Free Speech and Fascism

  • Posted on: 13 November 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="">Cirle Ansuz</a>

<em>There are many who, in the wake of our recent action in San Francisco, have accused Circle Ansuz of being anti-free speech. This is the furthest thing from the truth. As one would expect from a group of anarchists, we LOVE freedom of speech.</em>

Many of the great fights to protect and enhance free speech rights in the United States, for example, were spearheaded by anarchists and labor radicals like Emma Goldman and Big Bill Haywood. The freedom to speak one’s mind without fear of official retribution is essential for the creation of a free, just society.

So in light of that, how can any group which claims to love free speech demand the shutdown of a publishing house, a key element in the dissemination of speech and ideas? Some argue this is an act of censorship. By muzzling an organization we disagree with or oppose, they argue, we are no better than the people we claim to fight. In their rush to condemn our actions the proponents of this position have missed the larger point.</td><td><img title="define free" src=""></td></...
Counter-Currents Publishing, and the organizations they support, are not seeking free, open discourse. For all their posturing the fact is Counter-Currents and their supporters are advancing an ideology which is inherently opposed to the letter and spirit of free speech and human rights. Regardless of how they package and repackage their nakedly fascist, white supremacist agenda, the ideologies they promote all share the same core objective: the complete subjugation and subordination of everything they consider to be inferior to them, whether that is marked by ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or nationality. This is justified by claiming “inferiors” are somehow less human in some key element than the members of the so-called “Master Race”. Whether they believe in forced resettlement and segregation, the revival of systems like apartheid and Jim Crow, or outright genocide, the key assumption behind neo-Nazism, neo-fascism, and radical traditionalism is that other human beings are naturally inferior. This means they are not entitled to the same protections and rights, including the right to live, as their “natural” superiors.

Such a belief is inherently at odds with the core assumptions of natural rights theory. The key to natural rights is the belief that all human beings are endowed with certain, inalienable rights. These rights are granted not by the grace of gods, kings, or States. They are a part of every living thing, just as vital to their existence and humanity as their lungs and heart. Claiming some people’s alleged superiority over others gives them the privilege to deny any people these essential elements of their being directly contradicts the core assumptions of human rights and the natural order.

The ideas alone are reprehensible. What makes them far worse is that they are backed up by a long history of brutal, violent action. Every fascist and Nazi movement around the world has used violence against their enemies, whether they are political opponents or doctrinally dictated foes. During the rise of fascism in Europe in the 20s and 30s, fascists and Nazis were infamous for organizing party militias who would be used to forcefully break up the rallies, meetings, and events held by their political opponents. When they made their grabs for power they did so using force, threats, and blackmail and only co-operated with the democratic process when it could be used to their advantage.

Modern fascist and Nazi groups are no different. The history of modern neo-Nazi groups is one that is marked by the repeated use of violence against their opponents, both real and perceived. Ranging from physical assaults to organized street gangs and assassinations, followers of neo-Nazi and fascist causes act on their violent rhetoric with frightening frequency and fervor. Their eagerness to use force against internal opponents as well as external enemies serves to drive home the point; fascist rhetoric and ideology actively dehumanizes other people while demanding violent action. The dissemination of their materials is intended to assist in organizing a stronger, more effective movement that is capable of making their nightmarish vision reality.

The violence of fascist, supremacist, and segregationist ideologies is not surprising when you consider their philosophical foundations. At the heart of fascist ideology is a particularly vicious form of social Darwinism. They argue that intense life-or-death competition is the sole driving force behind nature, evolution, history, and society. Those who conquer and enslave others are those who survive, grow, and prosper. Any who fail are crushed by the “superior” person, culture, “race”, or species. These flawed assumptions forget that any society which ignores the importance of co-operation and mutual assistance, as best articulated by Peter Kropotkin in Mutual Aid, will not long endure. Without these working principles the protection and cultivation of the natural rights of the people is impossible.

Fascist ideologies, when considered in context with the words and actions of their adherents, are antithetical to the existence of any society based on natural rights. Allowing such groups to organize, mobilize, and disseminate their ideas unhindered and unchallenged on the grounds of preserving their free speech ensures the free speech of all people is threatened. We, as an anti-fascist group, stand unequivocally opposed to any attempts by white supremacist, separatist, and racist groups to organize and disseminate their ideas. Their activities pose a clear and present danger to the survival of freedom of speech and our natural rights as a whole. On this issue there can be no compromise, no moderation, no negotiation, and there will be no surrender.


Don't give them their freedom, because they're not going to give you yours.

Put three Germans in a room and the next day you'll have four political parties.

TO be consistent, coherent, organized and disciplined you must also attack left-fascists too; on sight and by any means necessary.

Far too often I see far too many self-described 'anarchists' sucking up to known Marxists.

Its not red-baiting when they are self-declared reds, and also the the term ' red-fascism' was used by Bolsheviks in the early 1920's.

The casualty list of Communism since 1918 is already over 10 times the Nazi Holocaust and its still climbing in North Korea.

I see the Right side of our ideology/movement being continually patrolled and the Left, left wide open for left-communist and 'class struggle' entrists.

This leaves anarchists wide open to charges of hypocrisy and worse. I implore youse to help me slow and stop this. NO PASARAN!

Yrs etc pro2rat

1. there is no Right side of anarchism
2. capitalism has killed more people than communism and fascism combined

Yes. Don't let anyone convince you "communists" have committed genocide. Those fucks (stalin & mao) are bearacratic state CAPITALISTS.

So, we're attacking the class struggle and libertarian communists/left communists/council communists now? Fuck that, I'd rather hang with Marxists than so called market anarchists or 'ancaps' or any twisted right-wing version of anarchism.

fight ALL the enemies!

make total destroy, anyone who disagrees is our enemy, no rights to enemies

be simplistic about ALL the messages.

I think he was talking about Stalinists and Maoists (see re: lingering sentimentality for Mao), not left and council communists. In fact the entire discourse he referenced was born in council communism: Otto Ruhle wrote a book titled "The Struggle Against Fascism Begins with the Struggle Against Bolshevism." Left/Council Communists have usually proven more consistently hostile towards leftists and statist communists than anarchists are. Think about the difference between Bilan's (admittedly a small group) position against the Popular Front government in Spain, vs. Durruti's. Either way, fuck domination in all its forms.

Dear pro2rat,
You sound like a Reaganite douche-canoe. I'm not in to policing, but I would like to see the "right side of our ideology/movement" (sorry, what?) get shit-kicked by anti-imperialists.


Being opposed to racism, anti-jewish, and other bigoted ideas, I do not believe that preventing these right-wingers and neo-nazis from having their events is necessarily a good thing.

I support the liberation of speech in all cases, including conservatives, right-wingers, ron paul types, holocaust deniers, racists, etc. etc.(including left-wing fascists of course )

The more that these people have their speeches prevented or that the police arrest them for speeches, the more that they can say that the "system" is against them and appear to be the "disenfranchised."

I like it when these groups get confronted and information is put out for people to know about such groups (I have been involved in such anti-fascist actions.)

But, I'm not going to prevent them from speaking, I believe that their bad ideas will speak for themselves.

no. i think it's been proven that fanatical conservative/fascist ideas (yours) and programs should be resisted at all costs. The sad fact is that weak, jaded, and stupid people will listen, and act on these ideas. (and, of course, those who have been waiting for years, with petty and bigoted axes to grind)

Yeah, look what McCarthyism did, polarised a society into a manipulated social script. Or Zionism, from a post-nazi guilt syndrome a new form of fascism arose, one that was acceptable. Wake up!

I agree completely. It's almost worse now, as people spend their life worming their ways through completely determined networks of 'information',, making it very easy to "infect the populace" with lies and distortion, with madness, with hatred towards an already marginalised group or a female individual. And there is even a way to do it effectively and indirectly without using people's names (making it more difficult to defend themselves), and making it seem "cute" and "innocent".... but that's often been the way, hasn't it?

Nevertheless, the freedom of speech via internet is what the poster alluded to, that the network of information is actually liberating by its availability. Content and other subjective choices are for the individual to resolve, but at least censorship has been defeated by the likes of wikileaks on the statist level, and then in all other contexts. What was once the medieval task of the town-cryer to inform everyone of the events of the day has returned, because life then was community based and not, as in the latter 20th century, insular and coccooned into unextended family units in their fenced off dwelling. The hatred or ignorance is a condition of the society, and not of its brainwashed victims, these are people like us, our families, we only wish for them to become aware of how the system works, then they are left to their common sense.

This is a big jumble of bullshit. People are more atomised than ever, with the illusion they are a part of a community. But what they are part of is indeed a neo-feudal system. Hurrah.

Common sense doesn't exist.

"When private policing was “rediscovered” in the West, private and public policing were sharply divided, with the former being primarily thought of as commercial security. After an initial interest in security guards, research on private policing began to note gated residential communities, mass retail outlets, and sporting/leisure complexes that suggested “fortified fragments” where a privately defined order was administered by private security. The parallel was drawn with feudal society and that of mediaeval city-states, since the fortified enclaves of privilege deployed a system of exclusionary justice. The neo-feudal paradigm suggests a clear-cut separation between private and public orders of policing. However, both public and private policing have important features in common. They are both forces of coercion engaged to preserve internal communal order and they draw on similar control and investigative techniques. It is, then, increasingly hard to separate them analytically. It does not, therefore, fully fit the African security world of overlapping and co-operative patterns of security and is unduly focussed on the commercial sector of non-state policing."

"Mass private properties grant private corporations and their security retainers a sphere of independence and authority to enact regimes of private governance that are both recognized and legitimized by the state. The policing of mass private properties can therefore be defined as a form of client-controlled or victim-controlled policing.
Shearing and Stenning refer to this state of affairs as the ‘‘new feudalism’’ because huge tracts of property and associated public spaces are controlled and policed by private corporations who, in practice, have powers which rival the power of nation states in terms of defining and maintaining order. Private security has unique access to these private places and exercises virtually unfettered discretion as to whether to invoke the criminal justice process to deal with security incidents and events."

"he commodification of policing ... also has to do with the ways in which private policing and security can assist in the creation of commercial or residential spaces in which an exclusive, particularistic order comes to be defined and enforced. The warm, sanitised, consumer-friendly realm offered by shopping malls represents an important instance of the former. In contradistinction to the unpredictable, democratic ‘messiness’ of urban streets, malls make systematic use of private patrols and camera surveillance to create what Coleman and Sim call a moral order of consumption; something which entails the exclusion (on grounds of property, rather than criminal, law) of those ‘flawed consumers’ who are unwilling or unable to be seduced by the market. In respect of the latter, walled, gated, privately policed enclaves — currently most evident in Southern California and elsewhere in the United States, though also apparent (in embryonic forms) in parts of Britain — serve as a means of physical protection, and a vehicle for protecting the value of economic capital; both of which are predicated on the essential ‘unliveability’ of civil society beyond the walls. As such, the commodification of policing and security operates to cement (sometimes literally) and exacerbate social and spatial inequalities generated elsewhere; serving to project, anticipate and bring forth a tribalised, ‘neo-feudal’ world of private orders in which social cohesion and common citizenship have collapsed"

"Besides public and private property, there is now an intermediate status that Shearing and Stenning label "mass public property," where public activities take place within privately owned facilities that are guarded primarily by private security backed up by the formal police system. [...]
Whether in Los Angeles, New York City, or Sao Paulo, as increasing amounts of public space become the real or de facto property of privileged apartment owners and business-run complexes like shopping centers and malls, these areas come to be defined, adjudicated, and regulated by the laws on private property and commercial legislation and practices. With more and more public life now taking place on privately owned mass public property, the definition of "deviance" within such areas turns on the particular logic of private ownership, profit-making, and resource protection. With "security" tailored to protect such spaces, social control agents shift their attention "from discovering and blaming wrongdoers to eliminating sources of...threats in the future". Thus, as relatively heterogeneous urban public spaces are transformed into symbolically gated homogeneous private regions, and overburdened and fiscally strapped governments transfer responsibility for protecting and regulating "mass private property" to the private security forces attached to it, a "new class of 'offenders' [emerges] — those who create opportunities for threats against the interests of the client". Such special interest social control fosters regions that resemble the "free trade zones" in developing countries, where international and national industry receive generous tax and political incentives from nation-states to establish or expand their business operations. Within such areas — whether designated "free-trade zones," or as is more common, simply city blocks and shopping malls — business and industry are the de facto government. Shearing and Stenning label this a "new feudalism" and characterize such areas as huge tracts of property and associated public spaces that are controlled and policed by private corporations. These corporations develop an extensive security apparatus there, of which "uniformed security personnel are only the supervisory tip of the iceberg." Out of such a marriage of business and government, a symbiosis emerges between the commercial sector's own private security forces and the local government's police forces, with repressive outcomes shaped by profit-driven definitions of deviance and a commodification of social control."

So yeah, mall security has been doing "very important work"!!!

Jeezus, do you have that tirade copied ready to paste? Sure the global panopticon and the spread of capitalism is increasing, maybe my use of medieval prompted your anger, you obviously missed the nuance between political and social functions as regards town-cryers and the uncensored availability of honest news. Town-cryers WEREN'T feudal Barons.

what ? why did you put "(yours)" after fascist ideas ? The person advocating "liberation of speech" refers to themself as an anti-fascist.

Go on, just lump all the under-privileged commonalty into your 'weak, jaded, and stupid' category! Talk about bigoted axes to grind, you have one of intellectual proportions!

"under-privileged" have not cornered the market on being weak, jaded, and stupid.

Yeah, I slipped up there, lapsed into a marxist mindset momentarily, sorry.

That's actually an anarchist precept, that freedom of expression is paramount, and that only actions are open to community self-regulation, as a spontaneous oppositional force.

that's interesting, too bad it hasn't actually worked that way.

Well, one has to get to first base, and Spain 37 got compromised. But it can work given the chance.

actually i see this kind of self managed and spontaneous, non-state kind of regulating of speech happen ALL THE TIME, every day. i dont think it takes an anthropologist to do so! How and why that kind of spontaneous "regulation," so to speak, happens is obviously up for grabs - it ll happen for hella different reasons in a reasonably liberated anarchist society than it will in a society laden with thousands of years of patriarchal and capitalist attitudes....But that speech can be affected in non-statist ways is absolutely unquestionable. I hardly see why this supposition would become controversial when applied to an anarchist position, nor do i see why it appears as if anarchists suddenly become "anti freedom demons" who desire state censorship, or what have you, because we kick the shit out of nazis whenever we can.

just because we don't believe the State should be able to regulate speech (a redundancy, really, considering we dont believe there should be a State!), doesnt mean we don't believe words have consequences, that communities at large would not or could not play a role in shaping the values or behaviors of its participants - i.e. that in a nieghborhood youd be a damn fool to say "nigger" , for example. Such a person would probably get their ass whooped in an anarchist community, and THEY SHOULD. This is not the same as saying a centralized army/military/policing body, representing the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in society, that has a sole monopoly on the right to do violence of any kind, should be empowered to take such actions. It means we need to take responsibility to do it ourselves, and that when we do call people out for some dumbass "speech," its done with explicitly "political," anarchist desires and principles (anti racism, anti sexism, for example) in mind. Its not neutral or arbitrary, far from it.

All that being said, even in a community where we took direct responsibility for things around speech, i still would argue you ll see A LOT less violence around speech issues, for several reasons...

one, there wouldnt be a a massively armed state apparatus with sole rights to do violence immediately available and without impunity.

two, in a non capitalist setup theres a pretty REAL need for people to at least minimally get along and work together even if they dont like each other. anyone who s lived in a small vs. a large town, working on cooperative or anarchist projects, will have at least a little idea as to what im saying. in that context you can hardly go around settling every verbal disagreement with fistfight--violence would probably be pretty damn rare, and those espousing explicitly white supremacist views, for example, probably wouldnt stick around long.

three, in much the same ways that there are certain shared values that bind together even our heavily atomized capitalist society we re in now, there would certainly be shared values that would bind together an anarchist society, especially considering the massive, popular, and participatory social movements it will take to get there. white supremacists and outright mysoginist shitbags probably arent gonna too much a part of these transitions - they may still exist, but (we can hope) they d be made to make themselves damn scarce. the context would already exist for a changing of attitudes and behaviors around issues of speech...

I'm with Lenny Bruce because I know what he'd say to all this. They're just WORDS, people. Crushing speech is the final step in a march to totalitarianism. Attempt to permit/distinguish 'good' from 'bad' speech presupposes establishing thought police. Gimme a break!

"Gee, but it's good to be back home. HOME is where I wanna be...but it's the same old story, everywhere I go. I get slandered...libeled. I hear words I never heard in the Bible. And I'm one step from a shoe shine...two steps from the county line. I gotta slip down the alleyway, fly down the highway. Satisfied, satisfied...I gotta keep my customers SATISFIED!" -Simon & Garfunkel-

*The key to natural rights is the belief that all human beings are endowed with certain, inalienable rights. These rights are granted not by the grace of gods, kings, or States. They are a part of every living thing, just as vital to their existence and humanity as their lungs and heart*


great analysis there... lol

just to put it out there, there was already a series of articles, both from a theory as well as how anarchists enacting a position can play out in practical terms, released in an older rolling thunder issue. And not to diss this author, but those articles dealt way more effectively with the issue at hand, enacting an anarchist critique of free speach rather than trying to re-package natural rights theory as radical, as is done in this article.

i dont have a link to that RT pdf, but i know that those arrticles were also reprinted in a release by the NC Piece Corps, called "Divorce of thought from Deed" on white supremacy, anarchists opposition to it, and the "marketplace of ideas" concept as it played out on UNC Chapel Hill's campus. Shit is real interesting, and id suggest rather than spew back and forth on here about whether or not we should "let" white supremacists talk (they pretty much run the whole world, so im not too worried about their getting to talk...), folks try out a critique of "free speech" itself, and how that intersects with our critique of democracy.

which can be found at ..... sorry

I think this group may see it as a rights based issue coming out of their Deep Ecology (et al)perspective and the fact that they are religious Heathens (norse pagans) and from what little i know, Heathens are very much into their own legal processes within their communities. They have a page on their site about their guiding principals ( if anything it's an interesting idea (anarchist vikings) and worth checking out IMO. It seems they are forming their own type of anarchism. Many gods, no masters is pretty funny lol

ah ill check it out. im kinda way into the sound of that, in a slightly tongue in cheek, slightly serious way. more magic , please, anyway.

but my first impression is that natural rights theory is VERY at odds with deep ecology etc....theres a reason that it was developed as an enlightenment philosophical framework, by a bunch of jerks who helped ignite the ecological destruction most deep ecology folks wanna stop. it is a statist framework for understanding, explicitly aknowledged as such by its founding thinkers, to my understanding (many of whom were, after all, presidents and statesmen!)

using rights just seems to me another example of using a statist discourse to try to get to a non statist end - i get why, but its awkward, like a square peg in a round hole. It makes us travel in circles, traveling around the point we want to say but never saying it.

I think part of why they framed it as a "rights" issuse is because they mostly working inside a religious community whose members, from the looks if it anyways, won't understand more complicated or rather abstract anarchist theory. Seems like they have a foot in both realms. From the way its written I think it was intended as a response to critics inside their community rather than to further anarchist discourse on free speech. I'm not sure, the articles on their blog are intresting though. It's weird but kinda cool. I just can't stop thinking about a Black Bloc with horned helmets which would be hilarious! I wonder what Scandinavian anarchists would make of it....

i have this friend with dreads who used to walk around shirtless with a plastic viking helmet we dumpstered one night at party city. Until one horn fell off. I think it would be like that. But honestly i just dont think of vikings as religious in that sense - more nihilist really.

but yes. i agree. that would be awesome.

Perhaps free speech is construed differently in Germany than the U.S. In America, it means regardless of content, a person is free to say it, write it, publish it. Hate speech is a crime in Germany, not so in the States. Perhaps, given Germany's recent history, it errs on the side of caution in such matters.

Check out the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt. Flynt is the publisher of one of the most obscene magazines (Hustler) one can imagine. He was convicted of obscenity and appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where he, or dare I say WE, prevailed. If Flynt's free speech was upheld under our Constitution, it should hearten our confidence ours will be preserved since logically, Flynt's was so much more abusive.

The ACLU defended the rights of American Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois--a home at that time to many survivors of the Holocaust. The ACLU prevailed. Americans' attitude toward free speech is embodied in Voltaire's oft misquoted sentiments: "I may not agree with what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The polemics in the above article assert natural rights and the danger neo-Nazis and Fascists pose to them. Yet some anarchists deny the very existence of such individual rights. If they exist, they exist for all, whether the Nazis agree or not. Some difficulty was had following the logic expressed. Would it have read the same if 'anarchist' had been substituted for 'Nazi' throughout?

The cited instances of force objected to very much resemble actions taken by Pacific NW anarchist elements. In fact, some of the more extreme anarchist elements deride those who object to force as an effective tactic to eliminate the state. So which is it? Force implemented by the Nazis or Fascists is bad, but if anarchists are wielding the sword, so much the better? In what way is that fundamentally different from state tactics?

Disrupting the gatherings or meetings of adversarial groups sounds quite familiar locally. Dead fish, sh*t, and double standards have a similarly peculiar odor.

It isn't the rhetoric that gassed 6 million concentration camp victims. It was the people running them. It's preferable to have the cancer out in the open where it can be fumigated than allowed to fester secretly behind close doors or encrypted communications. Respecting the right of all to free speech provides the opportunity to teach our children what today's lions, tigers, and bears look/sound like. Suppression simply amplifies the disease. Exposure to the light allows for an early cure, a suitable dollop of truth mixed with an appeal to conscience.

Do not be afraid of a powerless Nazi's rhetoric. Welcome it for the opportunity it represents to reveal the mindset behind it. Reportedly, even George Wallace had a change of heart before he died. Many blacks forgave him on that basis.

If you arrived at the doctor's office to receive the results of a CAT scan, would you want the cancer it revealed concealed? The doctrine of social Darwinism can only be persuasive when it is hidden from view. Hitler didn't operate in a vacuum. Neither did Mussolini or the countless other tyrants. They succeeded because they appealed to what was already in the hearts of their neighbors--a failure of dialog or reaching a synthesis previous to their rise to power. Germany was looking for a scapegoat to explain its loss of WWI. It sought a demon to rally national sentiment toward aggression. This is the pattern of all tyrants. But discussion and objective examination of the facts erodes such hate based nationalism. Open discussion allows the faces of victims like Ann Frank to belie the assertions of Fascists. It is the tyrants goal to suppress such free expression and discussion. One must adopt tactics that exemplify the antithesis of the tyrant, not emulate it.

State sanctioned freedome of speech allows us to know who our enemyis. When the nazis went to skokie my Aunt was on the other side. Neo Nazis still kill Jews in Germany. Using direct action to combat hate speech is different than relying on the state.

Beautiful statement.

A well written statement and all but your inherent assumptions about the facts undermine your argument. No where in the article does it say force will be used. And what do you mean by "force" anyway? Violence? Didnt see any of that up there. Direct Action? Is that what you mean by "force"?

"Force implemented by the Nazis or Fascists is bad, but if anarchists are wielding the sword.." The Nazis, as you well know utilized violence before they took the government and until the end (and even a bit afterwards) used its monopoly of State violence to do... well... you know, everything those evil fucks did. Anarchists, in general, dont rely on wielding State force to destroy the State. There are many who believe the (very real and historically proven) idea that eventually, violence will need to be used to overthrow the State. They wont go quietly into the night, never have, never will. So when does the violence come? Many different answers, but again, nowhere in the text above have i seen calls for violence, by the State or otherwise.

"Disrupting the gatherings or meetings of adversarial groups sounds quite familiar locally." Neo-nazis and the like dont just get together around a table and drink beer and throw darts. They organize, increase their ranks, and terrorize people. By terrorize I mean, kill, rape, and pillage, commit hate crimes, build political power and... ya know... do everything else those evil fucks do. Disrupting the meetings prevents this snowball effect that ends up with masses of bodies stacked like cord wood. When anarchists get together, in contrast, they organize and do things like help workers assert their rights, help the houseless, save forests, lakes etc, ect, develop new alternative anti-oppressive forms of business, social organization, etc etc. One of these things is not like the other. Therefore there can be no double standard.

"It isn't the rhetoric that gassed 6 million concentration camp victims." Nope it sure wasn't. But people were convinced to gass 6 million because of rhetoric. "Exposure to the light allows for an early cure, a suitable dollop of truth mixed with an appeal to conscience." Flowery for sure but exposing a truth doesnt always stop death camps. IN fact, Hitler wasnt stopped because he had a bad idea and people were won to an opposing viewpoint, he and his fuckers were stopped by people with bullets and bombs and tanks and all manner of death. Im a douche bag American so ill say what everyone thinks im gonna, say. and its true. My Grandfather didnt help win WWII by speaking clever convincing words. He stopped the Nazis with a fucking Howitzer. Full well in the knowledge that he very well may be blowing up his cousins fighting on the wrong side of a war between a bunch rich assholes.

"Do not be afraid of a powerless Nazi's rhetoric." Its not their rhetoric im afraid of. Its what the mutants who read it and act on it DO that i fear in my own community. they kill people. plan and simple. innocent people. Its great to hear that fucker Wallace turned on his death bed. But the fact still stands he did what he did. Hes attacked people, and terrorized them. Hes a piece of shit who deserved a slow painful death.

"The doctrine of social Darwinism can only be persuasive when it is hidden from view." Bullshit. It was a once widely held belief used, mainly, to justify capitalism and racism just to name a few. It was out in the open, for all its lies, was widely thought to be how nature functioned. And it still, to this day, holds true in many peoples minds. Discussion alone doesn't change society, its not revolutionary to talk about things. But it can be when get your hands dirty and DO SOMETHING. It doesn't have to be violent. But it should always be DIRECT ACTION. "Open discussion allows the faces of victims like Ann Frank to belie the assertions of Fascists." Open discussion didn't prevent Anne Frank from becoming a victim in the first place.

Sorry but your argument is total bullshit.

- Pissed off Prole

The concept of free speech isn't antithetical to self preservation/defense. The instinct to survive, to avoid death or subjugation, is natural. Still, the right to free speech is also natural. It is inalienable. It belongs to all, even the Nazis. Now, before you flip out, that doesn't mean a PLOT to rape, murder, pillage, destroy may not be disrupted. A call to action, for example, to commit the atrocities you cite can justly be put down. It would be well for you to investigate the legal and ethical boundaries of free expression. Free speech doesn't mean one is at liberty to threaten another or to call for assassinations or any of the crimes which you mention.

Perhaps you and I are cut from different bolts. While you might choose to disrupt such meetings, and risk throwing the baby out with the bath water, I'd be prone to sit in and record it...surreptitiously, no doubt. I'd then post the rhetoric and if it contained a plot or call to action to commit a crime, I'd urge state action against the appeal to hierarchy I'm sure will be criticized, but also an appeal to the public, the ultimate arbiter. That can't happen when the speech is suppressed. You fear speech will be transformed to action. I fear suppression of it will allow it to continue to remain active, to accomplish its end regardless of your citing past follies like the inferiority of racial minorities or the economically disadvantaged. Those themes would remain the dominant ideology today were it not for free speech. Young students don't learn of why Hitler's ideology/perversion was repugnant without comparing his thoughts (such as in Mein Kampf) with those of champions of human rights like Dr. King and the Mahatma. Would you ban Mein Kampf while you're at it? No doubt, the neo-Nazis you abhor all have copies.

Your characterization of anarchists is seductive. I confess, you may have me at a disadvantage since I've only met or witnessed the few I see in the Pacific NW. Perhaps its just the violent ones who get all the press. But what I see is images of street violence. What I've witnessed is bullying, intimidation, and a lot of effort to snitch jacket government informants they imagine are under their beds. There is a Seattle based group who refuse to engage in illegal or violent direct action, but do defend workers' rights and tenants by picketing, confrontation, and vigils. They don't get nearly the attention of their violent self describe anarchist counterparts, nor do they use the term to identify themselves.

I'm convinced genuine anarchists would be better served to distinguish their identity from those promoting violence as a tactic and suppression of speech. Isn't the Committee Against Political Repression (CAPR) committed to the idea that political views along with expressing them are everyone's right? Or is that now a function of only those political views we agree with? If so, who gets to choose? Hell, local violently inclined anarchist elements advocate attacking photojournalists, for Chrissake, for covering violent street demonstrations. They even bully photojournalists covering nonviolent rallies and meetings in public venues. It's not difficult to find cited examples of this with even a cursory search of the internet and local blogs.

The violence you advocate (citing WWII) as a prophylactic against state oppression has given rise to a 'security' mantra among local anarchists that's indistinguishable from the one the state is married to. All of it feels very oppressive, which may explain why so little public support for local anarchists is visible. A nonviolent open stance respecting the human rights of all, even those who have pernicious ideologies, allows a robust and productive synthesis which avoids frightening or repelling average citizens. Attempting to control others will always provoke fear and hostility in those subject to it. I cannot speak directly for everyone, obviously, but I can speak for journalist who have been threatened and/or assaulted. Anarchists who promote this tactic do more to destroy their effectiveness than the state could ever hope to.

your conflating an extreme minority of self proclaimed "anarchists" who advocate violence (yet rarely actually engage in it, and btw, dropping a window with a brick is not violent, windows aren't alive). You might want to actually talk to an anarchist before you start trying to form opinions about them. The media has been building up the image of the bomb throwing anarchist for over a hundred years, so it no wonder why you would think that anarchists in general are violent. My is suggestion to get off the internet and talk to people, go to an anarchist cafe (there is no shortage of them in the PNW) and strike up a conversation. no doubt youll meet some jackass who will talk a big game about violent revolution, but your also likely to meet someone who represents the vast majority of anarchists who are non-violent. I dont think it can be stressed enough that the group who posted this thing, is a non-violent group. they even say they are and have yet to show any actions that are violent. what they did was expose a publishing house of white supremest literature who was covertly working inside a diverse diverse neighborhood. I wasnt advocating violence, i was showing you that flowery arguments, while true, require action (of some kind, not always violent) to stop genocidal maniacs. They dont care if your not willing to geta little rough from time to time. They hope you wont in fact. It makes their organizing efforts all the much easier. Also, the State apparatus of security is nothing like what anarchists are doing to stop a witch hunt against non-violent people struggling for social and economic change. These things are vastly different. And im sorry, im not about protect the 'rights' of someone who would love to see my dying face in a gas chamber. I dont want to put them in a gas chamber. These things are again, not the same. Im not Hindu, and Gandhian non-violence can go fuck itself, this isnt 1930s India, we live in a different time with different rules. Dont forget both Gandhi and MLK Jr said non-violence had its limits. Quite frankly, i understand the frustration of why anarchists would deal with journos the way to do... like i said over a 100 years of journos lying about their political ideology (to aid State repression) and misrepresenting them tends to leave a bad taste in peoples mouths... while i dont agree with all of those actions, i do understand them. Just stop conflating what you see on TV with reality.

Yes, the violently radical anarchists are an extreme minority. Unfortunately, they're also the most visible, which makes them the most vulnerable as conflation intended.

The distinction and many flavors of anarchism are lost on the press and public. But a reading of the history of Free Town (Christiania, Copenhagen) along with Makhno in Ukraine is instructive.

Journalists come in as many flavors as anarchists. Stop conflating them.

And, who watches TV?...nobody I talk to. TV is dead, has been for decades. Hell, people don't even look to their newspapers for 1st news anymore. The internet and *we* have become the 'press'.

Attacking 'journalists' becomes as idiotic as anarchists attacking themselves. Sure, some/many journalists are lazy government lapdogs. Other's aren't. You can't tell by looking, just like there's no external index of what a violent vs. non-violent anarchists looks like. The point (assuming there is one) in both instances is it's NOT the individual, but the process that's important. i.e. It's more important to consider the process of deconstructing the state than to harp about identity politics or polemics. It's more important for someone, ANYONE, to be covering public events/venues than to rely on official government propaganda/lies.

One does not attack the messenger, but the message.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.