Jasper sez ‘Jasper did not write this. Jasper does not endorse this post. It is reposted from the fascist site Stormfront. Jasper is reproducing it to give you an insider’s view’

This post is reproduced from http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t732945/#post8412300
Andrew can of course give a good account of what BANA is about, but he would surely admit he has some natural biases on the subject. National Anarchism should be understood as an offshoot (sub-category?) of the European New Right, which from the start has had substantial libertarian elements and a generally anti-capitalist orientation. It’s chief theoretician, Alain de Benoist, fused together the decentralism of Action Française, what in the 70s was the cutting edge of sociobiology, the rigorously anti-bourgeois Conservative Revolution, and the anti-Christian elitism of Nietzsche and Evola. It’s a pretty interesting brew that has taught me a lot. De Benoist eschews White Supremacism in favor of an ethno-pluralism that simultaneously affirms the value of each ethnic culture and asserts that individuals can only fully realize themselves within their own culture: diversity is worthy, and multiculturalism should be rejected on this very ground because it results in ethnic and cultural mixing, which destroys difference. What I find particularly provocative about this, and where National Anarchism really takes its inspiration, is that the modern nation state is rejected as an inherently multiculturalist, homogenizing institution. The organically integrated tribal societies of Europe had been destroyed by the imposition of (fundamentally Jewish) Christian monotheism, with its universal ethics and inherent commitment to egalitarianism (everyone’s equal before God). Native languages were replaced by bastardized versions of Latin. The old gods were killed or appropriated as saints or demons. During the Early Modern period, the Renaissance through the Reformation to the dawn of full-fledged capitalism in the 17th Century, Christian ethics were secularized into the foundations for modern thought, particularly political and economic theory. Monarchs like Louis XIV sought to finally quell upstart aristocrats with a rationalized bureaucratic State apparatus that gave increasing power to the rising class of merchants and manufacturers. In the process you have systematic destruction of regional cultures, that oddly parallels the devastation about to be unleashed on the environment. Things like official state languages are imposed, etc. The nations of Langue d’Oc and Navarre are integrated into greater France. The Basques and Catalans are forced into a subservient position to Castille in Spain. Don’t get me started on the many wrongs done to the Irish. Anyway, and sorry to be so longwinded with this stuff, the point is that the modern nation state, control of which is the sum total of modern political struggle, is thoroughly infected with a culture-destroying spirit that is non-European (i.e. Near Eastern) in origin. Positive political action must therefore take the form of the subversion of the modern State, preferably by nurturing ‘regional’ identities. De Benoist calls for a ‘Europe of a thousand flags’. National Anarchists pick up on this decentralism and note its resonance with Proudhon’s federalism. Furthermore, they take the New Right’s criticism of the modern state as a starting point to pose the question of what would a non-alienating, non-Jewish, truly organic ‘political’ entity actually be like. Their answer is a kind of tribalism in which political, religious, and general social status are integrated. The sacralization of power and all that. This primitivism has some parallels (exaggerated in my view) with anti-modernist currents of anarchism as expressed by people like John Zerzan and Hakim Bey/Peter Lamborn Wilson. In practice, National Anarchism believes in a kind of ethnic survivalism in which people group themselves together into small tribes and cultivate an organic hierarchy and a traditional religion (almost invariably some kind of Nordic or Celtic paganism) that treats humans as a part of nature, rather than dominating it by divine command. The NAists present their ideology as ‘neither Left or Right’ because those are modern categories and they are anti-modern. They use this to try to draw in left-wingers and their symbolism draws freely on (really appropriates) that of Leftist anarchists: hoodies, balaclavas, banners, DIY chic, etc. As a tactic, I’m skeptical about its viability. The left has been getting more aware about Jewish issues thanks to Israeli intransigence, but almost every anarchist I’ve met is firmly committed to extremely repressive, and statist, Political Correctness. If it works for BANA, I’m happy. More race realists by any means necessary!!! This has been fairly rambling, but I hope it helps. If you want to understand National Anarchism, I’d suggest reading Troy Southgate. He coined the term and pretty much formulated it as an orientation. Check out the New Right too, in particular de Benoist, who’s a personal favorite. Here’s a collection of his writings: The De Benoist Archive Southgate also draws on Third Positionism, which is great if you’re Catholic. I’m not. Final thoughts: National Anarchism is provocative and has attracted some highly committed individuals who have successfully spread awareness of it as an ideology in a short period of time. That said, I think it is an oversimplification of the New Right, largely done in the interest of some kind of ‘stealth strategy’ for generating a new mystique and attracting left-wingers. The New Right encourages a much needed reexamination of what should be the locus of our political struggle and the source of our cultural identity. Is the struggle for control of the modern nation state really worth it given our chance of success and its undeniable costs? If the nation state itself is an impediment to the kind of change we want and need, then we need to come up with an alternative. A debate needs to happen about what that might be. National Anarchism proposes quite small tribal enclaves. I just think that’s jumping to conclusions.

form ‘Liste Anarchist!’ by Chaz Bufe
http://www.seesharppress.com/listen.html

As unethical as the Fifth Estate’s actions have been, however, the Fifth Estate staff have not physically assaulted those with whom they disagree. Others have. Over the last two years a relentless campaign of verbal abuse, physical harassment and violent attacks has been carried out against Processed World (PW).

Two years ago, Robert C. Black, Jr., attorney at law (also known as Bob Black and “The Last International”) began to attack Processed World in various publications, among them Bluff, the SRAF Bulletin, and San Francisco’s Appeal to Reason. Shortly after these printed attacks began, flyers were posted in the San Francisco financial district revealing the names of writers using pseudonyms in Processed World; this appears to have been an attempt to cause them to lose employment. (Most of the people who work on the magazine are office workers.) Flyers were also posted in staffers’ neighborhoods vilifying them and listing their home addresses and telephone numbers. When staff members removed these violations of their privacy, there were immediate cries of “censorship” from Black’s cronies. (There was, of course, no indication on the leaflets as to who produced or posted them.)

In 1984 the attacks were stepped up. Processed World’s office lock was epoxied and in September a worker on the magazine received a middle-of-the-night death threat against her and her baby. In October, Robert C. Black, Jr., attorney at law, filed a complaint with the San Francisco Planning Commission over alleged zoning violations in Processed World’s office. The following month, PW was forced to move after the Planning Commission discovered that the roof in its office was only seven feet high rather than the required eight. PW then moved to its present location in a warehouse shared with several other people. That same month an ax was placed through the magazine’s office door in the middle of the night.

In 1985 things really got nasty. During the spring someone began slashing copies of the magazine with razor blades in bookstores in San Francisco and the East Bay. In April, flyers (again bearing no indication of their origin) urging that PW’s new office be “torched,” and which listed the new address, were posted in the financial district. In the same month Robert C. Black produced a xeroxed tract noteworthy primarily for his vicious personal attacks and disgusting vulgarity (calling one person whom he doesn’t even know a “butt fuckee,” for example). The next step was physical assault. On April 19, Black was arrested for physically assaulting a Processed World staff member hawking copies of the magazine on the sidewalks of the financial district. His arrest came about in a curious way. After the incident occurred, Black went running to the cops in an attempt to get the PW staffer arrested for assault. But fortunately, several passersby had witnessed the incident and identified Black as the assailant. So Black was arrested, hauled off and booked. In May he failed to show up for his arraignment on the battery charge and a warrant was issued for his arrest.Finally, in June, one of the residents of the warehouse in which Processed World has its office was returning home from a show at 3:00 a.m., and when he got home he found a person pouring gasoline all over the front of the building.

All of this is very disturbing. The reaction (more accurately, non-reaction) of many San Francisco anarchists, is perhaps even more disturbing. While all of these extremely vicious, FBI provocateur-type actions were being perpetrated, one continually heard comments among anarchists, such as: “Why should we worry about it? They’re (the PW staff) not really anarchists”; “Fuck both sides. I’ve heard [a PW staffer] badmouthing us. Why should we help them?” And, perhaps most revealingly: “Sure, Bob Black is a destructive nut. But he hasn’t attacked us.” So, many anarchists just sat on their hands. After all, it wasn’t their problem. Instead of sticking to the principle, “An injury to one is an injury to all,” they adopted the more convenient “Every man for himself!”

Even worse, a few marginalist anarcho-sectarians, because of personal feuds with Processed World staff members, actually sided against them. One individual took a cue from the “right to life” honchos’ comments about abortion clinic bombings, and wrote in the journal of the Bound Together Bookstore that he wouldn’t do such things himself, but that he could “understand” the motivations of those who make anonymous death threats. It speaks volumes of the destructive effects of sectarianism that it can lead any anarchist to condone such cowardly, provocateur-like acts.

Anarchism is not amoral egotism by Chaz Bufe (2002). As does any avant garde social movement, anarchism attracts more than its share of flakes, parasites, and outright sociopaths, persons simply looking for a glamorous label to cover their often-pathological selfishness, their disregard for the rights and dignity of others, and their pathetic desire to be the center of attention. These individuals tend to give anarchism a bad name, because even though they have very little in common with actual anarchists—that is, persons concerned with ethical behavior, social justice, and the rights of both themselves and others—they’re often quite exhibitionistic, and their disreputable actions sometimes come into the public eye. To make matters worse, these exhibitionists sometimes publish their self-glorifying views and deliberately misidentify those views as “anarchist.”
The full absurdity of identifying amoral egotism—essentially “I’ll do what I damn well please and fuck everybody else”—with anarchism will become apparent in short order when we’ll consider what anarchism actually is.

(Source: seesharppress.com)

And we’re also seeing at the same time, and it seems like so many things are moving so fast… after what happened up at Scottsdale last week, on this past Sunday in Oakland, the Occupy Oakland considered the proposal to change the name Occupy Oakland to De-Occupy Oakland, or De-Colonize Oakland. And this is a direct challenge, I believe, from what was accomplished in Scottsdale, this kind of emerging joint effort, the realization of its primary importance. What happened was that the proposal was narrowly defeated. They needed a two-thirds majority to change it; a sizeable minority, just over a third blocked that. I wasn’t there; but some of us have had some pipelines to that long discussion. There’s an awesome YouTube video of some of the highlights of this 3-hour debate.

I thought, we are seeing a real clarification. We’re seeing what’s really at stake, and I think we’re coming to a kind of crossroads. And one thing that stood out: it’s making certain choices a little more recognizable or a little harder to avoid, it seems to me. One of the people spoke in support of not changing the name, in support of sticking with Occupy, in support of not recognizing in a name the importance of De-Occupy, these lands are occupied, we’re standing on stolen lands, those of us who are not Native. His statement was, “We need to defend our legacy.” This in support of the word Occupy, that identification.

Well, what is that legacy that’s so important to defend? It’s nothing else but the legacy of the Left—that glorious eurocentric commitment to Progress. How much more Progress can we stand, can anybody stand, can the species of this planet stand? And yet they continue with this leftist program that consists of things like domestication, civilization, industrialism, mass society, mass production, industrial life, mass globalization, mass culture—some of these things are just so glaring, the difference between mass culture and all of its emptiness and pathology, compared to indigenous cultures. But these people cling to it.

(Source: bsnorrell.blogspot.com)

Like the idea that the black bloc hates the Zapitistas. That primitivist author John Zerzan (who has not been in vogue among anarchists for a decade) is the primary ideologue of the black bloc. That the black bloc is made up of people who oppose all organization. Or that those who are in the black bloc cease to become human beings but instead become beasts.

I don’t know whether Chris Hedges is doing it on purpose or not, but this is basically a hit piece written by Derrick Jensen against John Zerzan and the anarchists who have spurned him. It is a transparent attempt to sway people over to Derrick Jensen’s cult of personality revolutionary movement “Deep Green Resistance.” (which has as one its other public leaders Lierre Keith, someone who makes public statements that are rabidly and blindly transphobic)

The actual premise of the article is that anarchists, who have rejected Derrick Jensen for being authoritarian, are bad. If this article were genuinely about the black bloc and Occupy, there is no reason to talk to Jensen at all. There is probably no shortage of public intellectuals who hate the black bloc who actually have anything at all to do with Occupy with whom he could have spoken. Using Zerzan as the purported ideologue of the black bloc though is where this subtext becomes completely transparent: Zerzan and Jensen are the two most important “anti-civilization” theorists and they are at odds with one another. Zerzan argues for an anarchist, non-authoritarian way of dismantling civilization. Derrick Jensen has open and widely-published aspirations of being the figurehead of a hierarchical anti-civilization group. Green Maoists, as it were.

(Source: greycoast.wordpress.com)

For unions there was never a question of either evolution or revolution, still less of socialism. Unions go no further than attempting to obtain, for the exploited worker, conditions of labor which are less intolerable and less humiliating, but also, as time has demonstrated, more profitable for capital.
- Unions Against Revolution, G. Munnis & J. Zerzan

(Source: anarchistnews.org)

Fortnight, 2001
‘Disillusioned young people make up the bulk of Zerzan’s core support in the US and he is widely hailed as the philosophical leader of the burgeoning so-called Black Bloc anarchist movement based loosely in Zerzan’s hometown of Eugene in Oregon. Eugene Anarchists were widely reported to be the Black-Masked protesters who thrashed downtown Seattle during the WTO’ in 1999.

Jasper sez ‘It is significant that the first West Coast Black Bloc action was conducted by primitivists who want to destroy civilization and become hunter gatherers. There are many Seattle anarchists among #Occupy Oakland’s Insurrectionary Radicals.’

(Source: books.google.com)