From Circle Ansuz
Many may wonder why is there so much love for an archaic, tribal past in Circle Ansuz. For an antifascist group it would seem counter-intuitive for us to engage in similar activities, particularly the glorification of a distant past, as the fascists we oppose. Such groups are notorious for their romanticization, politicization, and mangling of history to serve their purposes. In Circle Ansuz we draw inspiration from the past but that is where any similarity stops. Our perspectives on tribal societies and romanticism are coming from a very different place than that which is used by fascist, reactionary, and conservative groups.
In groups which whip up a romanticized vision of the past the main reason they do so is because they want to return to that time and place. Images of an older, simpler, idealized time run rampant in modern political discourse. Whether its American nostalgia for a sanitized vision of the 1950s, British ultraconservatives yearning for the glory days of the Empire, or Russian ultranationalists hearkening back to the Tsars the use of a fabricated past is a common tactic for justifying the actions of a whole host of political factions, fascists being one of the worst offenders in this regard. These narratives all share in common a rose-tinted vision of a past time that never really existed as depicted by their proponents. They sweep aside facts in favor of ideologically-induced phantasms constructed specifically to entice people to join them in abandoning their reason in favor of a false narrative. When used to seduce people into supporting fascist ideas the romanticizing of the past can be very powerful and dangerous.
Our view of tribalism is far more nuanced. While we argue there are values, ideas, and practices of the tribal period of the Germanic peoples which are worth emulating we understand the difference between reconstruction and resurrection. For all the facets of Germanic society we praise; most notably the Thing assemblies, communal defense and law enforcement, their relatively egalitarian attitudes, and worker control of their labor, we understand the society they lived in emerged in a specific time and place to face specific challenges. We also understand this society is far from ideal. Women, while treated with far more respect than the societies influenced by the Roman Empire and medieval Christianity, were not by modern feminist standards genuine equals. All of these societies exploited the labor of slaves; in fact the bulk of the wealth from the height of the Viking Age came not from plunder but from the sale of slaves taken in raids. For all the positives of Thing governance brutal, nasty blood feuds were also a major feature of Germanic life.
Considering all these negatives why should we consider this time, culture, and period to be such a vital inspiration to our ideas? It is because in spite of these flaws there are fundamental elements of the tribal period which present a powerful critique of society. In the modern discourse regarding the Germanics, as it is with all other tribal societies, it is generally assumed that life was nasty, brutish, and short. Taking a cue from the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes and more modern social Darwinists most assume life in such “primitive” societies was defined by constant violence and savage warfare. Many assume such cultures existed in a “barbaric” state of eternal war of all against all. These assumptions are the foundations of the modern reasoning that all institutional power depends on the monopoly on the use of force and coercion to maintain itself.
Running up against this narrative are new facts regarding tribal life in the Germanic period and from the world over. A new consensus is developing where tribal societies were anything but the ruthlessly brutish places depicted in the popular narrative. As the Thing assemblies, the use of outlawry as the worst punishment, and other practices demonstrate the foundation of order and stability in these societies was not based on force or the fear of force but through consent, mutual aid, discourse, and discussion. This pattern repeats itself the world over, whether you are discussing the indigenous tribes of the Americas, Africa, or the Asian steppe. By holding up these tribal societies and their attitudes as a mirror to modern society a powerful critique emerges. If it is possible for society to be based on consensus and mutual aid in a time that is assumed by most to have been an age of violence and bloodshed then perhaps our modern ideas of what is necessary to build a nurturing, prosperous, and free society should be re-examined.
After all, there are many modern practices and innovations which the ancients would find just as abhorrent as we find slavery and human sacrifice. The ancients did not invent concentration camps, weapons of mass destruction, or anything comparable to the soullessness of corporate economics. They would likely find our acceptance of homelessness as a consequence of economic destitution and our lack of concern for our fellow community members to be inexcusable and uncivilized just as they would recoil from the needless, excessive waste of our consumerist economy. They would most certainly walk away in disgust at the ease of which people will discard dearly-held principles the moment they become an obstacle or inconvenience to the pursuit of personal advancement. If there are major aspects of our society which our allegedly savage ancestors would have cursed as inhuman then what does that say about us?

Comments
Comment was hidden
If the past is so great why
If the past is so great why don't you go live there?
if the past is so great why
if the past is so great why is it over
"Tribalism" as a word tends
"Tribalism" as a word tends to get pretty fucking butchered these days. I'm glad somebody's giving another perspective.
If "tribalism" means anything, it's a kind social organization based mainly on cultural affiliation. Tribes are politically decentralized by nature, a collection of autonomous bands with similar language and culture. Though one of the benefits is large networks for common defense (as Custer learned...), most tribes don't fight each other all that often - instead they trade or confederate.
What's the alternative to "tribalism"? Statist nationalism which enforces a uniform culture, language and economy in order to "avoid conflicts"? I won't deny that tribal warfare gets ugly sometimes, but it's never compared to the blood spilled in search of the 'Pax Romana'.
does this group do anything
does this group do anything or is it just a blog?
According to their blog they
According to their blog they've engaged in awareness actions against a fascist publisher in San Francisco and have participated in antifascist actions in Portland.
Actually, we are ALL supposed
Actually, we are ALL supposed to be tribal in terms of how we evolved. OK, in a big Native American nation or in any other traditional society, there would be several smaller tribal bands, each in turn subdivided into clans. These were based on family ties and generally small enough that marriage requirements were that the partners must be from separate clans to preserve biodiversity. The final result is that each person lives in a relatively small group, composed of only a few families.
Some sociologists say that people today typically maintain a circle of associates or friends about the size of a traditional clan, often as small as 30 people. The difference is that family bonds today are usually not a factor, with a person's de facto clan being composed of people of random origin and similar activities. This makes the structure more volatile, more easily changed, and with weaker bonds of loyalty. Still wondering where the snitch problem comes from?
A true clan structure is absent, due to the lack of family ties, but "surrogate family" ties and a pseudo-clan structure often then emerge. The very fact that the modern "nuclear family" is so limited in who it includes, to a level far below traditional extended family relations, probably forces the exact same thing to happen not only in our own organisations, but in all social organization within so-called "civilization."
If the shit ever really hits the fan with climate change, grocery stores closing due to climate-induced zero harvest, etc, I would expect to see a composite clan structure emerge here on Turtle Island. People still have their family ties, and also their de facto clan structures. If extended families pulled together, the former de facto clan structures would serve to link these family groups together into tribes. Problems would arise when this brought incompatable individuals too close together, forcing either resolution of the dispute or division of the tribe. Then again, that is probably nothing new.
On another note, the long-running fight between ourselves as Anarchists and neo-Nazis has been compared to a tribal war. Both sides are composed of people who know each other very well, with ties that although not based on family extend far beyond the battlefield. I still remember when this really kicked off in DC, when a band of Neo-Nazi skinheads (not the same as any other skinheads) invaded several punk shows. The punks overlapped with us anarchists, so when the Nazis declared war on one they got war with both, to their sorrow. It's been over 25 years, but if Nazis of any type, not just Nazi skinheads show up anywhere they are set upon by all anarchists and punks who can reach the scene as well as whoever they directly seek to offend. Until that time we had fought the KKK here but neo-Nazis had not been a factor.
At this point, another tribal(really more clan) factor came into play: overlapping affiliations. On the one hand, all skinheads shared some common bonds of culture. On the other hand, many skinheads also shared some affiliations with the punk kids and even some of the anarchists. The result? When neo-Nazi skins declared themselves, they did so alone. Other skinhead groupings loudly rejected them, and some went so far as to actively fight against them, giving the Nazis yet another battlefield enemy.
The basic difference is that
The basic difference is that Nazis are an exclusive group based on domination of others while Anarchists are an inclusive group based on cooperation with others.
That will be the undoing of
That will be the undoing of the Nazis, as that means they fight alone while we have many allies. Maybe that explains why it is so common for a small number of these swine doing something dumb to be set upon by hundreds, sometimes thousands of people, with anarchists in the spearhead elements? When they came to DC in 2008, it looked at first like anarchists and hard-core anticapitalists were the only opposition-until the Nazis tried to march. At that point, a huge crowd on the Mall, people who looked like tourists, started moving with us against the Nazis.
When Nazis showed up in NE DC last summer, it was anarchists ,Occupy folks, and hordes of local residents turning out to blockade the streets against their march.
The "anarchist" here do not
The "anarchist" here do not respond in very meaningful ways. Does this mean they are not anarchist? I think many of you are just scared. Join the cryptoanarchists, see the world. Calm down, I'm a whitehat....
What are the similar
What are the similar activities clans are formed around? How does organizing with non relatives correlate with people snitching?
Snitches are just that,
Snitches are just that, snitches. Organizing with the unknown is definitely compromising to any group or individual. There are certain "formalities" that should be considered. The discussion of which is a security downgrade as the uninitiated are just that. The best thing is to join in discussion and be invited; it may happen.
In traditional times, with
In traditional times, with small populations, clans were organized around family descent. Everyone everywhere pretty much engaged in the same activities, modified by local environmental conditions.
To this day, organizations like the IRA where multiple members of the same family would often be involved have fewer snitches than those which do not, as it is much harder to snitch when doing so means being disowned by both your family AND all your friends. Not no snitches, but considerably less snitches.
In WWII, the Nazis often had to resort to hideous torture to get anything out of members of the French Resistance who were captured in battle, and even this sometime backfired. One man they captured, they pulled out all of his teeth. He later said he would have told them anything after the first tooth, but they were too stupid to stop. They pulled all of his teeth and then asked the questions again-and by that time he was so angry he told them nothing.
Nazis are irrelevant. They
Nazis are irrelevant. They have tunnel vision based on a super-race. Kill them off like they would do to you. Some will survive. That is fine by me. It will really suck for the rest of them to live in irrelevancy. As my children explore the world they will notice you and crush your heads under their boot heels.
this guy says nazis are
this guy says nazis are irrelevant, and talks about killing them off like it's swatting flies. meanwhile immigrants get stabbed in greece and england, and mexicans get beat to death in LA. Here is an anti-fascist vignette from the wiki on daniel inouye, so we can all learn how easy it is to be rid of this plague.
"On April 21, 1945, Inouye was grievously wounded while leading an assault on a heavily-defended ridge near San Terenzo in Tuscany, Italy called Colle Musatello. The ridge served as a strongpoint along the strip of German fortifications known as the Gothic Line, which represented the last and most unyielding line of German defensive works in Italy. As he led his platoon in a flanking maneuver, three German machine guns opened fire from covered positions just 40 yards away, pinning his men to the ground. Inouye stood up to attack and was shot in the stomach; ignoring his wound, he proceeded to attack and destroy the first machine gun nest with hand grenades and fire from his Thompson submachine gun. After being informed of the severity of his wound by his platoon sergeant, he refused treatment and rallied his men for an attack on the second machine gun position, which he also successfully destroyed before collapsing from blood loss.[citation needed]
As his squad distracted the third machine gunner, Inouye crawled toward the final bunker, eventually drawing within 10 yards. As he raised himself up and cocked his arm to throw his last grenade into the fighting position, a German inside the bunker fired a rifle grenade that struck him on the right elbow, severing most of his arm and leaving his own primed grenade reflexively "clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore".[11] Inouye's horrified soldiers moved to his aid, but he shouted for them to keep back out of fear his severed fist would involuntarily relax and drop the grenade. While the German inside the bunker reloaded his rifle, Inouye pried the live grenade from his useless right hand and transferred it to his left. As the German aimed his rifle to finish him off, Inouye tossed the grenade into the bunker and destroyed it. He stumbled to his feet and continued forward, silencing the last German resistance with a one-handed burst from his Thompson before being wounded in the leg and tumbling unconscious to the bottom of the ridge. When he awoke to see the concerned men of his platoon hovering over him, his only comment before being carried away was to gruffly order them to return to their positions, since, as he pointed out, "nobody called off the war!""
Did you copy-paste that and
Did you copy-paste that and think you were going to suddenly be wise?
It is one thing to threaten the death of neonazis. It is another to pull the trigger. It is a whole 'nother to live on after you're done, if you live. Well, if you can do all these things, you're pretty awesome. Not going to know until you try right? But if you still type away late at night and shake your fist into the air of your nice home or apartment, don't bother.
I think we should hunt down the CEOs, Executive Directors, Banksters, and Feds and kill them. Will I actually do that? Yeah, probably. I got the gun, looking for a team. Why? "all by myself... don't wanna be... all by myself...."
Of course ... publicly
Of course ... publicly posting such things makes you a shitty "team-mate"
I do like how this Circle
I do like how this Circle Ansuz group focused it on a racist right-wing publisher that exists in downtown San Francisco.
http://circleansuz.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/anti-racist-activists-picket...
The book publisher Counter Currents even published a book by a neo-nazi type individual who identifies as a "National Anarchist"...a philosophy that tries to cloak racial separatism under a new name. http://www.counter-currents.com/a-life-in-the-political-wilderness/
Add new comment