National Anarchists in Australia

[Hiero]

I received this in an email from a Comrade.


G'day Comrades,

I recently had a chat with one of my ASF mates online and I mentioned about the "National Anarchists" mob that were seen at the May Day march. Here is some info about them...


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 Voight) 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.

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=854 (http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=854)

[Anashtih]

In the end, this just sounds like a ripoff of National Socialism.

[Bright Banana Beard]

In the end, this just sounds like a ripoff of National Socialism.

Agreed.

[RedAnarchist]

National Anarchism is just an attempt to bait leftists into becoming white nationalists and should be opposed completely.

[An archist]

National Anarchism is just an attempt to bait leftists into becoming white nationalists and should be opposed completely.
agreed, even more so then regular fascists

[Bilan]

We've been discussing this for a while within the anarchist movement, and even at the emergence of the National Anarchists ( I think it was APEC?), they have been rejected and confronted (APEC they were probably inches away from being beaten off the street - however, police on guard prevented that - and they were forced in the end to leave) and what happened at May Day.

I also wrote an article on it for an youth anarchist paper, alarm.




A Declaration of Ignorance: The New Right

The APEC weekend was the fateful weekend in which Australia's very own group of Troy Southgate's (the founder of national anarchism) declared their existence; Yes, there is now a new group of racist, homophobic, ultra nationalists on the block known as the New Right.
The New Right is a National "Anarchist" organization, which, according to their manifesto, wants

"decentralized, federal, autonomous set of ethnically-homogeneous communities to take the place of the current neoliberal/social democratic State system which rules the West today."

They believe that multi-culturalism "ends up wiping out the differences between peoples" using examples such as the former Yugoslavia.
They predict that "the Western multiculturalist States will eventually need to resort to more and more force, more and more State repression" and will resort to enforce multi-culturalism - despite the measures being taken by the Howard government, who have claimed "multi-culturalism has failed", and which are bringing in new measures to try and wipe it out - such as the new Citizenship test.

They even include an interesting definition of anarchism, where anarchists wish for the state to whither away (I'm not kidding, they actually said that).
Despite their idiocy, they're essentially racist-(pseudo)-Bookchinists, which is a bizarre mix, really (and to be realistic, doesn't actually exist).

It's hard to work out whether or not this group is a threat. The manifesto is so all-over the place that it's actually difficult to work out who wrote it.
Take this for example,

"To put it this way, many heavily-populated urban areas in the West are constructs of capitalism: that is, they contain 'indigenous' populations of European descent who have lived there for hundreds, if not thousands, of years"

It should be reminded that this is written (supposedly) by National Anarchists from Australia and New Zealand, and is in reference to said places, as well as America, Canada, etc.
White folk have only lived in Australia - or at least, began to colonize Australia - since 1788.
That doesn't qualify, in the least bit, as Indigenous.
But even if we refer to places, such as the United States, white folk there are not Indigenous either.
Indigenous peoples are an ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection.
To live somewhere for a long time doesn't make you Indigenous.
Just simply to say this shows incredible disrespect to the actual Indigenous people from here, as well as all other actual Indigenous people in the West. It's a completely absurd statement, and basically re-enforces the concept of Indigenous - actual Indigenous - dispossession by Colonizers.

Another one of their classic, historically misguided claims is this one:


"the Paris Commune, the Soviets, the anarchist communes of the Spanish Civil War, were ethnically homogeneous. Were they alive today, the anarchists from those periods would have resisted, bitterly, the encroachment of immigrants from the Third World - and have been denounced by today's mainstream anarchists as being 'fascist' and 'racist' and, somehow, 'pawns of capitalism and the State."

I don't really know what bit of "Workers of the world, Unite!" - Or any other historical Anarchist (and Marxist) slogans - they didn't understand. But it seems they missed it.
This statement, again, displays a great amount of historical ignorance.
Realistically, the Paris Commune certainly wasn't "ethnically homogenous", and neither were the Soviets in Russia, and neither was Barcelona in 1936.
If we look at the (former) USSR's geographical nature, the absurdities of this become pretty evident. The USSR had, due to its incredible size, always had a diverse ethnic mix. If we simply look at the states which, after the collapse of the USSR, started to pop up, home to many different ethnicities, we can see how much of a farce this claim really is.
On top of that, Russia was 3rd world in 1917.
This is a typical baseless assertion, distorting historical facts to push their agenda.
The former analysis would have, and only could have come, from those who had betrayed their original anarchist (or Marxist) principles, and had succumb to ignorance, fear and xenophobia.

Not only that, but they even managed to contradict themselves no less than a paragraph after! Which we can see here,


"the classical anarchist theorists viewed everything through the prism of class and class warfare; and classes, as such, are devoid of ethnic characteristics"

Wait...So, they would have "resisted, bitterly" the "encroachment" of immigrants from the 3rd World, yet they viewed them as comrades of their class?
I think they need to take this bullshit back to the trash where they found it.

But they're right, as Anarchists, traditionally, we have viewed things through class lines: and we recognize capitalism as an oppressive socio-economic system, and the state has a means of repression, and guaranteed privilege.
But we also recognize patriarchy, homophobia, nationalism and racism (and all things of that nature) as counter-productive to our cause for total emancipation for the human race.
We want freedom, equality, and justice. We don't want more divisions. We don't need more divisions. We need solidarity, not separation.

It's pretty clear what these guys are, and what politics lie beneath their black flags. It is clear that this is just a new group of White Nationalists, who are attempting to infiltrate the anti-globalisation movement by "adopting some of the imagery of today's anti-globalist Left", in order to recruit young people into ultra-nationalist, racist, homophobic politics.
They should be treated, and seen for what they really are: Ultra-Nationalist racist scum.

Dividing ourselves along the colors of our skin is a pointless and reactionary measure.
Crime, violence, etc do not exist in our societies because of multi-culturalism.
The cause of crime does not come from culture; crime that is related to culture stems from a mindset of cultural (or ethnic) superiority and arrogance. That's not the fault of a culture, or because of cultural interaction, it's a result of a mindset of superiority, ignorance and fear – which is what these nationalists are really advocating.
There are these characteristics in all cultures, and it's these tendencies that must be challenged, not the existence, or interaction of cultures; but the dominance of one culture over another – and the mentality which asserts that right.

This declaration asserts that emancipation comes from the dividing of cultures and races, and nothing could be further from the truth.
The emancipation of humanity is all, or it is nothing. Liberty, equality and justice can only exist in a world built on those principles – and such a society must break down barriers between peoples, to build a truly egalitarian society, where all peoples of all colours, races, genders and sexualities are equal and free.


I've had a few friends get in confrontations with this group too, and much to their claims, its unlikely they're gaining any steam, as they still have only a small presence on streets (And from what I gather, are often confronted).

Even so, the activity taken against them by the left needs to continue, and if necessary, increase to crush this white nationalist front.

[bcbm]

Interesting to see this phenomenon appearing on the streets in another country. The situation here in Germany seems pretty bad, with the "Autonomous Nationalists" having a fairly consistent presence on the streets, even in largely radical neighborhoods. They completely mimic the style of the left, to the point where an antifa and autonat could pass each other on the street and have no idea they were enemies! They have even begun to mimic the logos: the black/red design with "anti antifa" on it, the "good night white pride" with "good night left side," etc.

I don't know how much of this is being done, but start compiling pictures and information on them. This has happened a lot in Germany, with pictures and names of the autonomous nationalists appearing in many places.

[Peacekeeper]

Sounds just like anarcho-syndicalism to me.


We believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities.

[An archist]

Sounds just like anarcho-syndicalism to me.

[/i]

Yes, but they want 'ethnically clean' communities.

[F9]

those stupid arseholes destroy the name of ANARCHY:cursing:

Fuserg9:star:

[Peacekeeper]

Yes, but they want 'ethnically clean' communities.

It seems that any racial separatism would be completely voluntary in National Anarchism.

[An archist]

It seems that any racial separatism would be completely voluntary in National Anarchism.

source?

[Peacekeeper]

source?




Q. Are National-Anarchists racist?

A. Certainly not. Our vision comes from a love of our own kind and a genuine respect for others. This stance is totally at odds with racial hatred and is fundamentally based upon the realities of self-determination for all peoples. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to a white supremacist agenda or wish to enforce our worldview on others. National-Anarchists are racial separatists and wish to build links with like-minded individuals and organisations regardless of their racial or ethnic background. Racial miscegenation endangers mankind in the same way that hunting and pollution threaten both the environment and the animal kingdom. Together with our comrades around the world, we are seeking to preserve the natural condition of humankind.


Sorry, it won't let me post links.
folkandfaith dot com slash articles slash anarchy dot shtml

[bcbm]

And how do you suppose they would go about setting up racially pure communities in, say, any major city in the Western world, where many different populations coexist?

[Kropotesta]

national anarchists advocate small self-sufficient communities if I remember rightly and are greatly influenced by the 'green anarchist' as one of the ex-editors, Richard Hunt is a leading conponent in the national anarchism scene. If I remember rightly.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Let me explain this ideology to you all in an actual anarchist view.

The National Autonomous Zone is a Permanent Autonomous Zone to take the place of a centralized nation-state. However, I tell you, it's dangerous to create something like the NAZ, for this brings about a national identity, and with that comes xenophobia, and eventually, after a few decades at most, and a few years at the least, the old nation state will return, and all of that effort would only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, whether it be the new bourgeoisie or the old. Depends on if they're all dead or not.

But what's more disturbing is that they want an official language, culture, and religion in their NAZs. I will discuss race later. Also, we all know what religion brings, so we needn't discuss that here. They want labor to be organized not entirely of worker's cooperatives. Well, yeah, they want worker's cooperatives, however, they don't want all of the economy run by worker's self management; they want a mixture of worker co-operatives and small businesses! Small businesses, if you don't know, grow into the big businesses that we all love to hate. That's why real anarchists hate the small businesses along with the big businesses, for we are anti-capitalists. If you didn't know that, you need to die. They want a "pre-defined relationship regulating behavior with outsiders of the NAZ". Sounds like foreign relations, and diplomacy. And do you know why they need that in their ideology? Because the National Anarchists want to keep the most cruel, violent, destructive, and useful tool that all nations have used since the first nation was formed: They want to keep a national military.

Now, before I finish, I want to discuss how they want to create racial seperatism. Well, they want to institute a Jim Crow law-like system into the NAZs. Now I shall explain how they want to establish this sort of system.

The National Anarchists, in their NAZs, have elements of anti-authoritarian values in their ideology. They don't go so far as to create a centralized government, which is why they call themselves "anarchists", and they don't want to impose total authoritarianism over everyone. The National Anarchists, in order to successfully (well, partially successfully) hide behind the cloak of Anarchism, don't want to force a "Seperate-but-equal" society, but make the racial separatism voluntary. But how would they keep such a system alive if it's totally voluntary? The answer is propaganda. They'll (a secret propaganda department would need to be created, I guess) espouse racially divisive (sp?) propaganda onto their own people, to brainwash them into dividing themselves on racial and probably religious lines. However, the National-Anarchists say they believe that racial supremacy is wrong, and they want a society where it's "seperate but equal". Sound familiar? But remember the failings of such a system that was implemented in the USA? I'll explain to you what would happen, when the propaganda changes the mind of the citizens of the NAZ, and then racially seperates them. The seperatism will create, on all sides, further senses of identity, and eventually, racial supremacy. Guess who's going to return (if they didn't die off at all) in the American NAZ? The fuckin' Ku Klux Klan. In turn, the racial supremacy will create tension amongst ethnic groups, and eventually, it will erupt into a race war.

All of this will eventually stop working, and the old-style nation-states will re-emerge from the ashes, though it seems that they never dissappeared at all, only pretending to be gone. All of this effort would be for naught, and will bring back a world, a racist, war-torn world.

My final message: FUCK ALL THE DAMN NATIONAL "ANARCHISTS". YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE. ESPECIALLY NOT ME!

[Os Cangaceiros]

national anarchists advocate small self-sufficient communities if I remember rightly and are greatly influenced by the 'green anarchist' as one of the ex-editors, Richard Hunt is a leading conponent in the national anarchism scene. If I remember rightly.

Green Anarchy did an article about National Anarchism:

http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=viewwritingdetail&writingId=150

[Black Dagger]

It seems that any racial separatism would be completely voluntary in National Anarchism.

Why is racial separatism desireable in the first place? That's an idea that needs to be justified given anarchism is opposed to all forms of racism or racialism.

Second, how can separtism be maintained without force or coercion (the anti-thesis of anarchy)? How are Black people to be kept from a white community or vice-versa? This system requires that racial homogenity is maitained by force. Would racial communities still participate in federal organisation? Or will there be separate federations with no-cooperation? If it is the latter, how is that in the spirit of anarchism? To which solidarity and co-operation for the mutual benefit of all is bedrock.

[An archist]

Sorry, it won't let me post links.
folkandfaith dot com slash articles slash anarchy dot shtml



So they use retarded, unrealistic ideas (like 'racial unity') to promote racism, but they don't call it racism.
If anything, science and history have taught us that diversity is positive for a species. That's why royal families in the middle ages who limited themselves to marrying only other nobles were so ugly and/or mentally handicapped.
That's also why people shouldn't have children with family members.

[RHIZOMES]

Sorry, it won't let me post links.
folkandfaith dot com slash articles slash anarchy dot shtml



yeah that's what all white supremacists say, that they just want to "preserve their culture/ethnicity". :closedeyes:

[Peacekeeper]

I'm just saying that they aren't as far right as the OP makes them out to be, from what I've read about them so far. They wouldn't try to "enforce" racial separation, so they claim.

[Black Dagger]

Then i would say that you're either incredibly naive or very uninformed. I mean, have you actually had any contact with these groups? Do you know any of the people involved? If you did, you'd realise that the people talking about 'national anarchism' are the same fash scum that have been talking about racial separatism in different (less nominally 'anarchist' terms) for decades.

In australia, the national anarchists are just a re-grouping of already existing white-nationalist/fash groups led by a cashed up-german expat (a former member of the 'successor' to the nazi party) - it's just a marketing push. A year ago, these same people spoke nothing of 'national anarchism', 'non-violence', or some kind of voluntary or peaceful 'ethno-communism' or whathaveyou. They've all still got their profiles on stormfront (where things are still business as usual)- it's just offline, they're trying a new propaganda strategy (because their usual white-nationalist schtick is a dismal failure) - that's it.

So the OP is correct, these are far-right groupings - from the fash, white nationalists etc. that make up the adherents, to the former-nazis and fash that write their ideological discourse (read the backgrounds of these people) - the only thing 'left' about them is the window-dressing, their pathetic mimickery of anarchism, 'black bloc' tactics etc.

[Peacekeeper]

You could be right - you're correct that I don't have much information, I'm basing this off of what I've learned from their websites, and here, so it's not much. Regardless, I'm not saying it is a good thing or ideologically correct, or viable in the real world.

[kuro]

Its ridiculous to say they're anti-racist when they recruit at events where hard line racists are likely to gather.

[Sasha]

[off topic] i'm getting realy sick off the google ads down at the page advertising nazi-flags...
although i guess it is not as misplaced as the google ad on the B&H/RVF site advertising "interracial gay dating".

[Wanted Man]

They have even begun to mimic the logos: the black/red design with "anti antifa" on it, the "good night white pride" with "good night left side," etc.
Yeah, that's growing increasingly common. I saw pictures of such banners from nazi marches here as well, although they may have been German ringers. It seems to me that they also want to create disinformation.

To the public eye, and to the mass media, their demonstrations should look exactly like those of leftwingers: almost the same logos on black/red banners and flags, people dressed in black, Palestinian flags, pseudo-anarchist and anti-capitalist slogans, complaining to the media about 'left fascist' antifas, etc.

In a sense, they also contribute to the criminalization of left-wing and antifa activities. If the media can't differentiate anymore ("oh, there's two groups of black-clad people calling each other fascists") and the police can intervene in confrontations indiscriminately, that poses a big problem. This development shows the need to make anti-fascism a broader thing that is supported by a lot of people, not just punks.

[NationalAnarchist]

yeah that's what all white supremacists say, that they just want to preserve their culture/ethnicity.
I see. By that reasoning, Tibetan monks would be supremacists?

By your logic, it is only racist when white people say it.

You only show your own hypocrisy and double standards.

[RedAnarchist]

I see. By that reasoning, Tibetan monks would be supremacists?

By your logic, it is only racist when white people say it.

You only show your own hypocrisy and double standards.

Last time I checked, Tibetan monks didn't want to send people to concentration camps.

[NationalAnarchist]

Last time I checked, Tibetan monks didn't want to send people to concentration camps.

I see. May I ask, what link, thread, article or other printed material of the National Anarchists has given you the impression that I or others of the NA would like to send people to concentration camps to die?

Communist China should be equated with Nazism. National Anarchism is autonomous decentralised communities.

[RedAnarchist]

I see. May I ask, what link, thread, article or other printed material of the National Anarchists has given you the impression that I or others of the NA would like to send people to concentration camps to die?

Communist China should be equated with Nazism. National Anarchism is autonomous decentralised communities.

:laugh: Do you actually think you're an Anarchist? I know you far right types are obsessed with us, but you don't need to copy us!

All you NAs are doing is shitting all over the ideals of Anarchism and using them to try and trick people into accepting your outdated ideas about race.

[NationalAnarchist]

:laugh: Do you actually think you're an Anarchist? Do you? Anarchists uphold the right to self-determination and freedom from coercion. If this means the natural formation of a China town that's ok, but if it means the formation of a little Britain or other European-centric community it isn't? That is a racist double standard!
try and trick people into accepting your outdated ideas about race.

There is no trickery involved here, and you are entitled to your opinion, however, the advent of the human genome has proved otherwise. Although, I find the oxy-moron about smashing racism; when no races exist to be ironic. Destroy racism, not races.

[RedAnarchist]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedAnarchist http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1159860#post1159860)
:laugh: Do you actually think you're an Anarchist?

Do you? Anarchists uphold the right to self-determination and freedom from coercion. If this means the natural formation of a China town that's ok, but if it means the formation of a little Britain or other European-centric community it isn't? That is a racist double standard!

So, you'll be coercing people to move out of communities if they are an ethnic minority?

[RedAnarchist]

There is no trickery involved here, and you are entitled to your opinion, however, the advent of the human genome has proved otherwise. Although, I find the oxy-moron about smashing racism; when no races exist to be ironic. Destroy racism, not races.

If you don't believe in race, why do you want an European-centric community?

[NationalAnarchist]

So, you'll be coercing people to move out of communities if they are an ethnic minority?
If you don't believe in race, why do you want an European-centric community?

Firstly, believing that National Anarchists would forcibly remove people from their homes is a fallacy. It is something that Israel does, not something NA would advocate.

A China town is formed by an influx of ethno-centric individuals who form a community. At some point, based on language or other community idiosyncrasies, those not part of the community leave voluntarily, but not forcibly.

Secondly, you made reference to outdated ideas about race, as though they do not exist. I was quite clear in that I do believe they exist, therefore the concept of racism by the traditional revleft types is ironic, since they do not believe that races exist.

[RedAnarchist]

Firstly, believing that National Anarchists would forcibly remove people from their homes is a fallacy. It is something that Israel does, not something NA would advocate.

A China town is formed by an influx of ethno-centric individuals who form a community. At some point, based on language or other community idiosyncrasies, those not part of the community leave voluntarily, but not forcibly.

Secondly, you made reference to outdated ideas about race, as though they do not exist. I was quite clear in that I do believe they exist, therefore the concept of racism by the traditional revleft types is ironic, since they do not believe that races exist.

Of course not, you'll just ask them to move just because of their skin colour or culture.

Why should they? Whats so bad about humans living together in one community? Why should we seperate ourselves, which creates not only inbreeding, but also forms nation states, and we'll be back at feudalism.

We don't, but some people do and try to use that belief to attack others, so we oppose them.

[NationalAnarchist]

Of course not, you'll just ask them to move just because of their skin colour or culture.

Whats so bad about humans living together in one community?
Exactly my point, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people living together to form a community. That is what National Anarchists advocate.

What is so bad about a group of people wanting to live amongst those who share a common language and ancestry? To say that it is wrong or to oppose those who would want such a thing is coercive, manipulative and fascist. It is un-anarchist.


We don't, but some people do and try to use that belief to attack others, so we oppose them.

Attacking is coercive. So again, I ask, are you an anarchist?

[RedAnarchist]

Exactly my point, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people living together to form a community. That is what National Anarchists advocate.

What is so bad about a group of people wanting to live amongst those who share a common language and ancestry? To say that it is wrong or to oppose those who would want such a thing is coercive, manipulative and fascist. It is un-anarchist.

Attacking is coercive. So again, I ask, are you an anarchist?

Wht about mixed-race people, or people who have grown up influenced by more than one culture? Will they have to have their own communities?

Noone here is going to fall for it. We know why you NAs want these communities, because you're just neo-nazis in disguise.

Yes, I am. And you are in no position to question whether someone is an anarchist or not.

[An archist]

Exactly my point, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people living together to form a community. That is what National Anarchists advocate.

What is so bad about a group of people wanting to live amongst those who share a common language and ancestry? To say that it is wrong or to oppose those who would want such a thing is coercive, manipulative and fascist. It is un-anarchist.



Attacking is coercive. So again, I ask, are you an anarchist?

Take your bullshit to stormfront.

[The Feral Underclass]

National anarchism is a fallacy and cannot hold up to criticism. It takes anarchist principles out of context and distorts them in order to justify racialism and separatism.

Anarchism was developed as an internationalist tradition. It came about through those direct experiences with the rise of capitalism and the consolidation of bourgeois statist power. Anarchism called for the destruction of nations and the creation of a world guided by solidarity and mutual aid. This idea came about because of anarchisms materialist conception of historty and therefore the nunderstanding that class is the main issue facing people in the world - not race, which is inalienable and arbitrary.

"National anarchism" is a contradiction on the basis that anarchism is specifically an internationalist tradition that understands society through class and not race.

National anarchism is incoherent and irrational.

[RedAnarchist]

Take your bullshit to stormfront.

Even ScumFront don't want those losers!:lol:

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

National anarchism is a fallacy and cannot hold up to criticism. It takes anarchist principles out of context and distorts them in order to justify racialism and separatism.

But neither are anarchist principles written from on high in the Ten Commandments and are infallible or subject to evolutionary progression.


Anarchism was developed as an internationalist tradition.

Big fucking deal that tradition has gotten anarchism permanently "enacted" no where since it's inception.


It came about through those direct experiences with the rise of capitalism and the consolidation of bourgeois statist power.

Classic anarchism maybe but only an extremely few modern anarchists are not middle class and white.


Anarchism called for the destruction of nations and the creation of a world guided by solidarity and mutual aid. This idea came about because of anarchisms materialist conception of historty and therefore the nunderstanding that class is the main issue facing people in the world - not race, which is inalienable and arbitrary.

Fuck your materialism AND your Marxism. Class is far less important than capital anyway because class is mutable but capital is not. There are other value systems that are thousands of years old and provide a more meaningful life for it's adherents. I'd rather spend time with kin then "class mates," "workers," or the "oppressed," any day of the week.


"National anarchism" is a contradiction on the basis that anarchism is specifically an internationalist tradition that understands society through class and not race.

Anarchism has a broad back including green anarchists, primitivists, tribal anarchists, and anticiv. Your argument is based on the idea that anarchy is static when it is not. Not even the history of anarchism from one decade to the next has been consistent.


National anarchism is incoherent and irrational.

Another classical Marxist smear. You have a lot of nerve calling yourself an anarchist, more like a Marxist in anarchist clothing.

[RedAnarchist]

But neither are anarchist principles written from on high in the Ten Commandments and are infallible or subject to evolutionary progression.



Big fucking deal that tradition has gotten anarchism permanently "enacted" no where since it's inception.



Classic anarchism maybe but only an extremely few modern anarchists are not middle class and white.



Fuck your materialism AND your Marxism. Class is far less important than capital anyway because class is mutable but capital is not. There are other value systems that are thousands of years old and provide a more meaningful life for it's adherents. I'd rather spend time with kin then "class mates," "workers," or the "oppressed," any day of the week.



Anarchism has a broad back including green anarchists, primitivists, tribal anarchists, and anticiv. Your argument is based on the idea that anarchy is static when it is not. Not even the history of anarchism from one decade to the next has been consistent.



Another classical Marxist smear. You have a lot of nerve calling yourself an anarchist, more like a Marxist in anarchist clothing.

So, I presume you just support anything that puts Anarchism in its name?

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

Let me explain this ideology to you all in an actual anarchist view.

The National Autonomous Zone is a Permanent Autonomous Zone to take the place of a centralized nation-state. However, I tell you, it's dangerous to create something like the NAZ, for this brings about a national identity, and with that comes xenophobia, and eventually, after a few decades at most, and a few years at the least, the old nation state will return, and all of that effort would only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, whether it be the new bourgeoisie or the old.

Whats your proof of this? To make a claim one provides supporting evidence to back it up, otherwise it's conjecture.


Depends on if they're all dead or not.

But what's more disturbing is that they want an official language, culture, and religion in their NAZs. I read that bit on wikipedia. The exact wording is:

"* a homogeneous representation of spoken language, culture, religion, and ethnicity.
* the organized delegation of tasks and economy.
* a pre-defined relationship regulating behavior with outsiders of the NAZ.
* a system of standard operating procedures for self-defense.
* collective and informal decision making processes.

Needless to say, the existence of a NAZ is likely to be challenged by a variety of State and non State actors concerning it's very existence."

And furthermore:

"Unlike a fief of feudalism, a NAZ does not exist from the benefit of a monarchy, for the piece of paper called a title or charter, it's warrior caste, but rather for the desire of all who support it's continued existence.

The true legal classification of a NAZ when the state is defeated is allodial. Using the Webster's first dictionary (1825 edition), allodium is a "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud." For the purpose of this article, the owner of a NAZ is defined solely by the community that inhabits it. Precisely how such a community is to be organized is beyond the scope of this essay(**)."

What comes to is that this is not any different from the Anarchist People Of Color refusing to allow non blacks in their meetings. Prove otherwise. This has been accepted by the majority of people in the anarchist movement in the States as AOK too.


I will discuss race later. Also, we all know what religion brings, so we needn't discuss that here. What does religion bring? I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that to be an anarchist one has to be an atheist?


They want labor to be organized not entirely of worker's cooperatives. Well, yeah, they want worker's cooperatives, however, they don't want all of the economy run by worker's self management; they want a mixture of worker co-operatives and small businesses! Yeah thats how AK Press runs too, your point?

I think the idea is that there has to be a transitional phase between a capitalist society to a syndicated one. Going from one to the other over night, as the Bolshevik experiment proved in 1917 (or whatever year it was, 1921?), is disastrous and can cause huge famines. You aren't suggested everyone has to starve to death North Korean style for your workers paradise are you?


Small businesses, if you don't know, grow into the big businesses that we all love to hate. That's why real anarchists hate the small businesses along with the big businesses, for we are anti-capitalists. Hating someone for wanting to provide a living for themselves seems a bit nonsensical. Sure they may not like having to work for a living but people have things like children that need to be taken care of somehow. Hating the "small businesses" seems like a waste of energy. Wouldn't your anger be better focused at the billionaires and millionaires of society Fight Club style? Do I need to explain further?


If you didn't know that, you need to die. WOW, whats progressive in that? Look out Stalin and Mao, you've met your match with a keyboard anarcho-hilter! :scared: Actually you sound worse then Hitler.


They want a "pre-defined relationship regulating behavior with outsiders of the NAZ". Sounds like foreign relations, and diplomacy. And do you know why they need that in their ideology? Because the National Anarchists want to keep the most cruel, violent, destructive, and useful tool that all nations have used since the first nation was formed: They want to keep a national military.Oh bosh, even punk rock shows have security. Even Hakim Bey suggested the TAZ be formed along the lines of the violent and cruel Tongs, pirates, and Assassins. Even the FAI/CNT had a "National Militia."

Your point is mute and you obviously have no experience of living in an established anarchist housing project. As I have, I can confirm that there is always a need for a security and or warrior element in society. It's a part of being human.


Now, before I finish, I want to discuss how they want to create racial seperatism. Well, they want to institute a Jim Crow law-like system into the NAZs. Now I shall explain how they want to establish this sort of system.

The National Anarchists, in their NAZs, have elements of anti-authoritarian values in their ideology. They don't go so far as to create a centralized government, which is why they call themselves "anarchists", and they don't want to impose total authoritarianism over everyone. The National Anarchists, in order to successfully (well, partially successfully) hide behind the cloak of Anarchism, don't want to force a "Seperate-but-equal" society, but make the racial separatism voluntary. But how would they keep such a system alive if it's totally voluntary? Well considering that 99% of Western societies are already racially segregated they wouldn't have t do that much.


The answer is propaganda. They'll (a secret propaganda department would need to be created, I guess) espouse racially divisive (sp?) propaganda onto their own people, to brainwash them into dividing themselves on racial and probably religious lines. People are already divided along racial and/or religious lines. The National Anarchists propose an end to State enforced multiculturalism. You do want less State control in society, not as much as currently exists, don't you?


However, the National-Anarchists say they believe that racial supremacy is wrong, and they want a society where it's "seperate but equal". Sound familiar? But remember the failings of such a system that was implemented in the USA? I'll explain to you what would happen, when the propaganda changes the mind of the citizens of the NAZ, and then racially seperates them. The seperatism will create, on all sides, further senses of identity, and eventually, racial supremacy. Guess who's going to return (if they didn't die off at all) in the American NAZ? The fuckin' Ku Klux Klan. In turn, the racial supremacy will create tension amongst ethnic groups, and eventually, it will erupt into a race war.I thought capitalism as it exists was already good at that by forcing ethnic tensions between communities to be tolerant or go to jail. How can the National Anarchists, who you say are a tiny subculture of the anarchist milieu, compete or even be better then capitalism has?


All of this will eventually stop working, and the old-style nation-states will re-emerge from the ashes, though it seems that they never dissappeared at all, only pretending to be gone. All of this effort would be for naught, and will bring back a world, a racist, war-torn world.

My final message: FUCK ALL THE DAMN NATIONAL "ANARCHISTS". YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE. ESPECIALLY NOT ME!Well now I guess you have it all figured out. Yes, the ruling class is running in fear!

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

So, I presume you just support anything that puts Anarchism in its name?

You know theres a lot of antisocial behavior with the anarchists I know and I can honestly say that no I do not support everything that goes on in the name of anarchism.

[Lector Malibu]

What's wrong with multiculturalism? Tell me I'm curious..

[RedAnarchist]

What's wrong with multiculturalism? Tell me I'm curious..

Its a ZOG conspiracy, obviously!:scared:

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

What's wrong with multiculturalism? Tell me I'm curious..

It's a State manufactured attempt to divide the workers among competing ethnic groups. Divide and conquer.

[The Feral Underclass]

But neither are anarchist principles written from on high in the Ten Commandments

There are however fundamental principles to anarhism, which make it anarchism. If you take away one of those principles it ceases to be anarchism.


and are infallible or subject to evolutionary progression.

Sure, you can remove those principles and you can change them but you need to be able to explain why those changes are relevant. Why do these changes to principles need to be made? If you can't actually explain why those changes are necessary then why should anyone accept that what you say is right.

As far as I can see national anarchists just say: "this is what anarchism is", without actually referencing what anarchism actually is. Unfortunately just saying something is true doesn't make it so.


Big fucking deal that tradition has gotten anarchism permanently "enacted" no where since it's inception.

That's not a refutation that anarchism is not an internationalist tradition. Actually, it seems that you're agreeing with me.

Struggle for anarchism has been difficult and you can't just wave a wand and create anarchy. You have to fight for it, and that is exactly what has been happening. We have failed overall, but we have succeeded in many other things - The 8 hour working day for a start.

In any case, what are you suggesting as an alternative?


Classic anarchism maybe but only an extremely few modern anarchists are not middle class and white.

I know several working class black anarchists, but so what? Since when have demographics had anything to do with what is true or false.

What point are you trying to make anyway?


Fuck your materialism AND your Marxism.

I don't see how that's a refutation for materialism? And materialism isn't a specifically Marxist idea anyway.


Class is far less important than capital anyway because class is mutable but capital is not. There are other value systems that are thousands of years old and provide a more meaningful life for it's adherents. I'd rather spend time with kin then "class mates," "workers," or the "oppressed," any day of the week.

That's just gobbledy-gook.


Anarchism has a broad back including green anarchists, primitivists, tribal anarchists, and anticiv.

Sure, those people claim to be anarchists and they do a lot of stuff that is useful. Iv'e worked with primitivists and even anti-organisationalists in my life, but at the end of the day we need to understand what society is and how to change it and none of those ideas can live up to that challenge.


Your argument is based on the idea that anarchy is static when it is not. Not even the history of anarchism from one decade to the next has been consistent.

Fine, but anarchism has a set of fundamental principles and aims and if you are saying those principles and aims need to change then provide an explanation why? If you can't why should we accept they need to change?


Another classical Marxist smear. You have a lot of nerve calling yourself an anarchist, more like a Marxist in anarchist clothing.

National anarchism is incoherent and irrational regardless of my class struggle beliefs. Telling me to fuck off and claiming that I'm not an anarchist isn't making those ideas any more coherent or rational.

If you want to debate or tell me your ideas I'm more than willing to listen to them. You have to provide some in order for me to do that though.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's a State manufactured attempt to divide the workers among competing ethnic groups. Divide and conquer.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

[Lector Malibu]

It's a State manufactured attempt to divide the workers among competing ethnic groups. Divide and conquer.

Interesting, Your stance on multiculturalism not only sounds far fetched in that weird "UfO" sorta way but a little "extreme" in that "I'm making pretend I'm not a Fascist/Nazi" sorta way. Wouldn't you agree?

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

Its a ZOG conspiracy, obviously!:scared:

Don't think for a minute that the ruling class is full of dumb idlers. One of the oldest examples of history to win a conflict is getting your enemies to do your work for you. The Iranians did this with Iraq. Not just nations but bosses do this to their work force. An example is allowing an unlimited number of an industry, one example being IT workers or medical doctors to come into the UK is a faster and cheaper alternative then having to train their own. The entire gamut of the globalization of capital is designed to promote this activity because of it's competitive results (i.e., groups of people competing for scarce resources like jobs, education, and wealth). It certainly isn't some ZOG conspiracy but neither can any national policy of a government be reduced to one liners like "No blood for oil." Reality is always more complex than one liners.

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

Interesting, Your stance on multiculturalism not only sounds far fetched in that weird "UfO" sorta way but a little "extreme" in that "I'm making pretend I'm not a Fascist/Nazi" sorta way. Wouldn't you agree?

Actually this is the original Labour argument against immigration in the early part of the 20th century. That changed (surprise, surprise) when Labour got into power :lol:

The proof is in the neo-liberalism movement that has been in power since the 1970s.

They promote "deregulation" (read less unions), "free markets" (for capital AND labour), and the privatization of public sector industries (the idea that the power company shouldn't be owned by private parties). Thus capitalists, as a class, become stronger, and their opposition legally weakened through deregulation and divided through cultural differences. They enforce this through quotas, the dissolution of free speech, and the Big Brother approach. The ruling class doesn't need the Stasi to keep a lid on class conflict because the people censor themselves.

The result of all this is that the ruling class has outflanked previous modes of resistance on all fronts. And people like that guy earlier rallies normal everyday people to "hate" small business owners. What a piece of work :cursing:

[Lector Malibu]

Don't think for a minute that the ruling class is full of dumb idlers. One of the oldest examples of history to win a conflict is getting your enemies to do your work for you. The Iranians did this with Iraq. Not just nations but bosses do this to their work force. An example is allowing an unlimited number of an industry, one example being IT workers or medical doctors to come into the UK is a faster and cheaper alternative then having to train their own. The entire gamut of the globalization of capital is designed to promote this activity because of it's competitive results (i.e., groups of people competing for scarce resources like jobs, education, and wealth). It certainly isn't some ZOG conspiracy but neither can any national policy of a government be reduced to one liners like "No blood for oil." Reality is always more complex than one liners.

Wasn't Enoch Powell moaning about this as well a while back?

[An archist]

Don't think for a minute that the ruling class is full of dumb idlers. One of the oldest examples of history to win a conflict is getting your enemies to do your work for you. The Iranians did this with Iraq. Not just nations but bosses do this to their work force. An example is allowing an unlimited number of an industry, one example being IT workers or medical doctors to come into the UK is a faster and cheaper alternative then having to train their own. The entire gamut of the globalization of capital is designed to promote this activity because of it's competitive results (i.e., groups of people competing for scarce resources like jobs, education, and wealth). It certainly isn't some ZOG conspiracy but neither can any national policy of a government be reduced to one liners like "No blood for oil." Reality is always more complex than one liners.

So, what does this have to do with 'ethnically pure' communities? Do you think anarchist organizations should be made up of members with the same skin color?
Fuck off

[An archist]

It's a State manufactured attempt to divide the workers among competing ethnic groups. Divide and conquer.

So lets play along with their logic shall we?

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

So, what does this have to do with 'ethnically pure' communities?

Because the State believes they are harder to control.


So lets play along with their logic shall we?What benefit would that provide?


Do you think anarchist organizations should be made up of members with the same skin color?I'm not here to tell people how to organize nor do I care if members have the same skin colour however even I'm a bit cynical about the utility of "anarchist organizations."


Fuck off

Thanks.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Because the State believes they are harder to control.

Explain

[guysfawkesmeetskronstadt]

Explain

Because they are more likely to organize successfully then those that are not.

[Lector Malibu]

Because they are more likely to organize successfully then those that are not.

Gee that sounds alot like "the more racially pure the community, the better the community " Does it not?

[NoArch]

Look, human life is based on what we produce. Our whole existence is predicated on the fact that we constantly need to produce that existence. Those means by which we do that are controlled by a ruling class but those who actually do the producing don't control it and care called the working class. We want those who produce our existence to control the means by which it's produced.

That's not a social construct, that's just reality.
Once the ruling class has been eliminated (by whatever method), then what? Those that produce, that work toward their keep and the keep of their community own the means of production... What does your society strives towards then? Mere existence?

I want to see a society of culture and values; these things have been corrupted by the ruling classes. Communities throughout history have been more than just production and consumption; look at the riches in Aboriginal, Native American (for want of better terms) society.

Anarchism is more than just economics and a hatred for capitalism... It is a future for humanity!

Note: Why edit out half of my post? Did I break any guidelines?