Beware of "National"-Anarchism

[Camarada]

http://www.nationalanarchist.com/

is this another right-wing fascist cult masquerading as leftists? Another "National Bolshevism"?

responding to the question "Are you fascist?", on their faq page is:



Are you fascists?

No. If fascists work against imperialism, or take actions that further the cause of national-anarchism, then we are happy to make common cause with them. If they work for imperialism (as Hitler and Mussolini did), or become subverted by the Establishment (as the Spanish Falangist regime, often called ‘fascist' did) or take actions that are against the cause of national-anarchism, then we will oppose them.


so they're willing to work with fascists? what a bunch of idiots :rolleyes:

here's their long and winding intro, which even commands us at one part of it to "conduct propaganda at all times, to further propagate national-anarchism". It's full of dialogue that seems to try to entice leftists into this, trick them into supporting it. We need to be wary of these organizations, and that's why I have posted this in "anti-fascism".

their flag, which I aparently can't find the page it is on, seems to be eerily similar to that of the National Bolsheviks. The flag is black with a white circle in the center, inside the white circle is a sickle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anarchism

oh wikipedia gives more info

FUCK THESE FASCISTS

I hate fascists, but I hate especially fascists with ideological names like these, but then it turns out they are complete extreme-right racist idiots .

from the wiki:


National anarchism is a political view which seeks to unite a white nationalist (see also "Neo Nazism" , with anarchist views rejecting heirarchy and the state. Its adherents propose that ethnic groups (or races) should separate and live in autonomous groupings. See ethnic cleansing

The proponents find their intellectual roots in third positionism, which purports to be a growth of left-wing thought coming out of the white power and Neo-Nazi movements. The term "national anarchism" was coined by the National Revolutionary Faction to describe their philosophy. One of NRF's former members, Troy Southgate (also a former member of the British National Front before the NRF), has become a de facto spokesman and theorist for national anarchism.

bastards :angry:

I'm glad that I'm helping to expose this organization as fascist. Please warn your fellow leftists to stay away from these organizations, in particular, most things starting with "national", as that is usually a clue that the organization in question is extreme right-wing fascist

----

I re-posted this from the anti-fascism forum, because it seems nobody visits there

[LamarLatrell]

I am sure you are aware as the political spectrum as a circle, correct? You know, where far left meets far right? Okay, from there, consider the language of some of the so-called "radical leftists" here. Much of their language sounds fascist. So it's pretty obvious that fascism and communism-historically, bitter enemies---share more than they think. The truth is, fascism is hard to define. Also, historically, coommunism has proven to be a murderous venture.

Either way, both ideologies are radical in their own way. They are both violent in nature.

A moderate liberal ideology is the way to go in my opinion.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:39 PM
I am sure you are aware as the political spectrum as a circle, correct? You know, where far left meets far right? Okay, from there, consider the language of some of the so-called "radical leftists" here. Much of their language sounds fascist. So it's pretty obvious that fascism and communism-historically, bitter enemies---share more than they think. The truth is, fascism is hard to define. Also, historically, coommunism has proven to be a murderous venture.

Either way, both ideologies are radical in their own way. They are both violent in nature.

A moderate liberal ideology is the way to go in my opinion.
The "circle" theory is very reactionary, it's meant by crazies who try to say the far left is somehow similar to the insane far right, when in reality they are completely different things.

[timbaly]

I've never heard of National Anarchism before. I doubt if they have a big following of people who identify themselves as such.

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:17 PM
The "circle" theory is very reactionary, it's meant by crazies who try to say the far left is somehow similar to the insane far right, when in reality they are completely different things.
You are wrong.

[slim]

It has some truth there.

For example the far left are so entrenched in their ideals in a similar way that the far right are. Anyone who opposes the far left are "not worthy", "not true believers" or "misguided fools" and the like. i can see this similarity.

Note that fascism is far right politics. So it is definately true for some far left economic types.

[Urban Rubble]

The "circle" theory is very reactionary, it's meant by crazies who try to say the far left is somehow similar to the insane far right, when in reality they are completely different things.

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I hate to sound like the History Channel, but if you can't see some similarities between Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany you are out of your mind.

Mussolini seems to be a pretty good example as well.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 28 2005, 08:16 PM

The "circle" theory is very reactionary, it's meant by crazies who try to say the far left is somehow similar to the insane far right, when in reality they are completely different things.

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I hate to sound like the History Channel, but if you can't see some similarities between Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany you are out of your mind.

Mussolini seems to be a pretty good example as well.
I do not consider stalin's regime to be left-wing

[NovelGentry]

The "circle" theory is very reactionary, it's meant by crazies who try to say the far left is somehow similar to the insane far right, when in reality they are completely different things.

Agreed, the sphere is where it's at.

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:27 PM

I do not consider stalin's regime to be left-wing
What about Hilter, was he left wing?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by LamarLatrell+Aug 28 2005, 08:32 PM--> (LamarLatrell @ Aug 28 2005, 08:32 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 08:27 PM

I do not consider stalin's regime to be left-wing
What about Hilter, was he left wing? [/b]
Hitler and Stalin had different ideas about how to run an eonomy, but on the social side of things they were pretty similar.




| S H
|
|____________
|
|
| A N

S - Stalin
H - Hitler
A - Anarchists
N - Neoliberals

The above diagram explains what I'm talking about; the horizontal axis is the economic spectrum, with the traditional left/right arrangement. The vertical axis is the social scale, with authoritarians at the top and libertarians at the bottom.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by LamarLatrell+Aug 28 2005, 08:32 PM--> (LamarLatrell @ Aug 28 2005, 08:32 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 08:27 PM

I do not consider stalin's regime to be left-wing
What about Hilter, was he left wing? [/b]
no

[bombeverything]

I am sure you are aware as the political spectrum as a circle, correct? You know, where far left meets far right? Okay, from there, consider the language of some of the so-called "radical leftists" here. Much of their language sounds fascist. So it's pretty obvious that fascism and communism-historically, bitter enemies---share more than they think. The truth is, fascism is hard to define. Also, historically, coommunism has proven to be a murderous venture.

Either way, both ideologies are radical in their own way. They are both violent in nature.

A moderate liberal ideology is the way to go in my opinion.

Fascism is not about violence. It is a doctrine that preaches racism and domination. You are right that it is hard to define, however fascism and real communism share nothing. Real communism hasn’t ever existed, so how can you say communism is a “murderous venture”? What language do we use that sounds fascist? How is anarchism inherently violent? I cannot see how anarchism and fascism have anything in common. National anarchism is an oxymoron, like anarcho-capitalism. A moderate liberal ideology is nothing but appeasement. The argument that any radical ideology is dangerous simply because it is 'extreme' is reactionary.


You are wrong.

How? They are theoretically opposed ideologies.


For example the far left are so entrenched in their ideals in a similar way that the far right are.Anyone who opposes the far left are "not worthy", "not true believers" or "misguided fools" and the like. i can see this similarity.


But fascists are misguided fools.


I've never heard of National Anarchism before. I doubt if they have a big following of people who identify themselves as such.

I saw some graffiti near my house that said "national anarchism" which an (A) symbol underneath it. Scary. But your right, in general they are not popular. And rightly so.

[Freedom Works]

Fascism is not about violence. It is a doctrine that preaches racism and domination.

Fascism is about control.



But fascists are misguided fools.
The right and the left are misguided fools.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 28 2005, 08:16 PM

The "circle" theory is very reactionary, it's meant by crazies who try to say the far left is somehow similar to the insane far right, when in reality they are completely different things.

Are you kidding me?

I mean, I hate to sound like the History Channel, but if you can't see some similarities between Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany you are out of your mind.

Mussolini seems to be a pretty good example as well.
Well I guess that depends on if you see Stalin's USSR as revisionist or far left. ;)

[Hachi-Go]

Look, not everyone you disagree with is a fascist. Just because someone agrees to work with a fascist, doesn't mean they're a fascist. They may not be that great of a party, but they're not fascists.

Fascism is not about violence. It is a doctrine that preaches racism and domination.
The Iberian Peninsula disagrees with you.

[Comrade Hector]

The appropriate term for National-Bolsheviks, National-Anarchists, National-Syndicalists, etc...is Third Positionists. This Fascist movement was originally founded by the Strasser Brothers. The two split from the official Nazi party due to Hitler's links to corporations and capitalism (Fascism is just a more extreme form of capitalism). While the Third Positionists advocated Hitler's stance of Aryan supremacy, they resorted to leftist phraseology of anti-capitalism and revolution. Today they virtually have little pwer and are very few in numbers. Although aside from getting to extreme rightist minded people, their current use of symbols such as the hammer and sickle (National-Bolsheviks) is used to attract leftist minded people with very little knowledge of politics.

[Black Dagger]

I mean, I hate to sound like the History Channel, but if you can't see some similarities between Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany you are out of your mind.

Except Stalin is not 'far left', he was an authoritarian marxist. Class struggle Anarchists are (generally) considered to be the 'far-left' or at least a part of it. That is, they strive for a communist society, but 'go further' than marxists or are 'extreme', in that they also demand the abolition of the state.