Calling it Quits 1-30-2010

From BANA - by Andrew Yeoman

There comes a time in the career of every activist when they want to give up. Luckily I was somewhat prepared for these feelings of resignation from my experiences with activists in the anti-globalization movement who devoted years to protests and organizing to see not one of their issues being successfully implemented. I knew what the dejected distant look of a persons eyes whose enthusiasm for life has been all but burned out. I felt that what we were trying to do was going to be just as useless as the anti-globalization movement. At most it would be a letting out of steam of peoples conscious, aware but hopeful that one day a critical mass would care about these issues and change would happen.

That, essentially, we were casting pearls before swine and if our truths had no one capable of actively supporting us then damn it all to hell.

Of the preciously finite amount of time we have on life it would seem far more rewarding and better spent pursuing baser interests. Besides, who would like to have the investment in time, effort, energy, money, sacrifice, the personal risk simply far outweigh any perceived benefit from continuing to stay active? Our tasks are seemingly so gargantuan as to be beyond the reach of any small group of people. The rational mind can justify any number of more rewarding pursuits. To making money, hobbies, or relationships that although transient, seem to satisfy human needs more then an impossible mission of changing the status quo. I recently went through such a test. Leading members of BANA and I were so dismayed by recent developments we seriously considered formally dissolving BANA.

We were mortified to see three hard years of lessons learned, strategies, and tactics used by BANA and other groups completely ignored by our target demographic for opportunistic forays. Long time readers will know the key principles that have motivated us to taking not a new approach to politics but in some ways more profound one. For example, instead of abandoning traditional community outreach programs like helping the homeless or fighting diseases we embraced these as our own. Instead of abandoning street protests to groups who hold no esteem for our people we reclaimed the streets of our forefathers. In 2008 we saw the massive and wasteful efforts of radical conservatives and liberals on Ron Paul and Green party candidates with no chance at all to make a challenge to the system but instead reaffirm it's legitimacy.

This was the mental state in which I languished. Demoralized at the prospects of failure. Heartbroken at abandoning the trust our people have given BANA to represent them. This crisis was not such a rational mental one following the apathy of our tribes future but a spiritual one haunting the fate our people are unconsciously choosing to fulfill. I think it is possible to feel the mortality for a people in the agony of dissolution. And I feel that every day upon awakening and being unable to avoid the stark ugly reality of what the world around us looks like today.

If not consciously, I had morally decided to call it quits. Perhaps I thought the record of BANA had done would be an inspiration to others at a later date. That leaders and activists more capable then what we were able to accomplish would somehow learn from our successes and our failures and translate that into a real victory. Perhaps our efforts wouldn't be as transient and meaningless as they appeared to have been,

I wrote my mentor, Welf Herfurth on my feelings: "I am depressed that most people care more about people like ... or the built to fail ... then what we have been doing. I know this because if they did care they would be talking about us and not snake oil salesmen of these other groups. Almost all the lessons that we have been promoting and other people have discussed are not being used by other people. Like the Christians say we are basically "casting pearls before swine... After much consideration I believe I can no longer prop up BANA to be something that it is not and will I will be consulting with P about formally dissolving the organization. It is my hope that others take notice of this and it inspires to take off where we stopped. I would rather see BANA end on a high note then continue the downward cycle of death it has been in for quite sometime. Although we continue to gain positive exposure, the lack of any tangible support from the public or our supporters has led me to believe that tribalism must grow organically, I am not good enough of a leader to make it happen, and that the culture of our people makes realizing National Anarchism, in any real tangible way, an impossibility given the resources that we have. I do not have the inclination to help a race that does not care about itself and I do not care to lead a tribe that does not care about it's existence. Had the people that supported us behaved differently there would be no reason to call it quits. I no longer desire to be Andrew Yeoman and will most likely be retiring from any further political activity. I have done everything that could be done,"

After some time I received a reply. "Let me first make it very clear that, if this is your decision, I support you 100% and you will not get any grief from me. Your decision is your decision and one has to do what is the best for one personal. I will not come along and tell you what most 'right-wingers' would tell you like that you have the duty to your people to continue or that you are selfish and give up to easy. I was told these things, mostly by people who couldn't get their bum from behind the PC or from the comfort of their couch. You know that it is much easier to push other people then yourself. And if you consider that people like you and me don't really have the 'Everybody wants to be the leader syndrome and we just do things because they have to be done without expecting any laurels or glory it makes it hard to see these PC commandos criticizing you.

Can I say that I would be disappointed - yes I think I can as I saw your group as the spearhead of the worldwide NA movement that made the most inroads into the morbid radical politic scene, might it be 'left' or 'right'. What you have achieved in the last two years is nothing more then spectacular and, if I may say so, you rattled the political cage of a lot of people.

You started as a one man band in a garage two years ago and now you have one of the most active and sizable groups in the US.

And that is rather impressive and made me proud considering that I had a little bit to do with that.

But this is not about me; it is about you and your dissolution about how things are going right now. I can understand how you feel when you organise an event and only half the people who promised to show up show up. And there is nothing more frustrating then having to see that all your efforts and work is getting unrewarded while piss heads and scum is getting all the financial support and help they need. Or even worst when people tell you they don't have a cent for the cause, but enough to get drunk every night.

What must be the most frustrating thing are the people in our tribe that couldn't care less, and are often the most vocal opponents, about what we do. And you are right in asking yourself the question if all the work and efforts we are pouring into the struggle is worth it if the masses don't give a shit. On the other hand, can you blame them? Centuries of brain washing, the power of the media, the peer pressure of being good little consumers and materialists have to leave a mark on society and its people. And that is what we are against; not so much the people but the system. The people are the symptoms, the system is the source. And to fight the source is an incredible struggle.

Andy, you are doing this fight now since two years and I can complete understand that you are worn out and had enough. I can read between the lines about your disappointment and frustrations. But what did you expect? That thousands of people will flock around your idea in an instant (and lets be clear about it that two years might seem like a long time, but in reality it is nothing) and start considering themselves as a tribal member?

From my experience, and I am in the game now since nearly 30 years, it takes a long time as well as some sociological luck, to establish a successful group and be able to give the right impulses to the community. Look at the Hippie movement in the 60's and 70's. They came and established themselves for a while in a certain life style, but physically not longer then 10 years, but their legacy lives on in the liberal democratic system we have now in the western world. Governments are run by neo-cons, who were in their youth the dope smoking hippies that realised later in life that their economic platform is far removed from reality and so they mixed their social believes with economic capitalism.

So what I try to say is that political change in a materialistic and egoistic world is a painful and long road. And if you don't have the support of people and the manpower to help you in your projects, then it is an even harder struggle.

But considering the short time you have been doing this, the amount of changes you achieved are very considerable. The lefties world wide see you as a source of concern and fight you with tooth and nail; they rightly believe that your approach to the political struggle is a danger to them and their dogmatic stands. Look what they wrote about you and how they attack you. That shows that they are intimidated by what you are doing. Remember the old anarchist we meet at the coffee shop last time I was in San Fran? Man that was gold what he said. And he meant it as well."

I am naturally an introverted person. Speaking in public, being filmed on camera, addressing groups of people, all these things do not come easy for me. But reflecting on sincere and emotionally meaningful ideas does. I reflected on my doubt. I analyzed my insecurities. I weighed the folly of continuing with politics, my feelings, and what the choice my actions would have on the future of my life. On the future of my tribe. On the future of my race. I took a deep breath and replied.

I'm not quitting. Not now. Not ever.

So. Good.

So. Good.

Finally, a happy ending!

Finally, a happy ending!

I take that back. Nothing in

I take that back. Nothing in this letter said this guy was some type of racial segregationist and I had never heard of him before, plus seeing as this is "Anarchist news dot org" I assumed it was on the level. My Mistake.

I think it's half anarchist

I think it's half anarchist news, half stormfront...

National Anarchism sucks,

National Anarchism sucks, and I hope Yeoman and his ilk fall down a flight of stairs.

so, you're not really

so, you're not really quitting?

that's too bad.

did you at least dissolve bana?

This blows... I mean, it's

This blows... I mean, it's great that people are all like "fuck government and capitalism sucks", but this dude's a racist. He can insist that he isn't, or that he's just into "white pride" (whatever the fuck that means), but that shit doesn't stand up here in Calgary, nor should it anywhere.

You live on NATIVE LAND, you stupid fuck. You can either choose to accept this, and fight the social war from an anti-colonial perspective, or you can take your fake white "tribalism" and get the fuck out.

... Of course, there's always the third option of coming to visit us in the northern prairies so we can let you know exactly how we feel about racists up here.

Fuck National Anarchism.

Insurrection in 2010. Fuck the Olympics.

--Johnny Omen

Why the fuck is this BANA

Why the fuck is this BANA bullshit on anarchist news.
I'm all about the including diverse perspectives and shit but does that really include outright racists? Seriously?

I can almost of see how

I can almost of see how someone in Europe might think AN makes sense, but on native land (see below) and in the ethnic melting pot of North America? Native nations make sense, and stateless European nations might make sense (maybe) but white nationalism and black nationalism, etc, etc don't make any damn sense.

"You live on NATIVE

"You live on NATIVE LAND"

What Native Land is that. If you're speaking of Native American's, they aren't anymore Native then anyone else. Their ancestors, like yours and mine, came from somewhere else and migrated to the America's.

Your anonymous comment is

Your anonymous comment is amazingly stupid, and here's why:
When the folks who came to be called "Native Americans" arrived in this hemisphere there were no other humans living here. They were the first human inhabitants of the area, and so can be called native without any contradiction or challenge.

When everyone else came here (the Chinese, the Norse, the Spaniards, etc) they displaced, dispossessed, raped, enslaved, murdered, and otherwise maltreated the natives. That's the difference you asshole.
=Mister Grumpy

Except your reasoning shows

Except your reasoning shows your astute stupidity. You assume when those people we refer to as Native American, came to the America's that there were no other indigenous people already there. In fact archaeological evidence would dispute that. The so called, Native Americans, you refer to simply wiped out and assimilated those indigenous people that were here before them. Just like the europeans that followed them, they enslaved, killed, raped and pillaged those indigenous peoples that were here before them. Simply being first doesn't make you Native, native is where you are born. Henceforth, anyone born in the America's are native to America.

Have a good day Mister Grumpy and take your head our of your ass.

You'll have to do a little

You'll have to do a little better than that.

Since you are anonymous I cannot take what you say seriously; you have provided no relevant background information concerning your presumed vast knowledge and study of North, Central, and South American prehistory.

Do you or do you not believe the Clovis First hypothesis? Do you or do you not believe the Bering land bridge hypothesis? If not, why not?

What "archeological evidence" are you (not) using that provides air-tight facts that point to those called Native Americans not being the first humans to inhabit this hemisphere? Where are your sources? Citations? Anything?

If you believe that there were human inhabitants of the Americas prior to the arrival of those who are called Native Americans, did they come from somewhere else too? If so, where? Atlantis? Do you believe in the racist bullshit about independent origins? Do all contemporary humans descend from the first humans who appeared in Africa or did humans spring forth in three or four different locations within several generations?

The challenge has been issued. Let's see what you can do.
=Mister Grumpy

Ok, so lemme first say that

Ok, so lemme first say that I'm fully behind the anti-colonial shit, and fuck this guy's ignorance for trying to dispute it. That said:

The idea of indigenous is pretty lame, and doesn't work really well even in the Americas. As is true anywhere, there were likely many waves of migration from diverse places (such as Bering migrations, such as across the north atlantic, or even across the south pacific) bringing a multitude of peoples together at different times. The diversity of both culture (both present and historical) and DNA in the americas is evidence of this. The linking of the Solutrean points from France and Clovis (among other) points in the Americas, in addition to well-preserved bodies like Kennewick Man, and unique genetic bastions (such as the recently extinct population in Tierra del Fuego) point strongly towards multiple migrations over a sustained period of time.

Anyway, all of this stuff is pretty silly. It doesn't matter who was here first, ask most Indians. It matters that we come together against our common enemy and get free.

Umm, no. Everyone originated

Umm, no. Everyone originated in Africa. There were different waves of migration to the Americas but no humans evolved out of other hominids here.

True.Also migrations from

True.Also migrations from the terminations of the SE Asia landmass preceding Chinese civilisation,the book " Ancient Voyages of the Pacific ", is a history of one of the most haphazard and diverse migrations known on earth.

that book re: the Chinese

that book re: the Chinese 'discovery' of America has been largely debunked
good job, though

'When the folks who came to be called "Native Americans" arrived in this hemisphere there were no other humans living here.'

That's true but to treat all of those people as though they were a cohesive unit or of a singular culture is absolutely absurd. Native American tribes warred regularly, westerners didn't need to teach the comanches and apaches how to scalp or raid, those things were part of their culture. Furthermore, many of the groups who have claimed to be in their specific tribal locations since the dawn of creation actually often drove out other pre-existing groups to get there. Additionally, shit, peoples like the Aztec (Mexica) ran fucking slave empires and it wasn't for virulent disease and the willingness of people who the Aztecs oppressed to HELP Spaniards the conquest of South America would never have occurred. Am I justifying white supremacy/slavery/etc? HELL no. However, having this ahistorical, falsified view of Native Americans as some holistic group is complete bullshit

Actually, that part about

Actually, that part about scalping is probably not true. By the time white people met the Comanche and Apache, traces of white practices had already spread throughout the Americas. Scalping is a very good example of this, quite possibly being introduced by either French or Gaelic traders.

And the Chinese "discovery" is definitely still in debate in most circles.

"And the Chinese "discovery"

"And the Chinese "discovery" is definitely still in debate in most circles."

Not mention that we know for sure Vikings set up a community in North America about 500 years before Columbus.

Mister Grumpy states "They

Mister Grumpy states "They were the first human inhabitants of the area, and so can be called native without any contradiction or challenge"

Except Mr. Gumpy is making up his own definition of what the word Native implies. Here is the definition accepted by scholary institutions of learning Mr. Grumpy:

Native: implies birth or origin in a place or region and may suggest compatability with it.

Now since North and South America are recognized as having been the last land masses to experience migration, some 16,000 years ago. Anyone who is born in a locale is Native to that locale. It makes no difference whether they arrived a thousand years earlier or a hundred year, birth makes you Native to a specific locale.

I agree with the previous unknown poster, he/she/it is right and you're wrong.

I don't give a fuck whether

I don't give a fuck whether you think you know what happened over ten thousand years ago. My part of Alberta happens to be the home of Black Foot and Cree people. Regardless of who was here before them, this was their home and it was stolen through blood. Out here, the rich suburbs are protected by a racist police force.

This ain't shit that happened hundreds of years ago; This is the West and the genocide out here is still fresh; In fact, our model of reserves and exclusion is the model that South Africa was using during apartheid... except we never abolished our concentration camps.

Anyway, you're a racist fuck. You sound just like a fucking nazi, and I sincerely hope you get killed because of it.

Colonizers have been on the

Colonizers have been on the land for a scant few hundred years, tops. Native peoples have been here for thousands. Colonists have never lived a sustainable, respectful way upon the land, have always been killing it and the things that live upon it. Indigenous cultures throughout the world have always made the mistake of being generous to those that came to kill them and the land and treating them well and trying to coexist - until it was too late. Native people have very real connections to the land that colonists can't even fathom. They write them off as "superstitous" or similar BS. Much anthropology & archeaology is based on colonist assumptions & prejudices - very questionable to anyone that gives native people's accounts of themselves seriously.

This post is so full

This post is so full unjustified binary oppositions.

"Native people have very real connections to the land that colonists can't even fathom."

Native people have the same 5 senses as every other human being. The connection to the land come from living on the land and being intimately familiar with it. With time these connections can be established between any group of people and their land base.

So now republishing fascist

So now republishing fascist stuff is acceptable on this site? Fucking incredible.

read the tags dude. i guess

read the tags dude.

i guess whoever posted it thought it was funny wingnut shit

I read the tags, and I

I read the tags, and I suppose this piece was a bit humorous in a wingnut sort of way. But, more practically, I wish it wasn't presented here and I wish I hadn't wasted any time reading it. First of all... it's just drivel -- poorly written, self-pitying, empty drivel. Presenting such worthless tripe on this site without putting it into better context may confuse any random casual readers who are exploring anarchism for the first time and who, consequently, may not at all understand the ironic humor of this being posted here. My second reason for not wanting it presented here is related... I worry that casual readers may see this as some sort of an endorsement of BANA and like-minded groups.

I'm a regular reader of Anarchist News, I like a lot of the content, and I comment from time to time... but I would like to see a little more use of editorial discretion (in both the articles presented and in moderation of the completely off-topic & counterproductive comments [which stymie real debate and discussion]).

while i am responding to

while i am responding to you, don't take it too personally. this is my aggregate answer to all those who are bitching about this article being here.

i find it phenomenal that people complain about this stuff.
do you all need folks to pre-chew your food for you too?

how many times do you have to hear it before you understand it: publishing does not imply agreement.

if you wasted too much time on this piece, then that's sad for you, and perhaps you should get someone to vet every piece before you squander that precious 10 minutes. or maybe you can learn to skim. or check the tags before you read and don't read anything called wingnut. see how many options you have? isn't that terrific?!

as for completely off-topic and counterproductive comments, welcome to the internet. home of trollers and whiners, among others. so i guess i shouldn't be bitching you out either. feh.

To the last few

To the last few posters-

Based on past news items on related subjects, I don't think @News has posted this because they are sad to see BANA go, support Nationalist Anarchism, or are in any other way sympathizers with fascism. This news item is of interest to anarchists though, or I would hope it is, as it details the dissolution of an enemy - one that used "anarchist" terminology and theory to further its' racist agenda.

One reason this might be particularly pertinent to anarchists (especially those who live in the Bay Area) is that the demise of BANA might indicate that anarchists need to be wary of a "new" organization taking its' place. I highly doubt that Andrew Yeoman and his bigotted cohorts have given up on trying to further their white power agenda, more likely BANA was too widely known for what it was, and, as indicated in the communique, the resistance to it as such became too intense. The danger as I see it is that, if BANA goes the way of other white power groups that have dissolved over the years, Yeoman and other known faces will fall into the background as they are too easily identified. They will be involved, but it seems highly likely they will let some other people be the public image of the group, so as to better fly under the radar of those in the know.

I hope Anarchist News continues to post stories like this, as opposed to just ones that say the things that we as anarchists (whoever we are - it's not as if there is some homogenous, consensed upon definition) like and agree with. Stories that challenge us to think, or that keep us informed of our opponents movemements are important. Too much internal dialogue on internal dialogue creates a feedback loop.

--ingrate

Who cares? BANA is

Who cares? BANA is irrelevant except on the internet. Most people don't even know who or what the hell they are. Now that doesn't mean their organizing efforts shouldn't be fought against or destroyed...but republishing word for word their own statements on this site? I find this mind blowing.

You are wrong that the only

You are wrong that the only place BANA has been relevant in on the internet. They have been a presence (if only a tiny and almost always invisible one) in the Bay Area scene for the past two years. They have bragged about and claimed to have been specifically invited to last year's SF Anarchist Book Fair, and have presented themselves as legitimate anarchists to mainstream and alternative media. These parasites have been of serious concern to those of us who are local. Some of us have unfortunately encountered one or more of these clowns, and like other super wingnuts, they are an energy drain -- the actual anarchists who are able to articulate a decent criticism against the BANA "organic tribalism" line of white supremacy end up doing damage control instead of spending our limited time engaged in other, more positive, projects. So even if the racist fucks of BANA and their supporters have a numerically small outfit, their presence is distracting and damaging.

If we are serious about confronting and destroying these assholes, we need to know what they're up to. Reposting their stuff means that they are providing useful information for those of us who are committed to smashing racists who try to portray themselves as anarchists. You don't like it? Don't read it.
=Mister Grumpy

>> You are wrong that the

>> You are wrong that the only place BANA has been relevant in on the internet.

hammer time!!!

Vete y no vuelvas, racista!

Vete y no vuelvas, racista!

aww man now i can't head to

aww man now i can't head to dublin to get my car washed by racist punks

Andrew Yeoman is a filthy,

Andrew Yeoman is a filthy, disgusting, racist. He and the rest of BANA should dissolve . . . in sulphuric acid.

and you better belive we're

and you better belive we're not going to give up on stomping you out racist motherfucker!

I'm from Nashville. I've

I'm from Nashville. I've never heard of BANA. I read this and thought the writer was a peice of shit, but didn't know he was racist. Maybe a disclaimer in the beginning of the post would be nice. Like a background of BANA. I thought 'what is bana? I should look up this organization." @news has a lot of these post that are from perspectives not of anarchists, some just because the title uses the word anarchy. I think posters should clarify when something is taken from a racist organization or a economic mag.

I think the idea is that we

I think the idea is that we are all capable of doing a few seconds of research. This is the internet after all.

omfg. first response to you

omfg.
first response to you is right, but in this case, all you had to do was check the m-f-ing tags.

Eerily reminiscent of parts

Eerily reminiscent of parts of Nihilist Communism("why is it that others feel no interest for us?").

Rest in piss, BANA.

"yeoman"- your actions

"yeoman"-

your actions insult the honor of all true anarchists.
You are a scoundrel and a coward.
We demand satisfaction.
You have three options:
you may apologize and disappear,
ignore this challenge and forfeit your honor,
or name the place, time, weapon, and number of seconds.
Honor your ancestors and accept this challenge.
Or remain a little white mouse.

- Insurrectionary Hegelian Tong

We're not satisfied with him

We're not satisfied with him simply quitting. So call his ass up on his phone !

415.309.7863 ITZ VERIFIED!!!

Here's him attending a White Power event in Missouri:

INSERT INTO pmtext VALUES('3370', '571', 'Andrew Yeoman', 'Greetings', 'Hi Randy,\r\n\r\nThis is Andrew Yeoman writing from San Francisco. I still intend to make it to the Althing this Saturday and depart Sunday. Let me know if it would be okay to drive a rental car to the venue and what the final destination will be. I would like to talk to you or another event coordinator about final details, my phone number is 415.309.7863.\r\n\r\nThanks!\r\nAndrew', 'a:1:{s:2:\"cc\";a:1:{i:11;s:10:\"Aethelwulf\";}}', '0', '1251938069', '0', '1', '0', '0');

HAX THE PLANET!!

Maybe the group should be

Maybe the group should be re-named... Instead of BANA, Bay Area Nationalist Anarchists, it should be Bay Area Nationalist Anarchists Nazi Assholes... BANANA... btw, the captcha is "kilowatt insult".. how fitting

why bother arguing race with

why bother arguing race with racists?

I have thought for a while now that BANA exploits an obvious kink in the way anarchism can be envisioned. I'm not surprised at all, to say the least, that someone would finally make the absurd reduction of anarchism to a tribal seperatist philosophy. It is very possible to ask what sort of "voluntary free association" is not acceptable in an anarchist society. This started with the "anarcho-capitalists" and their exploitation of this tenant of anarchist philosophy, too. The basic problem is that people could quite voluntarily and freely, segregate themselves and be their own commune or whatever. So you get these cheesy thinkers that take this semantics of voluntary, free association out of context and apply it idealisticly to an exploitative or racist ideology.

I can't deny that at least if I can freely associate with my fellows for mutual aid, to form a commune, to live in a post-State and Capitalist society, then it is hard to say white pride morons wouldn't have the same potential freedom. Now, I have always realized that you don't wind up with Nationalism without some theory of "land rights" in favor of this or that nationality: Isreali, White, Whatever Nation of People. So you eventually get these cults of nationalists, tribalists, whatever that have a geo-politics of land rights, who believe their race or nationality ought to freely associate on their "sacred" lands, and somehow forget that this makes their ideology supremecist whether guided by anarchist free association, communist proletarian dictatorship, the confederate army, border policy in democratic States, or capitalist private propery rights.

If a bunch of "white" folk organize as a commune for whites only, based on free federation and without the State or Capitalist relations... they're not anarchists: just Nationalists without a developed politic of how they will foster the colony of ubsersmench or whatever. This is going to come up again and again for anarchists though (as it has for a long time when Nationalists try to get anarchist support), until we better formulate the relationship of our principals. Just like Libertarian Capitalists and other Nationalists around the globe have misused parts of anarchist theory, the White Nationalists (or whatever) need to be thoroughly corrected on the implications of Nationalism.

-Squee

in other words - there are a

in other words - there are a lot of assholes and idiots, and there will probably be some form of identity-affirming theories of History that create the urge to organize on principals of race, culture, or whatnot in a seperatist (or, isolationist) manner. But all ya gotta say is that you can't oppose the Nation-State and accept it's results on Identity or History. Races have been created by States for a long time, for obvious political reasons. The genetic roots of these State created heritages are meaningless. A National identity is itself part of States and their social effects. But if you reject the principal of Nation-State - even of States - those identities don't just disappear and globally, there are plenty of different Nationalisms as a result. So the principal of Nationalism is no less antithetical to Libertarian philosophies (anti-State philosophies) than the State or States themselves. It simply does not matter what anthropological, ethnological, or genetic data is used to claim a territorial right to a given land. Especially for Anarchism, arguing against Nationalism by trying to tease out an ethnographic right of all people to all lands is bad form.

-Squee

Honestly, is this guy worse

Honestly, is this guy worse than half of the "anarchists" you've spoken to? With the exception of street militants who (usually) know what's what, it seems like the "anarchists" that have the biggest mouths (and in some countries, the biggest organizations) are pitching nothing more than a pseudo-free Marxist utopia, complete with all sorts of wonderful "democratic" organizations to fill the void of totalitarianism in authoritarian Marxism -- that is, to essentially do the exact same horrific shit that Stalin did, but rebrand it as "anti-authoritarian". That and dipshits like those moronic fringe APOC groups run around harassing crust punks. OH, and not to mention, they spawned BANA by pissing of people like this guy (and so while he may be a racist prick, anarchists didn't help him overcome his internal prejudices like you'd expect them to, they just reinforced them with their own slave morality and complete intolerance & incompetence). That and it's hard to even call him a fascist considering how "fascist" has become synonymous with primmie, Ron Paul supporter, critic of Israel, conspiracy nut, and oh, how could I forget "anyone that disagrees with my shit".

I don't even blame him, if I were white I'd be just as pissed and probably as confused. Andrew Yeoman is proof that anarchists have failed to make communities challenge their own prejudices and cemented themselves into a sort of weird cult. I might not be running around crafting a militant racist group like BANA but if something in society were to provoke me into doing so (once again, pretending I'm white) it would probably be some of stupid shit you hear from anarchists about "racism". That's not to say it doesn't exist, it's to say you're average nutjob leftist has no concept of it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.