Talk:National-Anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For previous discussions see: Talk:National anarchism

Contents

[edit] Delete

For all the reasons this article has been deleted before in all its various hideous incarnations, let's DELETE the horror already.--William Gillis 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Yeah. I concur. I have no idea the procedure for a delete nomination. It doesn't seem a particularly contraversial proposition (Deletion), although I'm sure a handful of vested-interest nutbags might make a commotion 58.7.0.146 13:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the EZLN Applicable

This sounds a little like the philosophy of the Mayan Chiapas Zapatistas (they claim that in 2012 the governments of the world will crumble and the nations will live in isolated communes, or at least this is what I read, probably a little more flexible in terms of inter-ethnic relations). Given such a abstract termonology am am sure all nationalities can subscribe to this in their own way (only PC would relegate it to caucasian monopolization). -- 68.80.102.164 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

-- The EZLN is explicitely anti-fascist. So no, this is an absurd proposition 58.7.0.146 11:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism and nationalism would be a more suitable place to discuss the Zapatistas nationalism.Harrypotter 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

-- The EZLN are reformists who are using the democratic process to promote improvements for the native indians. They are not revolutionaries and so are not really suitable for this article. National Anarchists support struggle against central governments, not mere reformists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjuner (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Misleading anarchist sidebar.

"National Anarchism" , a misnamed variation on third-position fascism, is not related to the anarchist movement, as Racism is a logical enemy of Anarchists, and confusing people like this is deeply offensive to anarchists. Really, this page should be merged into "Neo Naziism" or "White Nationalism". 58.7.0.146 11:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What a crock of troll shit user 58.7.0.146, if you don't have a constructive statement to add to the article GTFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjuner (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for National-Anarchists but indulge me a little while I play devil's advocate because there are issues here. A position like this one is unclassifiable by conventional criteria. So I'm not going to contest the sidebar, because it's problematical either way. Calling them anarchist is POV, and calling them non-anarchist is POV. But I'd object to the don't-offend-the-mainstream-anarchists rationale. Please! We are supposed to be neutrally describing a political alliance, not pussyfooting so as not to upset them or their opponents. The N-A's are probably no less put out (or amused) that the mainstream calls itself "anarchist", and in view of the mainstream's selective use of theoreticians like Proudhon and Bakunin whenever racial questions are in the picture, I'd say they have an arguable case.
Are you formally proposing a merger? Ordinarily I support mergers, but this outfit is distinctive enough that I'd have to oppose it in this case (though National Revolutionary Faction should be merged in, as there's no good reason for two short articles covering essentially the same people). We can't call them fascist or Nazi because they explicitly reject both (yes, like the Zapatistas!) and we can't call them White nationalist because they support separatist Black nationalism. They have moved beyond the third-positionists, who in any case don't see themselves as fascist either. (Check out any 3P website and it soon becomes clear that their ideology draws indifferently upon dissidents from fascism and dissidents from Marxism.) They would also reject the "racist" label as hostile POV — their own "take" is that protecting races from mutual annihilation (interbreeding) is anti-racist.
If anything, they appear to be aligned with Russia's Vladimir Putin and the pro-Putin wing of the (Stalinist) "National Bolsheviks". That's an untenable position for sure, if you're serious about anarchism of any sort, but I doubt whether Southgate and crew will realise the contradiction any time soon. If and when they finally do, it could get interesting! Meantime, let's not try too hard to fit them into boxes, whether anarchist or fascist. Gnostrat 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been edging towards a national-anarchist perspective for a while now, and from my overview of Southgate and co.'s position, they seem as opposed to statist ideas as mainstream anarchists, in fact, in some ways more so. The short-lived ideological alliance with National Bolshevism was due to the shared concepts of third way and traditionalist politics, and Southgate always made their differences very clear.
As regards Putin; I can't see any evidence of alignment with him from any national-anarchists. Some N-A's express sympathy for anti-American leaders such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad, but this hardly makes them aligned. On the national-anarchist mailing list anti-Putin comments are often made, and Southgate himself has condemned all the aforementioned leaders as "statists" and therefore not worth support from anarchists.
Possibly there is a confusion stemming from past involvement between Southgate and the pro-Putin National Bolshevik Alexander Dugin. This was an involvement based on around debate over shared ideological ground, and hardly constitutes an alignment of any kind. In any case, the involvement between N-A and the Nazbols has pretty much been severed by Dugin's weird ambivalence about Zionism and enthusiasm for Pooty-Poots, and on the opposing faction, Eduard Limonov's transformation into a Russian George Galloway. C'est la vie.
You seem admirably neutral and open-minded on N-A, and looking at your user profile your basic beliefs are completely compatible with it. Would you been at all interested in joining any of the forums? It'd be great to have a different perspective, especially with your knowledge of related currents like the Black Ram group.Belzub 16:31, 03 December 2007
Well, that just about blows any credibility I've still got at this place! I assume you have a particular forum in mind? It's pretty unsettling that you think my views are compatible with N-A, given that I've also had mainstream anarchists tell me they agree with my positions — and they're the ones who think N-A's are the pits! It makes me wonder all the more whether a gap between movements is being artificially maintained by prior assumptions and political categories that have little to do with the substance. It can't do any harm to discuss it.
I stand corrected on the Putin link. I was indeed basing my comments on the N-A / Nazbol "axis". European Liberation Front is a name which implies a certain level of coordination and alignment. Probably more than was actually there. I wasn't unaware that Southgate had criticised Stalinism, but I just couldn't see how he could possibly maintain a political association (let's call it) with Dugin whilst holding to that position. I figured either (a) Southgate had to be insincere, or (b) the N-A / Nazbol association would not hold. I guess if I'd been keeping my eye on the ball I'd have realised it had already fallen apart.
As for Black Ram, well, in the past some individual with evident N-A sympathies has attempted to airbrush that group off Wikipedia, claiming it was mythical and an "obvious attempt to discredit the real NA founders". (So much for WP:Assume good faith.) I'm happy that you think I'm still fair-minded after that. I could never quite see how someone felt that Black Ram undermined N-A. Smarter to look at it as a partial precursor, I suppose. I felt that it was noteworthy, but also that it wasn't that important (which is why I didn't create an article for it). After all, Black Ram didn't build a global movement. It was just an earlier group that was completely unconnected (unless today's N-A's can claim a pedigree back to Else Christensen or Gustav Landauer). Gnostrat (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I wouldn't worry about that! Considering the number of people here who are only interested in spouting the same old rubbish about national-anarchism being "fascist" and trying to get the article deleted, I'd say one honest mistake doesn't dampen your credibility one bit. Sadly, mainstream anarchists don't realise that they have far more in common with N-As then they'd like to think. I was a green anarchist/primitivist type for some of my early teenage years, and it was only recently that I discovered that, far from being a sinister fascist co-optation exercise, N-A is actually kind of what I'd instinctively believed for years, but didn't know how to put into words. You are absolutely right that received assumptions about politics are keeping all of us apart, and N-A and the New Right seem to be making at least an attempt to challenging those assumptions and getting everyone opposed to the system together, and resolving any ideological differences through mutual, voluntary seperation.
I was thinking of the National-Anarchist Yahoo group specifically, but Attack the System or Rose-Noire are also good places to start. ATS is run by Keith Preston of the American Revolutionary Vanguard, who is not himself N-A, but supports it and other seperatist/secessionist movements of all kinds. I am sure he would be fascinated to hear your views on anarchism.
It's a shame that some N-As are evidently so narrow-minded themselves to assume the Black Ram group were some kind of attempt to discredit their beliefs. Oh well, I can't really blame them for being paranoid considering the amount of hostility they get from both the extreme left and extreme right. I find this hidden strand of anarchist history to be fascinating and I'd love to see some scans of the original newsletters, should you ever make any. Belzub 13:10, 05 December 2007
I agree that merger with the National Revolutionary Faction makes sense, but not Neo Naziism. I think they are clearly White Nationalists, and there has been a long history of Whit Nationalists such as Ernest Sevier Cox and Theodore Bilbo in his book entitled Take Your Choice, Separation or Mongrelization. As regards the idea that "Racism is a logical enemy of Anarchists" or the A-N is not to racist, experience shows both views to be of little relevance inthe ligt of practical experience to the contrary.Harrypotter 17:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, there have been no objections to merging in the NRF article so I've been bold and done it. Cercle de la rose noire can hardly justify a separate existence either. Gnostrat 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is evidence of National Anarchists engaging in antisemitism. Mobius1ski (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits

I've reverted edits by 151.204.254.237 and Harrypotter. There was no good reason to remove the right-wing perspective on this, and the phrase "ordinary anarchists" is POV to say the least. If either of you feel you were justified on this, please discuss it here and we can come to a conclusion.

Also, Stormfront is the largest white-nationalist forum on the web, so it's not exactly an unreliable source for what some white-nationalists are saying about National-Anarchism. Once again, if you would like to discuss this, please do. I'm not a tyrant, so I will hear your points of view on this. Please, just don't turn this into a revert war. Belzub 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Message boards are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Spylab (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Belzub, please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources; there's no way Stormfront could be considered a reliable source under this formulation. Skomorokh incite 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Forgive me for my error, good sirs. Belzub 00:39, 21 December 2007

Apologies for my flippancy. If you follow the ordinary link you will see that I was being a bit cheeky.Harrypotter (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Nice one, mate! Belzub 00:39, 21 December 2007

Well, I think these other edits are even better.Harrypotter (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed misleading Third Positionist sidebar

This is a POV categorisation. Southgate has stated that National-Anarchism is not a Third Positionist ideology (explicitly rejecting 3P here, for example) but one which, having come out of 3P — with the emphasis on the out — has now transcended it. Like the now-defunct alliance with Dugin's National-Bolsheviks, the 3P connection is just interesting history which doesn't reflect where the movement is at now. I have therefore removed the incorrect Third Position template (although unfortunately I haven't been able to remove National-Anarchism from the template itself because it doesn't seem to properly exist, at least in any form that can be edited). Southgate has also stated here that the primary element in his syncretic ideology is the anarchism, which is why I have replaced the 3P template with the Anarchism template in the proper position. (Yes, I'm aware it's contentious too, but that's a different discussion.) Gnostrat (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Wait, despite it being well understood that "National Anarchism" bears no relationship to Anarchist Ideology (Being almost defined by its oposition to Nationalism!), and even its most staunchest advocates (Just google it , far out!) admitting it to be a third positionist platform, you'll take the word of a known police informant like Southgate over, well , truth?. This is an Encyclopedia, not a recruiting tool for the National front. I'm going to figure out how to revert this abject nonsense. 60.230.207.205 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand where the concept that anarchism is "almost by its oposition to Nationalism" comes from. Clearly its relationship to nationalism is complex. It's not just a matter of dealing with Bakunin's and Proudhon's nationalism, but also the statements coming from the Zapatista as regards patriotism. Also I am not sure that Gnostrat has any basis to call it a "movement", and I certainly would not agree that it has transcended anything. I have restored the 3P sidebar at the top because that is where its coming from. Yes of course Southgate tries to distance himself from it, but the sidebar is helpful as it locates in its political context. I have also restored the @ sidebar lower down. I eel it is suitable to have this in a less prominent position, but still retained. As regards to whether Southgate is a police informer, this view has been put forward by a number of people from the — and not just Green Anarchist — and may well be true. However to reduce his activities to such claims is misleading. Anyway I hope people can cope with these changes asI feel they do help to make clear what this ideology is about.Harrypotter (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made no other contentious changes but I have reverted the 3P template. Police informant or not, Southgate has defined the ideology and he has defined it as distinct from 3P. It is not for editors to sit in judgment. This article has to objectively record what NA's self-understanding and self-description are, not categorise it based on how hostile observers perceive it. Otherwise, Wikipedia might as well adopt the Libertarian position that fascism should be classified under socialism, or go with those Marxists who file Greens under fascism. If some of you think you are standing up for anarchism here, how anarchist is it to insist on defining people by your criteria and disallowing them from defining themselves for themselves?
A well researched and referenced site describes 3P as "a new form of fascism, a neofascism, called the Third Position, which seeks to overthrow existing governments and replace them with monocultural nation states built around the idea of supremacist racial nationalism and/or supremacist religious nationalism".[1] Even if you accept this contention that 3P is a form of fascism, NA does not fit the definition. NA is patently not going out to create monocultural nation-states built on racial or religious supremacism, or for that matter, any kind of states or any sort of supremacism. If they don't mean what they say, if they "really" intend to build these monolithic states, what in the world do they stand to gain by energetically promoting the exact opposite?
I'm undecided whether to call this a "movement" or not. I won't object to "current", but that is somewhat belittling and we are, after all, talking about a phenomenon which has gone global. But 3P is not where this current (if you will) is coming from any longer. This article isn't recruiting for the National Front (Southgate hasn't been a member of that for nearly two decades) but it certainly isn't a propaganda sheet for the 'orthodox' anarchists either. Gnostrat (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported claims

This article is chock-full of unsupported claims. Many of the so-called core principals of the ideology don't even have any references to back them up. Note that according to Wikipedia guidelines, original research can be deleted at any time, so if anyone wants certain content to remain in the article, they should start digging up reliable references. Spylab (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty, now. We're doing our best to verify as much as possible, however this kind of research can take time, so please be patient. Belzub 17:10, 09 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not kidding about taking time. This article has existed in various forms for a very, very long time with a bunch of claims that weren't backed up by any reliable references - way more time than is acceptable. I'll have to check later whether the new footnotes meed Wikipedia standards. Spylab (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the article has 24 references, it would seem albeit at a an superficial level to be a well referenced article. If Spylab could put [citation needed] alongside what they regard as unsupported claims, that would be a more suitable way forward rather than making somewhat over excited remarks about what is and what is not "acceptable". Of course there are going to be a whole range of people who find the particular blend of neofascism and anarchist naivety that constitutes national anarchism quite nauseating, but we should not let such feelings overwhelm us as we work on an entry on national anarchism which accurately reflects nature, even where this contradicts how those who are currently designing and modelling the ideology would like it to be seen.Harrypotter (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Harry, that's exactly what Spylab did — saturated the article with fact tags on nearly every sentence. It's a well referenced article because some of us filled in the citations in response. So I'm not complaining, because Spylab's done us a favour here. The only causes for concern are his copy edits, which can turn well-written prose into choppy, pedestrian reading for the sake of brevity. What's more, I reverted a few of them because they changed the intended meaning. Do be careful, please. Gnostrat (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was necessary to revert the unfortunate deletion of some material here, because there is no reason to privilege anarchist critic of N-A over those of other people. It does not ake most people to work out that the N-A are racist, regardless of how theybtry and soft-sell their nostrums. The deletion of the anti-fa piece was clearly a serious error.Harrypotter (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of whether the Antifa piece supports the claim in the article. The sentence for which you cite it as a source reads: "Many critics argue that National-Anarchism's concept of racial separation leads intrinsically to racial hatred". If you can find in the Antifa source a single mention of either "racial separatism" or "racial hatred" in connection with N-A, let alone a serious critical analysis as to how N-A's advocacy of the one necessarily leads to the other, then I will leave this citation in place. Otherwise, it must be removed. It doesn't take much reading to realise that the Antifa piece is hate literature — which among other things incites its readers to "put the boot in" and finds cause for humour in one N-A supporter "leaving the Anarchist Bookfair in 1998 head first" — but that's not the issue. The issue is that it has not a single analytical argument that relates to the sentence where you have cited it. Gnostrat (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point: sorry I missed out the bit about physical confrontation.Harrypotter (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we need to separate these two bits. The first citation (Green Anarchist) establishes that some anarchists interpret racial separatism as bound up with racial hatred. The second citation establishes almost nothing beyond the fact that the street-fighting Manichaeans of Antifa (which, incongruously, considers itself to be anarchist too) are out for violent confrontation with those whom they perceive as "the opposition". It certainly doesn't make any connection whatsoever with the previously-mentioned critique of racial-separatism. What it does tell us is that Antifa has got N-A pigeonholed as "far right", but since its founding statement accepts that "fascists can be non-racist and...most racists are not fascists", it isn't at all clear on which pretext (anti-racism or anti-fascism) these ochlocratic bigots consider National-Anarchists to be fair game for violent assault. They are certainly wrong on either count but I don't propose to debate that again now. I have made some changes which leave both citations in place but which I hope explain more fully and accurately where Antifa is coming from, insofar as the sources allow. This information should certainly go in the article, but not in the context where you have inserted it. Gnostrat (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

Why on Earth is the Australian nihilist underground society in the links section? Their philosophical mentor from the American Nihilist society, Vijay Prozak, is a self described fascist, and anarchism and fascism are two mutually exclusive ideologies.

I've moved your post into chronological sequence. Had some doubts about ANUS myself as there doesn't seem to be anything on the site relating to N-A. Assuming this wasn't disinformation, I'd say somebody might have been misled by an odd article or post there that came from an N-A contributor. Not that I've noticed any yet. Anybody who wants to put it back in had better have a good reason. Gnostrat (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Fascism and Anarchism are indeed mutually exclusive, but NA is by no non-deceptive definition even remotely related to anarchism, except in its name and some of the deliberately dishonest verbal garbage it sprouts. There are no Anarchist Fascists, and N-A is a variety of Fascism. 203.161.85.233 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Let us know when you have something objective to contribute from a neutral point of view. Gnostrat (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick edit , re 'National Anarchists reject Fascism'

This is a nonsense, as they ARE a fascist group (By definition. They are nationalists, racists, and arguably distributionists. Ie fascists.) , although they dispute it. However unfortunately because this isn't worth a dreary edit war with the 'lets redefine words to trap kids into our ugly philosophy' crew, I've changed it to 'national anarchists CLAIM TO reject fascism'. There, everyones happy. 121.221.245.72 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it back. You can't "claim to" reject a thing. As I noted in my edit summary, saying you reject is by definition an act of rejection. Neutrally-phrased articles can't make judgments as to whether it's a "marketing claim" and shouldn't just slip in language which suggests it might be. During the Cold War people used to say it was a marketing claim when anarchists denied being agents of Moscow, and with no better logic. As a matter of plain fact, though, N-A doesn't fit either the classic definition of fascism or the newer ones which purposely shift the goalposts to ensure that people like Alain de Benoist get trawled in, who would have been called leftists if we weren't all so cynical and paranoid. Even Graham Macklin, whose critical analysis (Co-opting the Counterculture) argues that N-A still bears "the recognizable mark of Cain", is able to do so only on the basis that it fulfills HALF of this new concept of fascism — the "palingenetic" half — whilst "rejecting the very cornerstone of fascist ideology" in the nation-state. So who's redefining words here? Gnostrat (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
What Nonsensical Obscuratism. 203.161.85.233 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your OPINION. Gnostrat (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal: 'Anarchist critics argue...'

OK, I've put this bit back in, since it is a sourced statement, but I'm willing to discuss this - it's left over from the (often disastrous) 'other movements' section, which for a time merely acted as a mouthpiece for lefty dogmatists. Belzub 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've no particular attachment to it, either: it could be rephrased, re-sourced or both, but not arbitrarily removed. And I suggest re-connecting it with the sentence "Many National-Anarchists..." which looks forlornly out of place in the lead section. Gnostrat (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's sort of covered in "This rejection however..." anyway, so it could be merged in with that I guess. Is it worth maybe getting rid of "Many National-Anarchists..." altogether? Belzub 22:33, 06 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it in with "This rejection..." because we have to keep the fascism question distinct from the separatism question (even if some people would happily infer the one from the other). I've provisionally joined it with "Many NAists...", which seems to fit this context better. Welf's articles aren't the ones I would source it to, though. Gnostrat (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'll dig out some more sources today. Belzub 11:44, 07 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added in the sources. This article is in a better shape than it's ever been I reckon; previous versions tended to define N-A by its relationship to its ideological opponents. Pats on backs all round! Belzub 14:10, 07 May 2008 (UTC)