER do anything because it was the easier road! You know you’re playing into capitalist hands when you take the road more frequently traveled.
@ndy, regarding NoCrusties THIS IS FANTASTIC NEWS! Seriously, look at it from a different perspective. These National Anarchists might do our job of fighting “the scumfront fiefdom” for us! Ok, I’m a bit of a strange anarchist because I’m an optimist. If this NoCrusties has indeed moved over to the national anarchist way and he is still very young, we can still work on changing his attitude. National Anarchists are at least half-way to being a traditional anarchist. At the very least we can hope that his attitude is moderated by the new right, and that others will follow suit from the political right. As I said earlier, with diminishing market share, they can only be working FOR us, rather than against us. If you’re correct and no anarchist takes them seriously anyway, but the extreme right does, well, that can only be a good thing in that sense.
@ndy, if you have time, perhaps you could look through the NA (national) and GA (green) anarchists, see what the differences are and what presumably makes the national ones bad or dangerous, and the green ones acceptable? (I’m talking ideology, not empty rhetoric and overly-used pejoratives). This way, we know what to look for in the future when these new groups pop up. Thanks!
JC,
1) The Australian Government ‘recognises’ anarchism to the extent that it monitors our activities, and has for about the last 100 years or so. You’re confusing — deliberately or not, I’m unsure — the different meanings attached to the term ‘recognise’.
2) I care less what other people think about me than I do being understood by them.
3) I don’t understand your point about ‘green anarchists’.
4) “Does criticism of Israel’s foreign policy make one anti-Semitic, or does criticism of multi-culturalism make one a racist?”
No, not necessarily — it depends on the basis for this criticism. Naturally, I’ve not claimed otherwise.
5) On identity and exclusion: just as there are different forms of identity, so are there different practices which establish / reinforce / overthrow it. The crude forms of ethnic and racial exclusion advocated by ‘national anarchists’ have nothing to do with maintaining group identity as such. Identity is not a virus. For example, even in a room full of heterosexuals, you remain a homosexual. You’re confusing — deliberately or not, I’m unsure — oppressive practices with benign ones.
6) On fascism:
And as has been remarked previously, the dictionary is the beginning, and not the end, of wisdom. Further, a brief survey of the vast literature on the subject of fascism reveals a variety of definitions and methodologies for establishing them. One recent, influential definition is given by Roger Griffin, and it’s the one that I mean when I employ the term. The heart of this definition is that “Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism”, where ‘palingenesis’ means rebirth. ‘National anarchism’, in other words, is a species of the genus ‘fascism’.
7) The HoWARd Government has introduced what might be described as fascistic legislation, but on the whole it cannot be properly characterised as fascist in ideology; more like Tory or right-wing authoritarian. See Ghassan Hage’s essay on HoWARd and fundamentalist ideology elsewhere on the blog.
EIGHT) What you mean ‘we’, paleface?
JC,
Regarding NoCrusties: I don’t believe it to be FANTASTIC! that a teenager believes that making the kind of joke that he did is appropriate. Instead, I think it’s SAD! and PATHETIC! The unsupported assertion you make that this action somehow constitutes some kind of opposition to SF is nonsensical, as is your proposition that, having abandoned or been abandoned by the Reverend Patrick O’Sullivan and Creativity, his adoption of ‘national anarchism’ represents a movement towards anarchism; anarchism is about market share, of which the New Right, in the manner of a soft drink manufacturer, has merely staked a claim; that the New Right is working FOR us; the idea that I claimed that “no anarchist takes them seriously anyway”; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Finally, I’m reasonably familiar with both ‘green’ and ‘national’ anarchism. In fact, I’ve been studying anarchism, political philosophy and the history of ideas for the better part of 20 years.
I also really hate smart-arses.
People your comments are to long and to boring for me to read. Andy please right like a normal human being to I can at least treat you like a ape.
Bananas good!
Fascism bad!
@ndy,
Now you’re getting the [gist] of it! Recognition through monitoring – well, you do that with fiefdoms, but that doesn’t mean you “recognize” their ideals. You are correct in your assertion to [sic] the distinction. I refer of course to the recognition of the validity of our ideals by the Australian Government as opposed to recognition of our existence.
My point about green anarchists like national anarchists [sic] being an oxy-moron. We accept green anarchists as part of the traditional black bloc, while national anarchists are not. What distinguishes one from the other for your acceptance, when both are unconventional?
My second point about throwing the term “fascist” around like a dirty rag, is that the term “eco fascist” could be equally applied to the green anarchists! We should be indignant for being associated as [sic] fascists! Hence, we should make a priority of using our terminology “righteously”. Yet again, [you’re] correct in that the dictionary provides us with a place of origin in which to effectively communicate individual understanding of each other[‘]s terminology, and while your use of fascism is appropriate, it doesn’t diminish the fact that it is now clichéd. The use of such terminology (like fascism) should be uttered with far more reverence, which I think gives more respect to those who have suffered under its rule. I believe the above, all agrees with your essay, and that Howard is really a neocon totalitarian (as opposed to the [fascist] description provided in the essay). This only reaffirms my position, that our use of terminology should be done with reverence for its true and historical perspective.
I’m so glad you have agreed that criticism is not necessarily a bad thing, because it leads (generally) to improvements in any given system. Thus, I will tolerate NA discussing the idea of race, identity politics and multi-culturalism, until I think they’ve crossed the line into scumfront territory. ([I]n which case, the market share rule applies anyway!) So there isn’t really anything to lose, but oh so much to gain, dependent upon your perspective.
In terms of identity, did you just say that homosexuality is a virus? Or shall I assume I have misinterpreted you here?
Paleface? @ndy, Are you trying to segregate based along racial lines? Does this mean you are a National Anarchist in disguise and your attempts at defaming them are really all a ruse? Shame on you, you devilishly clever fellow! 🙂 xxoo.
@ndy, I’ve missed your second posting. Of course I find the comment appauling! I thought that was assumed, sorry – my bad. No, I was simply saying with NA that they won[‘]t take anarchist market share, rather they take scum front market share, and that I hoped they would self-moderate the extreme neo-Nazi element of stormfront (which in my mind can only be a good thing). @ndy, you have one of the smartest arses I know!
Peter – I have verbal diarrhea. Don’t worry ’bout it.
Just Curious, I’m just curious as to whether you’re being deliberately obtuse?
I declare bananas on these shenanigans.
I used the term “fascist” advisedly (in hindsight, I wish I didn’t delete my comments about the Liberals not being fascists). The current fascist movement has no clear leadership, but this doesn’t mean they are less fascist. I don’t think myself or Andy hurls the term about without consideration as to what it means. Even though their ranks are made up of clowns, fascism is serious business.
Just Curious: Silly statements like calling Howard a neocon (“retcon” would be more accurate) and about green anarchists make me think you’re trolling. I guess I could go into detail about why you are wrong but, meh, what would the point of that be? I could be working and rocking out to Dio instead. Just fucking google it before you start mashing the keyboard.
(I would be rocking out to Vents, but I can’t find the album anywhere. If you’re on Obese, does that mean you’ll be distro’d in places like JB Hi-Fi (Melbourne)? Or do I have to trek out to the Obese store to pick up a copy?)
Once again: bananas.
Lumpen,
Thanks for the honestly. I can see how’d you think that. My fear is that like hos ‘n’ bitches, fascism will become a term that is used in pop culture to refer to anything. Heavens, a lot of people (including guys) i know call each other bitches. This was a term used sparingly on really nasty women. Admitidly, this could be due to the pervasive rap culture, but overall, i fear the overuse of certain terminology will dimish its meaning.
I am not a triangle! No really, i am obnoxious, because i care (i put a lot of effort into those posts), and you guys are all pretty cool. But i can use my powers for good instead of evil!
Lumpen, in regards to the music scene i am not a fan of punk, nor would i EVER travel to JB Hi Fi (it’s the mcdonalds of music). I’m ashamed to admit i have never gone to big concerts or local band performances, they’ve never been my thing, but i do like sugar and spice crapola like Britney. (thanks for forcing me to admit that by the way). Now i will slink away in shame! Oh the humanity!
P.s. what’s with bananas? Is this the ape effect, and how does one declare bananas?
…and the last word goes to John Cooper Clarke: Twat.
The pervasive rap culture? The pervasive MTV culture more like it. Just because Ice Cube says bitch and ho doesn’t make it a part of the rap culture. It makes Ice Cube a misogynistic dude (and at times he has been a racist as well). As a long time fan of hip hop music I cringe when I hear this type of shit and it’s not like that doesn’t go on in other genres as well. Just because 50 Cent is talking about killing and selling black people crack it doesn’t make that a part of ‘hip hop culture’ either. It means America has some serious problems. And he is capitalising on that.
Someone actually said to me the other day ‘nah I don’t listen to hip hop, it’s too misogynistic’. The amount of hip hop records I have heard is probably over a thousand at least, and I would guess the better part of them didn’t have the word bitch or ho in it. It’s just that white people and mainly teenage white girls (who buy all the fucking records) don’t like Lupe Fiasco or Public Enemy or Mos Def. I have my theories on why the ‘gun toting crack dealer’ does so well and it involves something I think Phonte from Little Brother called the ‘black face’ syndrome. Where subconsciously white people still find black people highly entertaining when they are playing these roles of the dangerous crazy black man and not as… well, the artists above who have something to say. I think this is spot on and an indication of how racist shit still is. Any white kids doing that ‘yo what up my nigga’ impersonation near me are getting checked.
NB: Ice Cube is one of my favourite hip hop artists of all time and in his time one of the most credible. We all have our flaws, he is just the first one that sprang to mind. I am not making excuses for him, but if I only allowed myself to enjoy music and art that adhered strictly to my politics and opinions I would be pretty poor.
Sorry for the rant, it just came out I swear.
“Anarchism is about folks sticking together in the workplace and in the community to achieve a better standard of living without management, the government, the trade unions, the cops, and so forth. ”
All socialistic schools of thourght are about that. Thats why we have trade unions comrade. Anarchism is stupid because it will never happen. There will be always states. The minority must obey the majority and thats it.
Do you Anarchists really think that back in the days when humans still lived in primitive tribes that every one did what they wanted? No, they all made collective decisions and pooled their resources together. Food and other things were destributed based on need. That comrades is primitive socialism.
In away, the tribe was a state. There was rules made and their was some kind of a leader (or leaders) that made minor decisions. There was accepted morals.
Capitalism complains of human greed. It claims that human greed results in capitlaism. But primitive tribes were not capitalist they were socialist.
What I am getting at is that Anarchism and Capitalism can’t work and that the state has always been around since the birth of humanity.
Also, most animals like cats and dogs live in tribes. So they are to socialists. They, like primitive humans, pooled their resources and man power. They have collectivly decided morals and rules. So animals live in their own states.
So than it can only be said that states are natural and that Anarchsim is unnatural.
You are a maniac.
[Twat.]
Hello Andy,
I’m neither anarchist nor of the New Right, but was interested in your blog because I was taking part in the APEC protest on September 8 when a certain element tried to impose its own agenda.
As you’ve noted, the people in that triangle of banners accomplished their goal of attracting attention to their outfit and its program. Perhaps there’s another thing they accomplished… they made life easier for certain other masked persons who stayed outside the triangle…
If I understand it correctly, the cops didn’t want to see masked militants in that march, and neither did the demo organizers. The anarchist community generally understood the position, and showed up maskless.
However, the NR people in the triangle kept their masks on as a group, and gave the cops plausible arguments as to why they were doing so. In this way…
1. They made it very difficult for demo organizers to ask other people to de-mask. After all, what would be the position of an organizer, trying to explain to someone without fascist insignia: ‘Hey comrade, I know that big neo-Nazi group over there is being permitted to keep their masks on, but you’ll have to take off yours.’
2. Apart from which, by assembling as a big masked group, they had the psychological effect of making a few masked individuals seem insignificant by comparison. Not worth worrying about…
The manoeuvre succeeded well enough, and for long enough, that certain other masked fellows could enter a section of the crowd of protesters (choosing the feistiest section they could find – those facing the police blockade of George St outside the Queen Victoria Building) and do their thing there… I myself was in Park St, on the fringe of that part of the protest… Won’t forget the moment I saw two women running in fright, then a masked militant arrested by a snatch team… Similar activity a little west of me… Was it going to spark off something bigger?
You quoted Peter Middleton’s blog, where he mentions being pleased that none of his NR comrades got arrested. And laughing when he heard media reports to the contrary. It’s not so much that I disbelieve him. But I wonder whether he himself knows the whole story.
It is a well-known tactic of clandestine groups to operate in cells, where a member of one cell does _not_ know of the members and missions of the other cells. Wikipedia has a nice little entry on this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_cell
Best wishes,
Colin.
Anarchism doesn’t work because cats and dogs live in tribes which is actually a state… If only someone had put it like that before. Brilliant.
JC: The reason I’ve decided to no longer publish your comments in this thread is because after having published seven of them over a period of three days, and taking the time and effort to respond to your accusations and inanities in detail, where I thought necessary, it’s become clear to me that you argue in bad faith, are tendentious, and deliberately misinterpret what are otherwise obviously straightforward statements of fact and assume meanings where the opposite is clearly the case. Coupled with your tendency to acknowledge my responses briefly only to then re-engage in the exact same manner with what is the ostensible subject of this post, I concluded that you were, in fact, what John Cooper Clarke says: a twat. On how not to write like a twat, read the following:
Ha JC who is that aimed at?
It’s directed at JC. Read for context, Peter, or get off the internet.
fuck off.
And it’s goodbye from Peter.
[Peter says ‘goodbye everyone’.]
Great read @ndy, and great responses.
Cheers Davo!