National Anarchists: Rebranding Fascism

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby 23 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:13 pm

wordspeak2 wrote:23, like I said, many of my best friends are anarchists, and I'm well-aware of the overall positivity of that community. In fact, I come out of that community. But if you haven't seen a lot of misanthropy at least in certain elements of the anarchist or quasi-anarchist crowd, I think you're missing something obvious, or maybe you haven't been around "Earth First!"'ers much. There's often a tendency to support population reduction and blame common people for environmental destruction more so than among socialists. Anyway, that's certainly what these fascist phony "anarchists" are preying on, sometimes successfully, as in the case mentioned in the article of the fascist recruitment of an early editor of the Oregon-based "Green Anarchy" magazine.


You're right. I never spent any time with the folks that you mention. Not because I didn't have the chance to, but because I viewed them as opportunistic anarchists. Not to mention, of course, that they weren't as committed to nonviolent acts of civil disobedience as I needed them to be. Their temperement revealed that they would easily erupt into a violent act, if the right button was pushed.

Additionally, and if you queried them re. how they felt about Marx's arch enemy, Bakunin, they'd look at you as if you read too much.

Thoughtful anarchists, who value nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, do exist. If you won't settle for the opportunistic brand and know how to weed them out.

P.S. I also often wondered how many of 'em are plants, inserted to provoke violence.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:04 am

wordspeak2 wrote:
AD, for the record, I personally feel completely certain that both Chip Berlet and Chomsky are intelligence agents.


I've looked seriously at the case against these too and I'm not so convinced. Doesn't mean they are or they aren't- they could be, as could you, I, Jeff and everyone else on this board. There are a lot of things we'll probably never know.

I know that I do not agree with Chomsky and Berlet regaring conspiracies. That is a somewhat different question. However one thing that I agree with both on is that we should not jump in bed with nazis, militias, homophobes, racists, or other such faux populists.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yathrib » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:36 pm

I regarded myself as an anarchist for a few years when I was in mid to late teens, because of a number of influences. Now I support the *only* system of government and society that has *ever* worked to the greater good of all, Social Democracy. I don't want to insult anyone, but from what I observed of people who called themselves anarchist back then--and in recent years at antiwar demos and such--I'm afraid this ploy on the part of the fascists might work. You only need to look at how much of the punk scene was swallowed up by the Nazi skinhead scene.
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wordspeak2 » Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:51 am

Yathrib, I'm curious how you define Social Democracy. I assume you mean "democratic socialism," which has had various manifestations throughout history (but often "democratic socialists" have sided with fascists against communists, unfortunately).

I consider myself a socialist. I'm very supportive of the progressive revolutions going on in Bolivia and Venezuela currently, and of Cuba (Ecuador, as well). Not that I'm not critical of some of these governments, but they're on the right track and fighting the right power. Serious "hard-left" governments taking power has also, in any honest reading of history, been viewed by the capitalist Empire as its primary threat. I really recommend William Blum's book "Killing Hope." Also, Michael Parenti's book "Blackshirts and Reds," which is a rare honest look at the Soviet Union.

As an environmentalist and an advocate of entheogens, I wish that socialists in general would take a more radically ecologically-oriented position. There is an interesting "eco-socialist" line of thought from a Marxist writer named John Bellamy Foster. Of course, the only true way of "saving the environment" or having an "archaic revival" *is* kicking industry/capital out of power, since they are the worst perps of genocide against the planet.

AD, obviously I'd be in an uphill struggle to convince you that Berlet and Chomsky are both intelligence agents. Just a couple things on Chomsky- besides spending his career bashing Kennedy and all things "conspiracy," do you know he was involved with early artificial intelligence research funded by the Pentagon, and that his linguistics work is the furthest thing from progressive? Re the latter, here's a fascinating article I found, "Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?"
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/chomsky.htm

Chomsky's the hugest can or worms, of course, but on Berlet, IMO the burden of proof is on you, because the man has made a career out of attacking the memes that would expose the shadow government. Not to mention that his real name is John Foster Berlet and he comes from an intelligence family and I've met him several times, and he's a fucking creepball! I also went to his workshop at a conference one time, same workshop he's done for decades, I'm sure, all about defining the "Left" and "Right" as opposing grassroots movements which disagree especially on issues such as gay rights and abortion rights. He props up what Marxists call "wedge issues," while taking pot shots at "conspiracy" thinking at every opportunity- that being the notion that "Rockefeller globalists" are somehow orchestrating a major plot against the rest of us. His writings on so-called conspiracy are flamingly disingenuous; indeed, his pigeonholes the term as a "way of thinking." His attacks on 9/11 truth were sophisticated. He's the one who went on "Democracy Now!" to oppose the 9/11 truth perspective. He's funded by the Ford Foundation, and he's been deeply involved in the Left since SDS days, always with the same M.O. I think we're collectively naive in denying that there would be a lot of direct intelligence infiltration in the alternative discourse(s). In fact, there's *tons* of it. The primary M.O., as it reads in history, is 1.to downplay social class analysis while propping up anything but it, 2.to hide the existence of the shadow government.
Berlet brags about being a spy. I think he's much more valuable to the PTB than those black-clad anarchists who throw the first rock at the glass building, who, btw, are almost *always provoceteurs.*
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:05 am

wordspeak2 wrote:
AD, obviously I'd be in an uphill struggle to convince you that Berlet and Chomsky are both intelligence agents. Just a couple things on Chomsky- besides spending his career bashing Kennedy and all things "conspiracy," do you know he was involved with early artificial intelligence research funded by the Pentagon, and that his linguistics work is the furthest thing from progressive? Re the latter, here's a fascinating article I found, "Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?"
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/chomsky.htm

Chomsky's the hugest can or worms, of course, but on Berlet, IMO the burden of proof is on you, because the man has made a career out of attacking the memes that would expose the shadow government. Not to mention that his real name is John Foster Berlet and he comes from an intelligence family and I've met him several times, and he's a fucking creepball! I also went to his workshop at a conference one time, same workshop he's done for decades, I'm sure, all about defining the "Left" and "Right" as opposing grassroots movements which disagree especially on issues such as gay rights and abortion rights. He props up what Marxists call "wedge issues," while taking pot shots at "conspiracy" thinking at every opportunity- that being the notion that "Rockefeller globalists" are somehow orchestrating a major plot against the rest of us. His writings on so-called conspiracy are flamingly disingenuous; indeed, his pigeonholes the term as a "way of thinking." His attacks on 9/11 truth were sophisticated. He's the one who went on "Democracy Now!" to oppose the 9/11 truth perspective. He's funded by the Ford Foundation, and he's been deeply involved in the Left since SDS days, always with the same M.O. I think we're collectively naive in denying that there would be a lot of direct intelligence infiltration in the alternative discourse(s). In fact, there's *tons* of it. The primary M.O., as it reads in history, is 1.to downplay social class analysis while propping up anything but it, 2.to hide the existence of the shadow government.

Berlet brags about being a spy. I think he's much more valuable to the PTB than those black-clad anarchists who throw the first rock at the glass building, who, btw, are almost *always provoceteurs.*


Yeah, I'm familiar with the case against Chomsky- haven't seen any compelling proof that he's an agent, yet...

As to Berlet, not hard to make the case that what he's doing has negative effects, but much, much harder to establish that it's because he has malicious intent. After all, he is very much correct in his long-held thesis that reactionaries are seriously involved in a campaign to use conspiracy-memes to win over people who might otherwise go in a more progressive/radical direction...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wordspeak2 » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:05 pm

Well, it's not a matter of proof, per se, in cases of speculating on writers having intelligence ties... it's just about circumstantial evidence.
Berlet creates a dialectic of "conspiracy theory" and "structural analysis." This is his meta-point, his way of getting people to not consider ruling elites collaborating to a desired nefarious end. He writes: "The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression."
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post9 ... laims.html
But, *obviously,* as Michael Parenti points out in his commonsensical essay, elites "conspire" together all the time. You have to be either lying or not looking at all to say so. Do you really think Parenti is so much smarter than Berlet to say this? You really think Berlet believes all his wordsmithing? It's totally a false dialectic. There are high-level conspiracies that would blow the lid off the system- such as CIA involvement in the drug trade. Berlet insists that you even go there is just a "world view." Conspiracy people are right-wingers, he insists. This doesn't strike you as disingenuous? Really? Berlet is clearly very intelligent, and his attacks are sophisticated. Why, then? Why do that? Why push people hard away from the meme of CIA involvement in the drug trade?
AD wrote:
"he is very much correct in his long-held thesis that reactionaries are seriously involved in a campaign to use conspiracy-memes to win over people who might otherwise go in a more progressive/radical direction..."

Which "conspiracy memes"? Like "UFO's run the world in cahoots with the ZOG?" Well, sure, that's going on, but more central is the effort by reactionaries to keep progressives from grasping the *real* "conspiracy-memes" of 9/11 truth, JFK assassination, CIA-drugs, MK-Ultra and others that inherently illuminate the reality of a shadow government that maintains power, is above the presidency, and orchestrates psychological operations, with no democratic accountability. For *if people knew* that this was the world we lived in- whatever our exact political sympathies and feelings about abortion, we would turn on the people in power.
Sure, plenty of traditionally progressive writers *avoid* the hard-core subjects, but few *attack on those subjects* with anywhere near the vehemence, and sophistication, of Berlet, and Chomsky as well.
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:31 pm

I very much agree that you can always find extremely "out there" ideas to discredit conspiracy research as a whole. That can be and is a big method of coverup. However, there certainly is some truth in the "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis.

As to proof that the people you named are dirty- we do not have that, though we can certainly speculate. Certainly there is room for principled disagreement with some of what they are doing and saying- that is a different matter, however...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lupercal » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:36 pm

wordspeak2 wrote:more central is the effort by reactionaries to keep progressives from grasping the *real* "conspiracy-memes" of 9/11 truth, JFK assassination, CIA-drugs, MK-Ultra and others that inherently illuminate the reality of a shadow government that maintains power, is above the presidency, and orchestrates psychological operations, with no democratic accountability.


Totally with you on this and your previous Chomsky analysis. Pretty much the basic fake-progressive spook line on JFK et al. is: couldn't be so, doesn't matter anyway, and aren't there more important things to worry about? The bald-faced lies Chomsky spreads about JFK's policies are truly astonishing disinfo with no chance of being accidental. And structuralism as it applies to politics is nothing but a whitewashing trick. And that's my $.02 on that famous tool of the perps Noam Chomsky.
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:42 pm

The real perpetrators are laughing all the way to bank- and plotting worse crimes, while the conspiracy people and the structuralists are squaring off, fighting for control of their own little ghettoes...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lupercal » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:54 pm

American Dream wrote:The real perpetrators are laughing all the way to bank- and plotting worse crimes, while the conspiracy people and the structuralists are squaring off, fighting for control of their own little ghettoes...


Hi AD, I know this is a little off topic, but as to your comment about "the conspiracy people and the structuralists" squaring off, isn't that as it should be? Because if the structuralists are as it appears a cohort of spooks and spook apologists, they need to be exposed, as their "little ghetto" is basically the MIC crimes their tricky rhetoric is supposed to keep hidden. So, while I don't exactly see the confrontation you're seeing, I would welcome it!
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wordspeak2 » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:03 pm

"The bald-faced lies Chomsky spreads about JFK's policies are truly astonishing disinfo with no chance of being accidental. "
RIGHT

I don't follow you, AD. I don't see anyone defending "conspiracy theory" in the general. The whole dialectic is completely made up by the Berlet and Chomsky crowd. What people such as those of us here are doing is trying to draw attention to the "conspiracies" that matter most, such as 9/11. How are the "real perps" getting off? This is a *false concept,* this conspiracy versus structuralism thing, disingenuously devised. Nobody is really fighting for the "conspiracy," because it's obviously both "structural" and "conspiratorial." It's just wordsmithing to keep people from looking at evidence in an unbiased way.
This is Berlet's made-up paradigm:
"Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent. As a distinct narrative form of scapegoating, conspiracism uses demonization to justify constructing the scapegoats as wholly evil while reconstructing the scapegoater as a hero."

Is that what we're all doing at RI? According to Berlet it is.
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:04 pm

lupercal wrote:
Because if the structuralists are as it appears a cohort of spooks and spook apologists, they need to be exposed, as their "little ghetto" is basically the MIC crimes their tricky rhetoric is supposed to keep hidden.


This is so wrong, I barely know where to begin.

You're painting with very broad brush strokes, and with little incontrovertible proof, even against the worst offenders.

Quite honestly, this kind of thinking is a part of the problem...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lupercal » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:16 pm

American Dream wrote:lupercal wrote:
Because if the structuralists are as it appears a cohort of spooks and spook apologists, they need to be exposed, as their "little ghetto" is basically the MIC crimes their tricky rhetoric is supposed to keep hidden.


This is so wrong, I barely know where to begin.

You're painting with very broad brush strokes, and with little incontrovertible proof, even against the worst offenders.

Quite honestly, this kind of thinking is a part of the problem...


Ha. Well at least it's thinking. Call it un-rigorous intuition if you want, and I should have said "as it appears TO ME," but my strong perception is that structuralism is used as a convenient way of disappearing human agency from serious state crimes like assassinations, acts of genocide, and covert operations of all stripes by converting the perps into structural forces like blowback or natural competition for resources etc etc. Works great for the perps as it levels everything out and renders all parties equally guilty, and who can blame mother nature? As I say I'm only speaking from my own perception but it strikes me as a very dirty rhetorical trick.
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yathrib » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:43 pm

Basically, I mean the system they have and take for granted in most European countries, most notably Scandinavia (inclusive of Finland). Almost anything other than what we have here would be an improvement, of course. I was in England earlier this year, and they of course have plenty of social and economic problems. But by U.S. standards, they're almost imperceptible. And the average Briton of whatever ethnicity, age, or class is *perceptibly* healthier and more relaxed than almost any American. I don't see such a state of affairs as impractical or utopian, although it may be in the selfish, bestialized, willfully ignorant state of American kulture.

As for Cuba, Venezuela, et al, I sympathize with them and wish them the best. Whenever I get a chance to put in a good word for them, I do. Especially if there are some conservatives around whose heads I can make explode. And there are plenty of good things to say about them. I can't see such systems working in the U.S. under any circumstances, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

As for definitions: Social Democracy to me means a typical Western representative democracy combined with a welfare state,and state ownership of at least those industries with a direct bearing on the public good (transportation, utilities, and energy would be obvious examples). There is probably more I could say, but that covers gthe basics.


wordspeak2 wrote:Yathrib, I'm curious how you define Social Democracy. I assume you mean "democratic socialism," which has had various manifestations throughout history (but often "democratic socialists" have sided with fascists against communists, unfortunately).

I consider myself a socialist. I'm very supportive of the progressive revolutions going on in Bolivia and Venezuela currently, and of Cuba (Ecuador, as well). Not that I'm not critical of some of these governments, but they're on the right track and fighting the right power. Serious "hard-left" governments taking power has also, in any honest reading of history, been viewed by the capitalist Empire as its primary threat. I really recommend William Blum's book "Killing Hope." Also, Michael Parenti's book "Blackshirts and Reds," which is a rare honest look at the Soviet Union.

As an environmentalist and an advocate of entheogens, I wish that socialists in general would take a more radically ecologically-oriented position. There is an interesting "eco-socialist" line of thought from a Marxist writer named John Bellamy Foster. Of course, the only true way of "saving the environment" or having an "archaic revival" *is* kicking industry/capital out of power, since they are the worst perps of genocide against the planet.

AD, obviously I'd be in an uphill struggle to convince you that Berlet and Chomsky are both intelligence agents. Just a couple things on Chomsky- besides spending his career bashing Kennedy and all things "conspiracy," do you know he was involved with early artificial intelligence research funded by the Pentagon, and that his linguistics work is the furthest thing from progressive? Re the latter, here's a fascinating article I found, "Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?"
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/chomsky.htm

Chomsky's the hugest can or worms, of course, but on Berlet, IMO the burden of proof is on you, because the man has made a career out of attacking the memes that would expose the shadow government. Not to mention that his real name is John Foster Berlet and he comes from an intelligence family and I've met him several times, and he's a fucking creepball! I also went to his workshop at a conference one time, same workshop he's done for decades, I'm sure, all about defining the "Left" and "Right" as opposing grassroots movements which disagree especially on issues such as gay rights and abortion rights. He props up what Marxists call "wedge issues," while taking pot shots at "conspiracy" thinking at every opportunity- that being the notion that "Rockefeller globalists" are somehow orchestrating a major plot against the rest of us. His writings on so-called conspiracy are flamingly disingenuous; indeed, his pigeonholes the term as a "way of thinking." His attacks on 9/11 truth were sophisticated. He's the one who went on "Democracy Now!" to oppose the 9/11 truth perspective. He's funded by the Ford Foundation, and he's been deeply involved in the Left since SDS days, always with the same M.O. I think we're collectively naive in denying that there would be a lot of direct intelligence infiltration in the alternative discourse(s). In fact, there's *tons* of it. The primary M.O., as it reads in history, is 1.to downplay social class analysis while propping up anything but it, 2.to hide the existence of the shadow government.
Berlet brags about being a spy. I think he's much more valuable to the PTB than those black-clad anarchists who throw the first rock at the glass building, who, btw, are almost *always provoceteurs.*
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: National Anarchists: Rebranding Fascism

Postby American Dream » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:52 pm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2 ... ight.html/

Esoteric Publishers, Crowley, and the ‘New Right’


At the beginning of June, copies of a new anthology, “Crowley: Thoughts & Perspectives, Volume Two,” started arriving at the homes of individuals who ordered the book. Published by Black Front Press, the volume received generally positive feedback from commenters at the Aleister Crowley Society. On June 10th, well-respected esoteric publishers Scarlet Imprint released a statement regarding Black Front Press, and its head, Troy Southgate.

“We were approached recently to contribute to Troy Southgate’s Black Front Press whose last published work was a Crowley anthology. After a little research, we were disturbed to find their rather murky history hidden beneath the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist and permaculture ideals. Though we are very happy to promote the independent esoteric and occult authors and publishers whose work and dedication invigorate and stimulate our community, it is entirely another matter to contribute our energy to a project which would seem to be attempting to use a multiplicity of voices from the occult scene to promote the ideas of the so-called New-Right.“


It seems that Southgate is the leading figurehead for the “National Anarchist” movement, a political extension of the European “New Right” (not to be confused with neoconservativism). National Anarchists endorse a manifesto that defines Zionist Jews as “vampiric parasites intent on carving up the world’s resources in an attempt to create a single, global market,” rejects egalitarianism, and is pro-racial separatism.

“Race defines who we are, it provides us with an identity and exists for a damn good reason. Without maintaining this essential diversity, something you can find throughout nature, the world will become increasingly drab, standardised and monotonous and the only people left on the planet will inevitably form part of a coffee-coloured mush of uniform humanity. National-Anarchists wish to preserve the different races of the earth and believe that multi-racialism ends with the dissolution of all races. Racial separatism is the only way that the organic balance can be restored. We realise that it is impossible to separate people in the large cities and towns, many of whom have racially-mixed children or wish to live among foreign populations, and neither should we attempt to do so. Indeed, we believe that the nation-states of the West are likely to collapse in the next few decades and that our respective countries will begin to fragment along racial and cultural lines. So there is clearly no need to treat people inhumanely by herding them into camps or deporting them in the way that the Nazis and Soviets did in the last century; something which ended disastrously for those concerned. National-Anarchists must form new communities based on their own racial and cultural values. The maxim of the future will be respect for others and unity in diversity.”

Scarlet Imprint noted that they held a “profound” disgust for the views expressed in the National Anarchist manifesto, and stated that “what is clear in magickal history is that racial mixing has been incredibly beneficial.” The well-regarded San Francisco esoteric book-seller Fields Books thanked Scarlet Imprint for their stance, and promises “a longer and more nuanced response to all of our customers soon” on the matter. In response, some Crowley fans instantly went on the defensive, wondering if there was going to be a “blacklist” of contributors, bemoaning the “war of ideologies” that will be raised on the issue. This is exactly the kind of response that National Anarchists like Southgate hope for, since a veneer of an apolitical “pox on both your houses” attitude is what gives these New Right/third positionist groups their oxygen.

“The danger National-Anarchists represent is not in their marginal political strength, but in their potential to show an innovative way that fascist groups can rebrand themselves and reset their project on a new footing. They have abandoned many traditional fascist practices—including the use of overt neo-Nazi references, and recruiting from the violent skinhead culture. In its place they offer a more toned down, sophisticated approach… Their cultural references are the neo-folk and gothic music scene, which puts on an air of sophistication, as opposed to the crude skinhead subculture. National Anarchists abandon any obvious references to the Hitler or Mussolini’s fascist regimes, often claiming not to be “fascist” at all.

Like the European New Right, the National-Anarchists adapt a sophisticated left-wing critique of problems with contemporary society, and draw their symbols and cultural orientation from the Left; then they offer racial separatism as the answer to these problems. They are attempting to use this new form to avoid the stigma of the old discredited fascism, and if they are successful like the National Bolsheviks have been in Russia, they will breathe new life into their movement. Even if the results are modest, this can disrupt left-wing social movements and their focus on social justice and egalitarianism; and instead spread elitist ideas based on racism, homophobia, antisemitism and antifeminism amongst grassroots activists.”


Before Southgate and his apologists muddy the water on the debate that will no doubt gear up, lets be clear that his views are extremist, but always with the added caveat of “we’ll leave them alone if they leave us alone.”

“The most important thing for us is the Natural Order. It is natural for men and women to procreate. Anything which threatens the harmony of Nature must be opposed. Feminism is dangerous and unnatural not because it threatens to leave men with a pile of dirty washing-up and a few smelly nappies (as some of its adherents claim), but because it ignores the complimentary relationship between the sexes and encourages women to rebel against their inherent feminine instincts. Anyone interested in the opposing view should read The Female Woman by Arianna Stassinopoulos (Davis-Poynter, 1973) or Chapter 20 of Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World(Inner Traditions, 1995). Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Order because sodomy is quite undeniably an unnatural act. Groups such as Outrage are not campaigning for love between males – which has always existed in a brotherly or fatherly form – but have created a vast cult which has led to a rise in cottaging, male-rape and child sex attacks. Nature is about life and health, not death and AIDS. One of the most eye-opening pamphlets produced on this issue is Alexander Baron’s truly excellent Guide to Gay Sex: A Primer For Young People (Infotext Manuscripts, 1994). But we are not trying to stop homosexuals engaging in this kind of activity like the Christian moralists or bigoted denizens of censorship are doing, on the contrary, as long as this behaviour does not affect the forthcoming National-Anarchist communities then we have no interest in what people get up to elsewhere. I just hope these people respect our own right to live in the way we choose. As far as abortion is concerned, this process violates the sanctity of life and once again the killing of an unborn child is flying in the face of Nature and one could do far worse than read Abortion: Yes Or No? by John L. Grady (Tan Books, 1979).”


Amazingly, the “we’ll let you live in peace apart from us come the revolution” defense seems to often work. Allowing views that would get them painted as neo-fascists to get lost in a constructed apolitical fog. However, any direct contact with self-proclaimed National Anarchists makes plain what they are, and apologists end up having to twist themselves into pretzels in order to insulate figures like Southgate from the odious effects of their pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.

I don’t think there should be a “blacklist” for those duped into thinking Black Front Press was truly apolitical in orientation, but once enlightened, it will become increasingly hard to erect a firewall between Southgate’s publishing arm and the views he and his followers espouse. Just because this book on Crowley avoided becoming a pamphlet for neo-fascist views doesn’t mean the publishing house that produced it should be given a free pass. Ultimately, there’s an expectation that intelligent people will consider who is funding and distributing a project. If your work is helping to bolster the image of a company that endorses the philosophy of the National Anarchists, if your work helps these groups further insinuate themselves within Pagan and esoteric communities, then the fig leaf of apoliticism must be challenged.
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 172 guests