Talk:National-anarchism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

NOTE: Redacted per WP:NPA. Ottre 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Let us know when you come to terms with the fact that you're a fascist.--71.236.171.103 (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Calls for Deleting

Since the last call for deletion was in 2007 I am removing the call for deletion. Since wikipedia requires "Only uncontroversial articles may be deleted using proposed deletion." And since this article IS controversial because certain people don't like National Anarchism you have no mandate to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.150.21 (talk)

The AfD template you removed was not from 2007 it was placed 3 hours and 5 minutes before you deleted it; it was also clearly marked do not delete. Anyone may nominate an article for deletion at any time and you are welcome to comment at the relevant discussion page, which is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National-Anarchism#National-Anarchism. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance

I have changed the importance level to "unknown". Of course I appreciate that the hardened editors of the anarchism taskforce have castigated the article as being of low-importance, but the actions of the Duginists in Australia have yet to be fully assessed.Harrypotter (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Comrade Dugin seems an interesting chap indeed. Low-importance qua wiki simply means that familiarity with the topic is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of anarchism...few readers outside students of anarchism may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Seemed apt to this hardened (ha!) anarcho-taskforcian but no worries regarding the change. Skomorokh 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sources

This article has no sources that pass muster with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE. All of the cited sources are personal websites, Yahoo groups, internet forums, partisan political screeds, unattributed essays, and white-power websites. This is just not acceptable for an article. If no reliable sources can be found for this, it must go to AfD. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What you say is not correct. Clearly as a someone who defends the "honor" of their confederate ancestors, you have a peculiar viewpoint to defend. "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject." is what we find under WP:RS. Fortunately National-Anarchism like other racist doctrines is quite marginal, nevertheless for wikipedia to be a truly encyclopaedic it must touch on topics and ideologies which most people find highly offensive. We should not be driven off-course simply because someone with an agenda wants to wipe this page out.Harrypotter (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice, a straw man argument. Sorry, my only agenda here is article improvement. While you are correct that self-published and extremist sources are to be used only for information about their own claims and beliefs, that in no way means that an article can be based solely on self-published and extremist sources, as is the case with this article. This article fails the notability requirements for groups and the sourcing is unacceptable. I don't think anyone is here to "wipe this page out" but the policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and notability require non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources; this article fails to demonstrate the existence of such coverage. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, L0b0t, simply repeating your argument doesn't change the fact that it's basically incorrect. The Macklin article was published in a peer reviewed academic publication. Transcending the Beyond appeared on the Pravda website; Trojan Horse, although in my personal view fallacious and sectarian, is perfectly valid as an indication of mainstrean anarchist views of N-A. Belzub (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: this was pointed out to L0b0t in my most recent edit. Syndication on extremist websites does not ipso facto mean the authors (Hunt and Macklin) have not received independent coverage (as reliable sources), it should be seen as a pretext of an abstract philosophical movement organising/moving away from an internet presence in response to that independent coverage. Right? Ottre (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough your argument holds as little water as a straw bucket. Not all the sources have such a nature. E.g. Graham Macklin is Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow at the University of Teeside. When you fail to spend even a small amount of effort testing the validity of your propositions, you must forgive those of us who allow our impatience to manifest itself as a questioning of your motivesHarrypotter (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that there is one reliable source in the entire article, but, that source is only available through an unreliable source's hosting? Sorry, that is not good enough. I am forced to repeat my argument because it was never addressed in the first place, just brushed away with a non-germane fallacious argument and a personal attack. What part of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE is causing you lot so much trouble? Let's just have an RfC and get some more eyes on this. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful if you spent more time in clarifying what you are saying rather than misrepresenting what others are saying. That will save you having to repeat your argument to your straw man. This is helpful advice, not a personal attack, and you seem to be spurning the apology I proffered above. If you could find a moment to check Graham Macklin, the source I referred to, you can see that the article in question was published in Patterns of Prejudice. Thus your contention that it "is only available through an unreliable source's hosting" is at odds with the evidence. If you also look at the range of material quoted, you will note that it comes from a diverse range of sources: from that fierce critic of anarchism, Stewart Home, to Green Anarchy, Anti-fa and Weekly Worker, as well as far right sources whether National Anarchist or more traditional fascists like American Revolutionary Vanguard. It is not matters concerning WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE that are causing a problem so much as the gap between your comments and the observable world in which we live. I feel that you might do well to focus on this credibility gap before inviting others to review the matter.Harrypotter (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Harrypotter. I don't agree with lobot. 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)218.186.12.10 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are NA websites being deleted on the links section??

I've added several sites and they keep on being deleted. They espouse National Anarchism and some asshat on here keeps deleting them, can you explain why you are doing so? Rjuner (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Discuss the issue here with me now or I will advocate for the page to be protected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROTECT

Thanks,Rjuner (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out in my first revert, foreign-language websites are not useful to readers of the encyclopedia. Because two of the three remaining links you inserted appear to be for a subsidiary website and the other has been spammed on previous occasions, most recently in this edit, your change to the article is disputed for failing the policy on external links. As there has been no attempt to gain consensus for it, the edit warring on your part is taken as a violation of the clauses to avoid a conflict of interest. Ottre (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

German "Anarchist Nationalists"

As there's no hard evidence as yet that the German nationalists mentioned in the Der Spiegel article are actually National Anarchists, I'm taking it out. The nationalist movement in Germany has been adopting anarchist imagery and tactics for a while now, and while this is an interesting development, it does not necessarily make them N-As; they seem to be more closely tied to the statist NPD than to the German National Anarchist movement. I think mention of this belongs in the Anarchism and nationalism article if anywhere, as here it only serves to cloud the issue. Belzub (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it existed before but this is the German wikipedia article about these peope: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonome_Nationalisten

You're right, it's something distinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.210.93 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Injudicious Reverts

It seems that certain editors have taken to reverting other contributors changes without discussing the matter here upon the talk page. It is not sufficient merely to remove someone else's work with the comment POV or whatever. Clearly the contribution of fascism to National-Anarchism is significant and should be mentioned in the very beginning. Also as there are a variety of outlooks to whom humanity is one big family, and thus any real separatism would involve the involuntary supression of these outlooks. The readiness of N-As to use involuntary means is apparent from the bay Area video of their recent sex-pol video. Of course my wording may have been clumsy, and the help - particularly from those with a more intimate knowledge of fascism and the use of involuntary means would be much appreciated in helping to ensure this page properly reflects N-A as it is practised, whatever face its ideologues might care to mask themselves when facing the public.Harrypotter (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not discussing the matter here first - I honestly thought you were just taking the piss again, because in all seriousness Harrypotter, you're a clever chap, a good editor, and you should know better. As N-As have been quite strenuous in explaining, their separatism is voluntary - whether you regard humanity as one big family or not (albeit a pretty dysfunctional one), we voluntarily associate with the people we choose. When I choose to hang out with my English, American, Chinese, Irish, or Indian friends, I'm not involuntarily suppressing those who do not wish to associate with them or, indeed, myself, and I struggle to think how exactly you would come to that conclusion in relation to N-A. The BANA protest was something of a controversy in N-A circles, and attracted a huge amount of criticism from other N-As due to its questionable compatibility with N-A principles, so I wouldn't use it as a good example of N-As 'involuntarily suppressing' anything or anyone (especially since they were staging a peaceful protest a distance away from the event that sparked it).

Now, regarding the POV nature of your edits; I agree there is a lineage that can be traced from fascism down to N-A, but that's quite adequately explained by its roots in Third Positionism. There is really no need to include the word "fascist" at the very beginning of the article, especially since none of the founders of N-A have ever been truly fascist, to the best of my knowledge; Southgate only joined the NF after its repudiation of fascism, and has stated his lifelong distaste for fascism on many separate occasions. Alright, so to those on the left he might still be "a fascist", but multiplicity of perspectives is inevitable. As Gnostrat has pointed out, there's no need to emphasise left-wing views of N-A any more than there is to emphasise libertarian views of socialism. As for 'utilising anarchism', well, that's a bit POV too, I'm afraid. While there are a few in N-A whose anarchism does seem a bit superficial, they certainly aren't all like that, and Troy is one of the most committed anarchists I've ever encountered. If you hold a different view, then c'est la vie; but please don't disrupt the neutrality of this article with it, OK? Belzub (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Clearly the introduction of the word voluntary is inappropriate, as you have so effectively argued. Obviously you or anyone else socialising with their mates is something quite different from advocating racial separatism,and when you imagine them to be the same, then no doubt you will have all sorts of issues to struggle with. It is clearly best to leave the word voluntary out - it is not as if anyone has been advocating the introduction of the term involuntary, which could well prove contentious. I shall return to the other issues later on.Harrypotter (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a difference - if I choose to form a community with a group of like-minded people, then it is our voluntary decision who else we allow within that community. I think the word voluntary is entirely appropriate, and I'd like to hear your rationale for removing it. I'm glad we've come to an understanding on the issue of fascism, though. Belzub (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

• If you are deciding who you allow within your "community", it may well appear to be voluntary from your point of view. From the point of view of those you are excluding it is involuntary, otherwise they would be free to barge in whenever they chose. This is a bit like Oswald Moseley's view on banning mixed marriages (I can't remember the name of the book I read it in, I only looked at it in the bookshop, but perhaps you are familiar with the reference): that it was unnecessary as English people did not want to marry non-Europeans. He proved a bit wrong on that one, eh?
• "I shall return to the other issues later on." means that there are matters which I shall return to later on. I do not understand why you should imagine that we have reached agreement upon the issue of fascism!Harrypotter (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First point: Admittance into an institution of any sort is (generally speaking) voluntary. A pertinent example is a university, kibbutz, or ashram: acceptance into the community is dependent upon pre-defined rules of behavior. The Nationality of each respective communities in a N-A society (or a specific National Autonomous Zone) would have the same sort of guidelines. The objection to National Anarchism as not being a voluntary association based upon what is essentially a qualifying factor for community residence can hardly be made from the POV of someone whose presence is rejected. This is like blaming a free university for "involuntary" not accepting a student based on qualifying criteria. Just like your home has locks to it's doors the community must have the option of closing it's doors to unwanted residents if the people so choose. Rjuner —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC).

First point: From the opposite point of view, from the perspective of the community, how is it remotely 'voluntary' for someone whose values and lifestyles are dramatically different from those of the community to barge in and demand the right to live and work among the populace? At this point, we are getting away from Wikipedia and into ideas; since it's point of contention between us, we may as well leave it as is for now.

My apologies; when you get around to developing some kind of convincing reason to dragging fascism into this article, then we'll deal with it. Belzub (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you have touched upon one of the inherent problems of anarchism - one persons freedom is another persons oppression. I'll catch up on the other stuff later.Harrypotter (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Otter, why are you deleting links to National Anarchist websites? [[user:Rjuner|Rjuner| —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

L0b0t, your edits to the external links section are completely arbitrary and do not help in allowing an interested reader discover sites of interest to the NA phenomona. Just like the other editor who removes all the links these are unjudicious and do not respect the wikipedia policies. Please make a comment on this page before making any additional changes to the page and we can discuss this first. Thanks. [[user:Rjuner|Rjuner| —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

Arbitrary, perhaps, injudicious, absolutely not. Our policy on external links is quite clear, Wikipedia is not Google. Our articles, particularly the external links sections, are not here to provide a resource that could easily be found with a search engine. The vast majority of links in the EL section were unacceptable per WP:EL. The vast majority of cited sources in this article fall afoul of WP:RS as well but that's another issue. Also, please be aware of WP:OWN, nobody needs to ask for permission to edit this article, especially when the edits are to try to bring this article into compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should reinsert the Jeune Nation website? They are linked to by the National-Bolshevists and the National-Anarchists in Spain/Portugal. Ottre 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss contented changes here, rather than reverting

I have protected this article to give those involved in recent reversions a chance to discuss their positions without the potential disruption of edit warring.

I would like to ask all parties, if not familiar with it, to please read the essay on the bold-revert-discuss cycle. The essential point is that after reversion should come discussion, with a view to establishing consensus. Stating your reasoning in an edit summary, while informative and desirable in itself, is not generally a successful means of resolving content disputes. In other words, discussion should take place here.

If a discussion can't resolve the disputes behind the reversions, our dispute resolution guidelines may be of further help. Whatever happens, hopefully no one will need to revert any more edits. Thank you all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: SheffieldSteel, L0bots edits the page at will removing content, links, and facts that have been on this page for years. I'm extremely upset with him for vandalizing the page and merely citing a single EL policy for decimating the whole article and which is especially frustrating for people researching the NA subject. I wish to use Template:editprotected to include the EL to this page (which have been on the wikipedia page for years). Thank you! User:Rjuner

The problem as I see it is the Australian cell is easily the most militant, and yet there is really poor coverage of them. The other New Right group in Russia has had a specifically national-anarchist website and forum up since 2006, which predates them by almost a year, so we know they are not all the same people—Internet activists as described by Macklin—and there is a genuine following.

However, it is yet to be shown that Destiny magazine is actually an independent source, and that would provide multiple references required for verifiability. Because the guy who is being interviewed, Welf Herfuth, is also an editor or something with the Mathaba news agency, we have no proof of syndication. He could very well have written the article himself, as it apparently went to press unattributed.

Rjuner does not seem to understand that the official site is little more than a blog, and there is no reason to include it if the group has not attracted any real support nor media attention. Same applies to the American sites. Ottre 23:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In case my position above is not clear RE the "international" position and origins on-line: Most of the English websites and this should never have been deleted. Ottre 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Then there is a geeral consensus that at least some sites should be included on the page, yes? Irregardless of media attention or widespread support? User:Rjuner

No. I meant we should include links to the original, English websites, and maybe the yahoo mailing list. The PCN has been explicitly mentioned by an historian of the New Right, so should be listed in the See Also section (as in the current version of the article). Ottre 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the External links that I have been removing are already linked to as references in the article body. Therefore there is no need whatsoever to have them in an external links section especially as our policy on external links contraindicates doing so. There is also the issue that there is not a single reliable source in this article, every single source cited as reference in this articles is a blatant violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Let's not forget the ownership issues there are 2 editors here who seem to want no changes at all to "their" article. This behavior is unacceptable, as is characterizing the work of others as "vandalism", our policies regarding personal attacks and vandalism are quite clear and editors have been blocked for such attacks. L0b0t (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumptious. There are in fact anarchist trolls who regularly vandalise this article, so can't help sounding a little hostile. That's not a case for blocking at all.

Is there some problem with my request for page protection last year? It was obvious from reading blogs such as slackbastard what was going to happen to the article with superfluous tags, the further reading sections, etc which prevent any effort to expand the text. RE the result of the AfD, if you would try and help for once I'm sure we can find more recent international references—it's about time people start writing about the APEC protest. Ottre 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"there are 2 editors here who seem to want no changes at all to "their" article. This behavior is unacceptable," Actually I only see one person here doing that and that is you L0b0t, it is not a personal attack to say that all your edits do is remove content on the page while simultaneously never adding anything useful under the guidelines you mention. It's as though you feel personally responsible for making sure people do not understand the whole picture on the subject of National Anarchism and I find that against the spirit in which wikipedia was created for. Rjuner

Nice, yet again, more ad hominem attacks with no discussion of the many ways this article fails to meet our published editorial criteria. The external links section duplicates the references section, any duplicate links have to go. Many of the cited sources fail WP:RS and WP:V, all sources that do not pass muster with our policies must be deleted and all claims backed by those sources must be removed as well. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or keep material in an article to demonstrate that it comes from verifiable, reliable, sources otherwise the information is subject to removal at any time by any editor (this has been a core wiki principle for many years). As for our policy on personal attacks, it is also quite clear, you must assume good faith, I don't know anything about your little friends and their vandalizing plots on your blog or chatroom or whatever but going through the last 500 or so edits to this article (which covers every edit back to the article's creation in 2005) reveals very little vandalism and no blatant vandalism at all (certainly not enough to warrant article protection); the majority of edits since 2008 are, in fact, from the same two editors User:Rjuner and User:Ottre and most of those edits are to revert each other or revert anyone else who tries to edit this joke of an article. So as the editors most active on this article for the past year or two, I ask you to please thoroughly read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N and then explain here on the talk page why you think this article is not in violation of our policies and guidelines. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is clearly a twofold problem. My comments above RE where to draw the line in linking to poorly covered national groups and their otherwise notable development should be treated separately.

• The PCN link was originally removed twice by a SPA because it is ostensibly a "terrible completely irrelevant link". That is hardly the case, and it is not duplicated anywhere, yet you continued to revert with a deceptive edit summary.
• Now that I've looked at it more closely, can say the yahoo mailing list has historical bearing. A link to the Occidental Quarterly article covering it would be useful.
• A link to the Synthesis website is not overkill.

Secondly, I don't understand your view of what constitutes vandalism. The "history" of this article from its creation in 2005 to early 2008 has nothing to do with why the page protected; it has only become unstable since you started tag warring. How does the essay by Roger Griffin, who is not involved with the group in any way, not rule out the hoax tag? Furthermore, the slackbastard is one of the main writers for FightDemBack. It is not a childish concern that he keeps very close tabs on the National-Anarchists; you are far too quick to dismiss the semi-independent sources we do have. Ottre 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

There have been a few edits that have attempted to brand national anarchism as fascism. While I understand that some people may have strong emotional responses to certain aspects of national anarchism, if one were to look objectively at the both ideologies it can be seen that they significantly conflict with each other.

The most basic aspect of fascism that is widely acknowledged is its authoritarian nature. Fascism advocates for the creation of a single party state. It attempts to bring all people in the nation under their direct control.

National Anarchism is in direct opposition to authoritarian control and advocates the end of nation states. This fundamental difference alone excludes national anarchism from ever being accepted as fascism.

The word fascism can become almost meaningless when applied to people and organizations that someone doesn’t like regardless of their actual political beliefs. I hope we can keep this discussion from dissolving into this kind of atmosphere.

If someone can put together a legitimate argument based on fact that addresses this seemingly fundamental opposition in ideologies I would be happy to consider it. Until such time I believe that the article is best left in its original form with regards to the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I am somewhat puzzled by the tenor of these comments. Editor Tyson seems to have leapt to the conclusion that those of us who consider National-Anarchism fascist, do so because our reason has become unsettled by our "strong emotional responses". They may well feel that from their perspective the contrary view is so obvious that it can be assumed the basis for discussion, rather than something to be demonstrated by rational argument. There are very clear reasons why some people considered National-Anarchism to be simply another ideological shard of European Fascism. It is important that the wikipedia page reflect this. Clearly Editor Tysons regard your their views in this area as being very important, but perhaps their time would be better spent jotting their ides down on bits of paper and handing them out at shopping malls if they want them to gain a wider audience.Harrypotter (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I clearly outlined why national anarchism is incompatible with fascism. There has been no factual rebuttal to this outline. Editor Harrypotter said “There are very clear reasons why some people considered National-Anarchism to be simply another ideological shard of European Fascism”. If this is the case it would be proper to provide those “very clear reasons” here on the talk page. If it is as obvious as you claim then fascism should be included in the article.

As I have previously stated national anarchism explicitly condemns authoritarianism. As authoritarian control is a core tenant of fascism the two ideologies seem to explicitly conflict.

I have left the crypto-fascism reference alone so as to not start a revert war, however; I believe more discussion is needed. I would very much appreciate if someone could provide the reasons why they believe that national anarchism is a form of fascism as well as a rebuttal to the explicit conflict previously mentioned.--Tyson Tile (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Harrypotter, so why don't you explain to us the clear reasons why some people considered National-Anarchism to be simply another ideological shard of European Fascism when a scholar like Roger Griffin doesn't think so? --Loremaster (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you guys are saying that the ethnic separation National-Anarchism advocates is the same thing as fascist racism? I think I'll back up the aforementioned claim that classing National-Anarchism as another form of fascism is based on emotional responses rather than logical arguments. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. You should be directing your ocmments to Harrypotter. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Miscegenation"

I have removed the quotation marks around this word since it is not a word whose definition is in question; miscegenation means to mix races, something which the NA movement does appear to be against. The only reason I can imagine it being in quotations is because the author disagrees with it, making the quotation marks POV and therefore unacceptable. If someone can find evidence that NA has a specific definition for miscegenation, please feel free to revert my change. 216.37.139.88 (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Harmonisation

I have altered section 2 to make it compatible with the reference to fascism above. Thanks to Gnosrat for pointing this out.Harrypotter (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The source for that reference in the intro covers the "racial separatism" bit, not the "fascism" bit. The latter, unsourced claim was dropped into the sentence so that it looks like the same source covers that one, too. It doesn't. You can't harmonise the sourced statement in section 2 with the unsourced one in the intro to the advantage of the latter. I have retained part of your rewrite of section 2, which is at any rate precise, but the fact that Southgate objects to fascism doesn't supply the non sequitur that other N-As don't.

For the purpose of harmonising these statements it's also not relevant to know whether the disavowal is regarded by anybody as disingenuous. The Criticism section already tells us that much, but here it is the objective fact of disavowal which matters, and whether any N-As are actually arguing outright for an anarchist/fascist synthesis. I rather doubt it, but in any case we would need the references.

Along with your harmonising, you also summarily reverted my other three edits without even a semblance of addressing the reasoning which I gave in my edit summaries. I acknowledge your thanks, but I don't think you can be surprised that I have let my other changes stand. Gnostrat (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits, Evola and Yockey

Rjuner, I'm sure your edits were well-intentioned but a vital part of the intro was put into the footnotes. Also, I do think it matters to state that the recent founders (or if you prefer, revivers) of "national anarchism" were former Third Positionists, with the emphasis on the former. N-A in its present form was conceived as a break from a stagnant and reactionary movement that had failed to live up to its left-wing promise. I think it also matters to get a fair and rounded picture of the 'left-wing' opposition to N-A, including the incitement to violent confrontation.

Where I will agree with you is that you've rightly spotted and zapped some POV sections in the previous text: e.g., saying that N-A developed out of "an attempt" at reconciling things implied that the synthesis was unsuccessful. I've generally combed through, trying to combine the best points of your edit with the previous one, keeping your changes where I think they make for a more neutral article, and rephrasing some bits for greater clarity. Not looking for controversy...just a tidy article that begins, as it should, with a bolded name and a brief overview rather than a quoted extract to prove a point.

In the 'Views' section you've capitalised Identity. This could result in confusion with Christian Identity, which I'm sure was not the intention of the original author. Some N-As may espouse CI; others will have moved on from that, and still others certainly never advocated it to begin with.

This may be a good time to point out something I've become increasingly bothered by. The bit about N-A's roots in Evola and Yockey. In the very interview to which this statement is sourced, Southgate stresses that he's not that impressed by Yockey; moreover, that while he has a personal interest in Evola, it is not essential for National-Anarchists to be "Evolians". We ought to think about how to rephrase this. Gnostrat (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

G, there is a huge difference between CI and Identity. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/identitarianism is a concept prominent in European New Right circles with Alain_de_Benoist and Faye discussed at length by NAists on the now defunct yahoo group but continuing on the Tradition and Revolutions forum (which I know is not relevant to wikipedia policy, but it is well discussed in the public record).

Sure, that's what I thought you meant. Unfortunately, we don't yet have an Identitarianism article to link it to, so the average Wikipedia visitor isn't going to know that. They may have heard of the fairly high-profile "[Christian] Identity movement", though. So capitalising creates an ambiguity, unless you want to add in a short explanation of what you mean by Identity here... :) Gnostrat (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fact that antifa "advocates violence with National Anarchists" is not important to NA. Antifa has many groups they want to attack yet that fact is not mentioned on any other pages of enemies to antifa, so why the special emphasis on the NA page? Sure the NA have critics on the Left but they have just as many on the Right (including skinheads) and ignoring those criticisms is a poor representation of NA critics.Rjuner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

Fair point. We shouldn't forget about the skinheads! I'd be happy to see more material here on opposition from the Right. Previously, it's been deleted whenever sourced to 'unreliable' Far-Right discussion forums.

The Antifa source was originally cited in March 08 as a critique of N-A's racial-separatist stance. It's nothing of the kind, and I deleted it as irrelevant hate literature. Harrypotter then added the physical confrontation thing so that it could still be cited for something, and I agreed to leave it in as long as it wasn't used to source the separatism claim. It seems a fair statement of where Antifa is coming from, even if it's not particularly to their credit. But I won't miss it, either. If you have a revert war from anyone it'll be Harry. Gnostrat (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

more sources????

Does this page really need more sources? I think it has just enough of them, compared to other articles... --Have a nice day. Running 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Low importance

I have put the importance of this topic down to low, as it is little more than neo-fascist ginger-groups dressed up in anarcho-flummery.Harrypotter (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you downgrading the importance of this article. However, although I'm antifascist, I disagree with your assertion that National-Socialism is crypto-fascist. You can criticize them for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic but why insist that they are fascist? If a scholar like Roger Griffin takes their rhetoric at face value, why don't you? --Loremaster (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is that I am more swayed by Kevin Coogan as in his book Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International.Harrypotter (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And what does Coogan say specifically about National-Anarchism? --Loremaster (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote in a previous section, we have no sources to connect N-A with Yockey. The one that's used in this article actually quotes Southgate saying he doesn't find Yockey that inspiring. Probably this is another association that dates back to the late 90s when the NRF was temporarily allied with National-Bolshevik groups in the European Liberation Front (a name that was evidently borrowed from Yockey). Those ties were cut long ago, and it's well past time to take Yockey's name out of the article. Gnostrat (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not what Coogan specifically says about National Anarchism that sways me, but what he says about the post war development of fascism. The fact that Southgate says he does not find Yockey inspiring does not mean that Yockey has not had a significant influence upon him. As for Roger Griffin, as he includes Southgate in Fascism: Post War Fascisms, Volume 5 of Critical Concepts of political Science, I think that clear shows that he sees Southgates little operation as just another example of the fragmentation of post war fascism.Harrypotter (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that it's not Southgate's operation. Is there not a danger that we focus so much on Southgate that we define the whole current through him? If N-A has any single founder it's Hans Cany, and the concept wouldn't be worrying mainstream anarchists if it weren't proliferating. As sincere people commit to the cause, the question of Southgate's own sincerity will be increasingly less relevant. Yockey...well, political journeys are what they are. Yockey, like Third Positionists, leaves Southgate unimpressed now; influences wane (Benoist's is arguably more significant and lasting), the N-As have renounced Yockeyite organisation, and breaking with the Nazbols means that Yockey is not currently a major influence and is likely to be less so. Gnostrat (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

According to your logic, just because Marx had a significant influence on Mussolini's thinking and Mussolini himself was involved in Marxist-communist activism at a time, he remains a Marxist despite having become a leading proponent of fascism and and opponent of Marxist communism. That being said, the fragmentation of post-war fascism doesn't mean that all these fragments have remained fascist. Some obviously have and others obviously haven't as Griffin points out when he says that: The groupuscular right... is a constantly growing, mutating, protean counter-culture... segments of which [do] seem to be evolving towards a synthesis of neo-anarchism. Why should we refuse to acknowledge this fact since we can still condemn these people for sexism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia? --Loremaster (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mussolini's involvement in socialist politics was certainly important for his political evolution. However, when he attacked the socialists, both politically and physically that link was broken, just as we can regard the Bolsheviks as breaking the link with Social Democracy both political and through violence. Should these National Anarchists burn their boats with the other fascist shards, then you might have a point, otherwise I am not sure it does not go beyond hot air, and aside from the concerns that some other fascists have that Southgate is an establishment stooge, he could well be re-integrated into a new broader based fascist formation, even if we may consider the emergence of such a formation as unlikely.Harrypotter (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Southgate's English Nationalist circle burnt boats when they came out of 3P. Then they burnt their English Nationalist boats when they formed the NRF on a basis of repudiating the nation-state. They burnt their Yockeyite/ELF boats when they denounced Dugin's Nazbols, and they burnt their cadre-group boats when they wound up the NRF. Southgate even refuses to bind N-A ideology into his personal Evolian interests. The boat that they haven't burnt is the New Right/Nouvelle Droite boat, but that's a misnomer of a cultural think-tank which Benoist himself admits should have been called something different. How many burning boats do you need? Especially since the accusations (true or not) by Southgate's fascist opponents mark him as even less one of them. WP can't speculate about new fascist formations he "could" get involved in. Well, so could anybody...or not. Gnostrat (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing we say can convince you but, as long as you know that your opinion cannot be reflected in the article unless it is supported by reliable sources, we shouldn't have a problem. --Loremaster (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

precisely!Harrypotter (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading Spencer Sunshine's essay Rebranding Fascism: National-Anarchists, you might have a point... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That essay is nothing new. It has been referenced here for ages, but just what does it establish? At most (and ignoring labelling and value judgments), that there are people who used to be non-anarchists advocating white separatism and who are now anarchists advocating white separatism. Which tells us nothing that we don't already know. Around the turn of the millennium, N-A was pragmatically but temporarily allied with groups like American Front in spite of widening ideological differences. Now they're not. End of story.

This isn't the place for a full analysis (I've supplied a very partial one in a later section). There's a lot of argument from guilt by association, Southgate citations ripped out of context, and unsourced assertions like "his ultimate goal, shared with the European New Right, is to create a new form of fascism" (Southgate doesn't say that and neither does the ENR. Spencer Sunshine said it.) Then, ideas like Third World liberation and ethnically-based socialism are traced to groups supposed to be fascist. Although true, these same criteria would identify most of the left as fascist. Ethnically-based socialism and ethnically-based national liberation have for a long time suited the left when it's a question of non-European indigenist movements. Must ideas derived through fascist movements remain fascist even if they were taken from the left in the first place? Can we never say that ideas have been liberated or redeemed from their former context? At what point do persisting associations exclude this? These are relevant questions which the essay doesn't address. It simply takes a historical pedigree plus the use of racial concepts as damning in themselves.

If we confine ourselves to statements of fact, however, the Public Eye article shows that Southgate and his allies follow Evola and Benoist in rejecting a simplistic equation of ethnicity with biological race. Also, that N-A's relationship with white separatists is "transformative": making over white separatists into anarchists, retaining elements of white separatism yet just as sincerely rejecting the nation-state. Then what you have is a hybrid, something genuinely new and sui generis as Southgate calls it, and it's questionable logic when they are pigeonholed as fascists by emphasising a connection (already at several removes) through one of the parent traditions to the exclusion of the other. The essay suggests that the relative strength of the two influences may vary with locality, particularly in North America where some former fellow-travellers like Bill White and Joe Hadenuff have turned away from the leftist elements in N-A towards a rightist white nationalism, but it is not evident that fickle individual exponents translate into an intrinsic insincerity of the ideology.

I think the essay is quite informative in places and can be used with all due caution, but it should be cited for its statements of fact and not for its arbitrary labels and unsubstantiated opinions. Gnostrat (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See my comments in the National Anarchism in the Real World section below. --Loremaster (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

NA emblem

The purple star of sovereignty, one of many proposals for a contemporary National-Anarchism emblem.

I've temporarily removed the “Purple Star of Sovereignty” in the lead section of the article because I think that location gives it undue weight, especially since the use of the reb/black star with a celtic cross (as such as the one on the website of the Bay Area National Anarchists) seems more widespread in national-anarchist circles. Thoughts? --Loremaster (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think BANA is exceptional. Southgate, I believe, thoroughly detests the use of the Celtic cross in connection with N-A. It's a Third Positionist symbol, therefore deprecated. I recall that Hans Cany's site is (or was) decorated with a Ukrainian N-A design of a burning Celtic cross bearing the words "adaptation, lies, blind hate, murderers" on its four arms, and a red bar slapped across it that reads, "NEVER AGAIN!" This would seem to sum up a widespread N-A view of this symbol and its associations. BANA, apparently, is a bit off-message (in the same way that it doesn't seem to have picked up that other National-Anarchists prefer to hyphenate the name). But then, variation is inevitable since N-A doesn't aspire to be monolithic.

The Terra Firma and Rosenoire/Synthesis websites both carry the purple star. Michael Lujan designed it specifically for Southgate, and Lujan's site calls it "the National Anarchist star" which makes it kind of official. When I created the image, I approached Lujan via Southgate over copyright. I was quite satisfied that both of them regarded this as 'the' symbol. Which of course wouldn't prevent a localised N-A group from designing its own. Gnostrat (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll restore the image then. --Loremaster (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

National Anarchism in the Real World

This article should be clarified a lot. National Anarchism, as it exists in the world today, especially in California (such as the Bay Area National Anarchists), exists as a new forum for white nationalists to propagate their ideas of racial separatism and other fascist ideas, while being draped in the black coat-tails of the present Anarchist movement. They are entirely separate from anything resembling anarchism, and have no shared history. Anarchism is a movement to unite primarily following class lines in and us vs them fashion towards the collective liberation of our lives. National Anarchism is a veiled attempt to spread racism. Numerous articles are found online in support of this. Anarchist News, a highly respected anarchist news service, has published several: The SPLC on National Anarchism, Rebranding Fascism: National Anarchists. Infoshop.org, the most popular anarchist hub on the web, lists National Anarchism along with Anarcho-Capitalism among fakes calling themselves "anarchists", and Green Anarchy Magazine, one of the longest-running, most widely-distributed and highly-respected anarchist theory journals, decries National Anarchists in National Anarchism - Trojan Horse for White Nationalism. Even in anarchist online forums full of kids who aren't active in the struggle there are attempts at limiting the growth of the National Anarchists: [2] [3].

In short, it should be clearly stated all over this article that National Anarchism has absolutely no relation to Anarchism in any way, shape or form. I'm no longer active on Wikipedia, as it is far too time-consuming for the effort it takes, but this article is ridiculous.VertetNoir (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The position you've articulated is a point of view. The point of view of the anarchist mainstream, perhaps, but the article can't be written from that point of view. Not one of the articles you've listed is neutral. The Spencer Sunshine piece in particular is filled with spurious and logically fallacious if not downright dishonest arguments aimed at "proving" that N-As remain fascists. To note just three: (1) Resorting to Roger Griffin's definition of fascism as "palingenetic ultranationalism", whilst ignoring Graham Macklin's qualification that N-A only fulfills half the definition. (2) Comparing Southgate's advocacy of decentralisation and the "right to difference" (as if those were foreign to anarchism!) with "contemporary European fascists such as Alain de Benoist" even though one of Sunshine's own sources, Chip Berlet, accepts that there are legitimate scholarly disagreements about pigeonholing Benoist as a fascist in the first place. (3) Dragging Third Position back into the picture via "residual" elements like N-A support for Third World national-liberation movements. Why can we not simply accept resemblances as points of agreement which initially drew people like Southgate to 3P, and do not outweigh the points of disagreement which contrariwise drove them to break with 3P? You could say that Karl Marx had residual elements of Adam Smith.

I could go on. As for the SPLC article, even the Anarchist News site where it appears is full of posts complaining that the ADL and SPLC are "bat shit crazy" with a consistent record of painting anarchists as nazis, and posts defending "leaderless resistance" (attributed by these articles to fascist influence) as an authentically anarchist strategy to begin with. The infoshop page straightaway puts N-As in with 3P and then merely asserts, without proof, that they "represent attempts by neo-nazis to pass themselves and their ideas off as compatible with anarchism". So, evidently they didn't read the websites they denounce and/or their information is as obsolete as their dead links! And the more mature of the online forums you linked is filled with posts from mainstream anarchists who roundly reject efforts to censor N-As. Not that we can use forums as sources anyhow.

Essays with an axe to grind are fair enough as long as this article (if it uses them) also makes clear that they represent an outside and hostile perspective that doesn't correspond to National-Anarchists' own self-perception and self-definition. I started from a hostile stance as well, but I revised my position in the light of the evidence, both the primary sources and third-party academic studies. Ideally this article should be built around the academic studies, but unfortunately there are far too few of those. We already do reference a number of critical sources including a couple of those which you listed, but my concern has been that the outsiders' opinion should not be "stamped all over the article" so that it overwhelms the facts which are reliably ascertained or reported.

When you say that National-Anarchists are separate from anarchism because there is "no shared history"...you know, people can read Proudhon, Bakunin or Landauer for themselves and come to their own conclusions, which seems a classically anarchic way for anarchism to spread. There is no need for anyone to have their interpretations informed or validated by contact with an organised anarchist movement, as though only the One True @ Church could confer an 'apostolic succession'. And if they find anarchism in unexpected predecessors like Jünger or Evola, well, mainstream anarchists have played that game too.

I don't see it as an issue if N-As are supporting white separatists. If they are any sort of anarchists they should be supporting separatists of all colours: white, black, First Nations/aboriginal... And N-As also acknowledge that people are entitled to live in racially mixed communities if that's what they want. It is opponents of separatism who have not produced a single convincing argument as to how it is libertarian to push people into living together when they don't want to. The quasi-Marxist monomania which sees class struggle as the be-all and end-all and which treats any competing identities (ethnic, racial etc) as diversionary -- that is not the anarchism which I grew up with in 70s Britain. That anarchism celebrated diversity and alternatives. I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a separatist community but I would defend anybody who does. What does it matter if people are racist, sexist or authoritarian, as long as they're doing it amongst themselves and not shoving their lifestyle down anybody's throat? Let a million flowers bloom! That includes racists, unless you want a conformist world with a uniform morality. Gnostrat (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Gnostrat said: Essays with an axe to grind are fair enough as long as this article (if it uses them) also makes clear that they represent an outside and hostile perspective that doesn't correspond to National-Anarchists' own self-perception and self-definition. [...] We already do reference a number of critical sources including a couple of those which you listed, but my concern has been that the outsiders' opinion should not be "stamped all over the article" so that it overwhelms the facts which are reliably ascertained or reported.

That's the problem. An individual or group's own self-perception and self-definition is by definition biased and therefore should never be accepted at face value. Furthermore, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view often gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. --Loremaster (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Far Right

I am not quite sure why this was removed, but I have provided a refrence.Harrypotter (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

National-Anarchism (NA) is syncretic political current. Syncretic politics involves taking political positions that attempt to reconcile seemingly opposed ideological systems, usually by combining some elements associated with the left with some associated with the right. It therefore doesn't make any sense to say that NA is a far-right syncretic political current.

Furthermore, you should know that a post on a fringe blog is not a reliable source. --Loremaster (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this gets over the problem. Of course the NA's are far-right, in fact this sort of syncretism has been a feature of much of the far-right for donkeys years!Harrypotter (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should move the accusation that NA is far-right a new paragraph at the end of the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If I say the far-right nature of National anarchism is as plain as the nose on your face, this is not an accusation, but a comment. It does not suggest that the nose on your face is ugly (though it may well be) but that it is something unhidden and clear for all to see.Harrypotter (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the critical paragraph I added to the Lead is far more effective in conveying the point that you are trying to get across. Don't you agree? --Loremaster (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Since January 2009, this article has been tagged as needing references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Has this problem been resolved? --LM (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)