Talk:James Mason (neo-Nazi)

Use of the term "anarchy"

While in the popular imagination, "anarchy" is a synonym for chaos, in political terms it means something very different (as is indicated by it's own page). It's inappropriate, especially in reference to activities of a fascist, to use the term in such a way. Docktuh (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

At least two other editors have disagreed with you, as shown by their restoration of the linked term to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you as an anarchist take issue with the use of the term, but that is precisely what he calls for. Destruction of the state, and following stateless (anarchic) period during which they are free to commit genocide and mass murder. You said it's incorrect to call this anarchistic because Leninists wanted to destroy the state too. But for Bolshevik Russia, there was always continuation of government, Kerensky's government was replaced by the Soviet, so it isn't accurate comparison, there wasn't really power vacuum and period of statelessness, while that is explicitly what James Mason advocates.

"I've been told in recent years that we just can't blow the heads off the powers that be, that we simply cannot call for an anarchy. But what these sensitive, conservative types can't grasp, or else refuse to grasp, is that the alternatives are either fast being removed by circumstances themselves, or they are gone already....A war or an anarchy, or any form of disruption or breakdown. Anything at all that puts the lights out and keeps them out....The Movement as a whole has traditionally been fundamentally opposed to anarchy. It is our nature to favor order over chaos. According to tradition, anarchy has been associated with the Left. But today we have arrived at the point where traditional definitions of "Left vs. Right" no longer carry much valid meaning. To be "Right" is to support the System and the Powers That Be; while to be "Left" is to support mass or mob rule, in short, democracy, Can we adopt either stance knowing what we do? The answer of course is that we cannot any longer play the role of traditionalists or get caught up in the detached, unreal world of party politics which, in any event, is owned and operated by the Enemy, The System itself must go. The masses are entirely unfit to rule even their own daily lives. As long as the System survives it will never allow the formation of an alternate, incipient body ready to step in and take over the reigns of government following its own collapse. What answer then is left but anarchy?...only the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of this governmental form will work. Total anarchy is far preferable to the fiendishly diabolical, carefully manipulated destruction and betrayal now taking place. "

- James Mason

RKT7789 (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The destruction of the state in and of itself does not constitute anarchy. Lenin, for example, in The State and Revolution calls for the smashing of the state in order to create a dictatorship of the proletariat. Regarding Mason's statements, this is really just a continuation of the neo-fascist tradition of claiming to be "beyond left and right", which is meaningless rhetoric. Docktuh (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You ignored everything I wrote above that quote: I understand that you as an anarchist take issue with the use of the term, but that is precisely what he calls for. Destruction of the state, and following stateless (anarchic) period during which they are free to commit genocide and mass murder. You said it's incorrect to call this anarchistic because Leninists wanted to destroy the state too. But for Bolshevik Russia, there was always continuation of government, Kerensky's government was replaced by the Soviet, so it isn't accurate comparison, there wasn't really power vacuum and period of statelessness, while that is explicitly what James Mason advocates. In addition to this, Lenin explicitly denounced anarchy ("Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian") while James Mason explicitly advocates it. RKT7789 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Mason is calling for a period of stateless, lawless chaos in which racist violence is free to flourish, and if he were just a garden variety white supremacist, the use of the term would at least be questionable. But he's very specifically a fascist. As it has often been pointed out, both by scholars and practitioners, fascism is an ideology which places extreme emphasis on the state and it's supposed necessity. I bring up Lenin (by the way knowing his opposition to Anarchism, I didn't reference The State and Revolution without having read it) in the same breath as Mason simply to point out that you can desire a period of statelessness and still desire a state as the outcome. This isn't just because I'm an anarchist and take issue with the terms chaos and anarchy being used interchangably, it's because this is specifically in a political context, and it has specific meanings, meanings which Mason deliberately obscures, as is fascist tradition. Docktuh (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I still cannot see the issue here. I am trying to put it as simply as I can. No one is saying James Mason is an anarchist or that anarchism is his endgoal. He simply wants, like you agree, a period of without state apparatus or hierarchy, the president, the cops, all dead and gone. Anarchy is anarchy, even if it's for a limited period. No one would say Makhno's Free Territory wasn't anarchism because the state of anarchy existed for a limited time and was replaced by a state. I'm not implying that Makhno was a fascist or wished to be replaced by a state, but in practice, it's the same. Even if anarchy exists for a limited period, it is still anarchy.

While you as an anarchist probably have your own view what constitutes real anarchy, according to wikipedia that period of anarchy doesn't have to be initiated by an anarchist or be permanent to be considered anarchy. There really is no case here. RKT7789 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If anarchists didn't want their political philosophy to be confused with anarchy, they should have called it something else besides anarchism. It's as if I started a new ideology called "panda bear eliminationism", and then got upset when people thought that I wanted to eliminate panda bears. As it is, anarchists have no one to blame but themselves. In any case, I hope, for their sakes, that anarchists manage to be among the survivors if they even succeed in their goals.

In any case, the wikilink in dispute in this article is to anarchy and not to anarchism, two different articles, so anarchists really have no beef here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore that first part because it has nothing to do with what we're actually talking about here and point out that at time of writing, you're wrong. The link goes to anarchy as it exists within the framework of anarchist philosophy, not anarchy as a synonym for chaos. Docktuh (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you look again, the link goes to this article ("Anarchy") and not to this article ("Anarchism").

"Anarchy refers to a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.[1] The word originally meant leaderlessness, but Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer to anarchism, a new political philosophy which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations." It's the first thing you see when you click the link. Docktuh (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Claim that Atomwaffen is disbanded

The source[1] says "Mason's announcement, which just hit the Internet via an audio recording, comes as federal law enforcement, Congress and the U.S. State Department ramp up the pressure on neo-Nazi groups that take up arms, such as Atomwaffen. Because of the timing, though, some critics believe that the move is designed to give members breathing room rather than actually end their militant activities." Doug Weller talk 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And is quoted by the ADL.[2] Doug Weller talk 16:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): East Indiez (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wcline11 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Christian Identity category

I removed the recent categorization of Christian Identity. The article currently makes zero mention of CI, and even if it did, it would need to be a defining characteristic. There's no indication that's the case and of the associations in the article, the only one that comes close is Metzger, and that would be marginal. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)