Talk:National-anarchism

For previous discussions see: Talk:National anarchism

Delete

For all the reasons this article has been deleted before in all its various hideous incarnations, let's DELETE the horror already.--William Gillis 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Yeah. I concur. I have no idea the procedure for a delete nomination. It doesn't seem a particularly contraversial proposition (Deletion), although I'm sure a handful of vested-interest nutbags might make a commotion 58.7.0.146 13:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the EZLN Applicable

This sounds a little like the philosophy of the Mayan Chiapas Zapatistas (they claim that in 2012 the governments of the world will crumble and the nations will live in isolated communes, or at least this is what I read, probably a little more flexible in terms of inter-ethnic relations). Given such a abstract termonology am am sure all nationalities can subscribe to this in their own way (only PC would relegate it to caucasian monopolization). -- 68.80.102.164 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

-- The EZLN is explicitely anti-fascist. So no, this is an absurd proposition 58.7.0.146 11:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism and nationalism would be a more suitable place to discuss the Zapatistas nationalism.Harrypotter 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

-- The EZLN are reformists who are using the democratic process to promote improvements for the native indians. They are not revolutionaries and so are not really suitable for this article. National Anarchists support struggle against central governments, not mere reformists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjuner (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Misleading anarchist sidebar.

"National Anarchism" , a misnamed variation on third-position fascism, is not related to the anarchist movement, as Racism is a logical enemy of Anarchists, and confusing people like this is deeply offensive to anarchists. Really, this page should be merged into "Neo Naziism" or "White Nationalism". 58.7.0.146 11:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What a crock of troll shit user 58.7.0.146, if you don't have a constructive statement to add to the article GTFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjuner (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for National-Anarchists but indulge me a little while I play devil's advocate because there are issues here. A position like this one is unclassifiable by conventional criteria. So I'm not going to contest the sidebar, because it's problematical either way. Calling them anarchist is POV, and calling them non-anarchist is POV. But I'd object to the don't-offend-the-mainstream-anarchists rationale. Please! We are supposed to be neutrally describing a political alliance, not pussyfooting so as not to upset them or their opponents. The N-A's are probably no less put out (or amused) that the mainstream calls itself "anarchist", and in view of the mainstream's selective use of theoreticians like Proudhon and Bakunin whenever racial questions are in the picture, I'd say they have an arguable case.

Are you formally proposing a merger? Ordinarily I support mergers, but this outfit is distinctive enough that I'd have to oppose it in this case (though National Revolutionary Faction should be merged in, as there's no good reason for two short articles covering essentially the same people). We can't call them fascist or Nazi because they explicitly reject both (yes, like the Zapatistas!) and we can't call them White nationalist because they support separatist Black nationalism. They have moved beyond the third-positionists, who in any case don't see themselves as fascist either. (Check out any 3P website and it soon becomes clear that their ideology draws indifferently upon dissidents from fascism and dissidents from Marxism.) They would also reject the "racist" label as hostile POV — their own "take" is that protecting races from mutual annihilation (interbreeding) is anti-racist.

If anything, they appear to be aligned with Russia's Vladimir Putin and the pro-Putin wing of the (Stalinist) "National Bolsheviks". That's an untenable position for sure, if you're serious about anarchism of any sort, but I doubt whether Southgate and crew will realise the contradiction any time soon. If and when they finally do, it could get interesting! Meantime, let's not try too hard to fit them into boxes, whether anarchist or fascist. Gnostrat 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been edging towards a national-anarchist perspective for a while now, and from my overview of Southgate and co.'s position, they seem as opposed to statist ideas as mainstream anarchists, in fact, in some ways more so. The short-lived ideological alliance with National Bolshevism was due to the shared concepts of third way and traditionalist politics, and Southgate always made their differences very clear.

As regards Putin; I can't see any evidence of alignment with him from any national-anarchists. Some N-A's express sympathy for anti-American leaders such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad, but this hardly makes them aligned. On the national-anarchist mailing list anti-Putin comments are often made, and Southgate himself has condemned all the aforementioned leaders as "statists" and therefore not worth support from anarchists.

Possibly there is a confusion stemming from past involvement between Southgate and the pro-Putin National Bolshevik Alexander Dugin. This was an involvement based on around debate over shared ideological ground, and hardly constitutes an alignment of any kind. In any case, the involvement between N-A and the Nazbols has pretty much been severed by Dugin's weird ambivalence about Zionism and enthusiasm for Pooty-Poots, and on the opposing faction, Eduard Limonov's transformation into a Russian George Galloway. C'est la vie.

You seem admirably neutral and open-minded on N-A, and looking at your user profile your basic beliefs are completely compatible with it. Would you been at all interested in joining any of the forums? It'd be great to have a different perspective, especially with your knowledge of related currents like the Black Ram group.Belzub 16:31, 03 December 2007

Well, that just about blows any credibility I've still got at this place! I assume you have a particular forum in mind? It's pretty unsettling that you think my views are compatible with N-A, given that I've also had mainstream anarchists tell me they agree with my positions — and they're the ones who think N-A's are the pits! It makes me wonder all the more whether a gap between movements is being artificially maintained by prior assumptions and political categories that have little to do with the substance. It can't do any harm to discuss it.

I stand corrected on the Putin link. I was indeed basing my comments on the N-A / Nazbol "axis". European Liberation Front is a name which implies a certain level of coordination and alignment. Probably more than was actually there. I wasn't unaware that Southgate had criticised Stalinism, but I just couldn't see how he could possibly maintain a political association (let's call it) with Dugin whilst holding to that position. I figured either (a) Southgate had to be insincere, or (b) the N-A / Nazbol association would not hold. I guess if I'd been keeping my eye on the ball I'd have realised it had already fallen apart.

As for Black Ram, well, in the past some individual with evident N-A sympathies has attempted to airbrush that group off Wikipedia, claiming it was mythical and an "obvious attempt to discredit the real NA founders". (So much for WP:Assume good faith.) I'm happy that you think I'm still fair-minded after that. I could never quite see how someone felt that Black Ram undermined N-A. Smarter to look at it as a partial precursor, I suppose. I felt that it was noteworthy, but also that it wasn't that important (which is why I didn't create an article for it). After all, Black Ram didn't build a global movement. It was just an earlier group that was completely unconnected (unless today's N-A's can claim a pedigree back to Else Christensen or Gustav Landauer). Gnostrat (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I wouldn't worry about that! Considering the number of people here who are only interested in spouting the same old rubbish about national-anarchism being "fascist" and trying to get the article deleted, I'd say one honest mistake doesn't dampen your credibility one bit. Sadly, mainstream anarchists don't realise that they have far more in common with N-As then they'd like to think. I was a green anarchist/primitivist type for some of my early teenage years, and it was only recently that I discovered that, far from being a sinister fascist co-optation exercise, N-A is actually kind of what I'd instinctively believed for years, but didn't know how to put into words. You are absolutely right that received assumptions about politics are keeping all of us apart, and N-A and the New Right seem to be making at least an attempt to challenging those assumptions and getting everyone opposed to the system together, and resolving any ideological differences through mutual, voluntary seperation.

I was thinking of the National-Anarchist Yahoo group specifically, but Attack the System or Rose-Noire are also good places to start. ATS is run by Keith Preston of the American Revolutionary Vanguard, who is not himself N-A, but supports it and other seperatist/secessionist movements of all kinds. I am sure he would be fascinated to hear your views on anarchism.

It's a shame that some N-As are evidently so narrow-minded themselves to assume the Black Ram group were some kind of attempt to discredit their beliefs. Oh well, I can't really blame them for being paranoid considering the amount of hostility they get from both the extreme left and extreme right. I find this hidden strand of anarchist history to be fascinating and I'd love to see some scans of the original newsletters, should you ever make any. Belzub 13:10, 05 December 2007

I agree that merger with the National Revolutionary Faction makes sense, but not Neo Naziism. I think they are clearly White Nationalists, and there has been a long history of Whit Nationalists such as Ernest Sevier Cox and Theodore Bilbo in his book entitled Take Your Choice, Separation or Mongrelization. As regards the idea that "Racism is a logical enemy of Anarchists" or the A-N is not to racist, experience shows both views to be of little relevance inthe ligt of practical experience to the contrary.Harrypotter 17:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, there have been no objections to merging in the NRF article so I've been bold and done it. Cercle de la rose noire can hardly justify a separate existence either. Gnostrat 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is evidence of National Anarchists engaging in antisemitism. Mobius1ski (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I've reverted edits by 151.204.254.237 and Harrypotter. There was no good reason to remove the right-wing perspective on this, and the phrase "ordinary anarchists" is POV to say the least. If either of you feel you were justified on this, please discuss it here and we can come to a conclusion.

Also, Stormfront is the largest white-nationalist forum on the web, so it's not exactly an unreliable source for what some white-nationalists are saying about National-Anarchism. Once again, if you would like to discuss this, please do. I'm not a tyrant, so I will hear your points of view on this. Please, just don't turn this into a revert war. Belzub 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Message boards are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Spylab (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Belzub, please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources; there's no way Stormfront could be considered a reliable source under this formulation. Skomorokh ^incite 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Forgive me for my error, good sirs. Belzub 00:39, 21 December 2007

Apologies for my flippancy. If you follow the ordinary link you will see that I was being a bit cheeky.Harrypotter (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Nice one, mate! Belzub 00:39, 21 December 2007

Well, I think these other edits are even better.Harrypotter (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed misleading Third Positionist sidebar

This is a POV categorisation. Southgate has stated that National-Anarchism is not a Third Positionist ideology (explicitly rejecting 3P here, for example) but one which, having come out of 3P — with the emphasis on the out — has now transcended it. Like the now-defunct alliance with Dugin's National-Bolsheviks, the 3P connection is just interesting history which doesn't reflect where the movement is at now. I have therefore removed the incorrect Third Position template (although unfortunately I haven't been able to remove National-Anarchism from the template itself because it doesn't seem to properly exist, at least in any form that can be edited). Southgate has also stated here that the primary element in his syncretic ideology is the anarchism, which is why I have replaced the 3P template with the Anarchism template in the proper position. (Yes, I'm aware it's contentious too, but that's a different discussion.) Gnostrat (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Wait, despite it being well understood that "National Anarchism" bears no relationship to Anarchist Ideology (Being almost defined by its oposition to Nationalism!), and even its most staunchest advocates (Just google it , far out!) admitting it to be a third positionist platform, you'll take the word of a known police informant like Southgate over, well , truth?. This is an Encyclopedia, not a recruiting tool for the National front. I'm going to figure out how to revert this abject nonsense. 60.230.207.205 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand where the concept that anarchism is "almost by its oposition to Nationalism" comes from. Clearly its relationship to nationalism is complex. It's not just a matter of dealing with Bakunin's and Proudhon's nationalism, but also the statements coming from the Zapatista as regards patriotism. Also I am not sure that Gnostrat has any basis to call it a "movement", and I certainly would not agree that it has transcended anything. I have restored the 3P sidebar at the top because that is where its coming from. Yes of course Southgate tries to distance himself from it, but the sidebar is helpful as it locates in its political context. I have also restored the @ sidebar lower down. I eel it is suitable to have this in a less prominent position, but still retained. As regards to whether Southgate is a police informer, this view has been put forward by a number of people from the — and not just Green Anarchist — and may well be true. However to reduce his activities to such claims is misleading. Anyway I hope people can cope with these changes asI feel they do help to make clear what this ideology is about.Harrypotter (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made no other contentious changes but I have reverted the 3P template. Police informant or not, Southgate has defined the ideology and he has defined it as distinct from 3P. It is not for editors to sit in judgment. This article has to objectively record what NA's self-understanding and self-description are, not categorise it based on how hostile observers perceive it. Otherwise, Wikipedia might as well adopt the Libertarian position that fascism should be classified under socialism, or go with those Marxists who file Greens under fascism. If some of you think you are standing up for anarchism here, how anarchist is it to insist on defining people by your criteria and disallowing them from defining themselves for themselves?

A well researched and referenced site describes 3P as "a new form of fascism, a neofascism, called the Third Position, which seeks to overthrow existing governments and replace them with monocultural nation states built around the idea of supremacist racial nationalism and/or supremacist religious nationalism".[1] Even if you accept this contention that 3P is a form of fascism, NA does not fit the definition. NA is patently not going out to create monocultural nation-states built on racial or religious supremacism, or for that matter, any kind of states or any sort of supremacism. If they don't mean what they say, if they "really" intend to build these monolithic states, what in the world do they stand to gain by energetically promoting the exact opposite?

I'm undecided whether to call this a "movement" or not. I won't object to "current", but that is somewhat belittling and we are, after all, talking about a phenomenon which has gone global. But 3P is not where this current (if you will) is coming from any longer. This article isn't recruiting for the National Front (Southgate hasn't been a member of that for nearly two decades) but it certainly isn't a propaganda sheet for the 'orthodox' anarchists either. Gnostrat (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

This article is chock-full of unsupported claims. Many of the so-called core principals of the ideology don't even have any references to back them up. Note that according to Wikipedia guidelines, original research can be deleted at any time, so if anyone wants certain content to remain in the article, they should start digging up reliable references. Spylab (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty, now. We're doing our best to verify as much as possible, however this kind of research can take time, so please be patient. Belzub 17:10, 09 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not kidding about taking time. This article has existed in various forms for a very, very long time with a bunch of claims that weren't backed up by any reliable references - way more time than is acceptable. I'll have to check later whether the new footnotes meed Wikipedia standards. Spylab (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the article has 24 references, it would seem albeit at a an superficial level to be a well referenced article. If Spylab could put alongside what they regard as unsupported claims, that would be a more suitable way forward rather than making somewhat over excited remarks about what is and what is not "acceptable". Of course there are going to be a whole range of people who find the particular blend of neofascism and anarchist naivety that constitutes national anarchism quite nauseating, but we should not let such feelings overwhelm us as we work on an entry on national anarchism which accurately reflects nature, even where this contradicts how those who are currently designing and modelling the ideology would like it to be seen.Harrypotter (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Harry, that's exactly what Spylab did — saturated the article with fact tags on nearly every sentence. It's a well referenced article because some of us filled in the citations in response. So I'm not complaining, because Spylab's done us a favour here. The only causes for concern are his copy edits, which can turn well-written prose into choppy, pedestrian reading for the sake of brevity. What's more, I reverted a few of them because they changed the intended meaning. Do be careful, please. Gnostrat (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was necessary to revert the unfortunate deletion of some material here, because there is no reason to privilege anarchist critic of N-A over those of other people. It does not ake most people to work out that the N-A are racist, regardless of how theybtry and soft-sell their nostrums. The deletion of the anti-fa piece was clearly a serious error.Harrypotter (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of whether the Antifa piece supports the claim in the article. The sentence for which you cite it as a source reads: "Many critics argue that National-Anarchism's concept of racial separation leads intrinsically to racial hatred". If you can find in the Antifa source a single mention of either "racial separatism" or "racial hatred" in connection with N-A, let alone a serious critical analysis as to how N-A's advocacy of the one necessarily leads to the other, then I will leave this citation in place. Otherwise, it must be removed. It doesn't take much reading to realise that the Antifa piece is hate literature — which among other things incites its readers to "put the boot in" and finds cause for humour in one N-A supporter "leaving the Anarchist Bookfair in 1998 head first" — but that's not the issue. The issue is that it has not a single analytical argument that relates to the sentence where you have cited it. Gnostrat (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point: sorry I missed out the bit about physical confrontation.Harrypotter (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need to separate these two bits. The first citation (Green Anarchist) establishes that some anarchists interpret racial separatism as bound up with racial hatred. The second citation establishes almost nothing beyond the fact that the street-fighting Manichaeans of Antifa (which, incongruously, considers itself to be anarchist too) are out for violent confrontation with those whom they perceive as "the opposition". It certainly doesn't make any connection whatsoever with the previously-mentioned critique of racial-separatism. What it does tell us is that Antifa has got N-A pigeonholed as "far right", but since its founding statement accepts that "fascists can be non-racist and...most racists are not fascists", it isn't at all clear on which pretext (anti-racism or anti-fascism) these ochlocratic bigots consider National-Anarchists to be fair game for violent assault. They are certainly wrong on either count but I don't propose to debate that again now. I have made some changes which leave both citations in place but which I hope explain more fully and accurately where Antifa is coming from, insofar as the sources allow. This information should certainly go in the article, but not in the context where you have inserted it. Gnostrat (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Why on Earth is the Australian nihilist underground society in the links section? Their philosophical mentor from the American Nihilist society, Vijay Prozak, is a self described fascist, and anarchism and fascism are two mutually exclusive ideologies.

I've moved your post into chronological sequence. Had some doubts about ANUS myself as there doesn't seem to be anything on the site relating to N-A. Assuming this wasn't disinformation, I'd say somebody might have been misled by an odd article or post there that came from an N-A contributor. Not that I've noticed any yet. Anybody who wants to put it back in had better have a good reason. Gnostrat (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and Anarchism are indeed mutually exclusive, but NA is by no non-deceptive definition even remotely related to anarchism, except in its name and some of the deliberately dishonest verbal garbage it sprouts. There are no Anarchist Fascists, and N-A is a variety of Fascism. 203.161.85.233 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us know when you have something objective to contribute from a neutral point of view. Gnostrat (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Quick edit , re 'National Anarchists reject Fascism'

This is a nonsense, as they ARE a fascist group (By definition. They are nationalists, racists, and arguably distributionists. Ie fascists.) , although they dispute it. However unfortunately because this isn't worth a dreary edit war with the 'lets redefine words to trap kids into our ugly philosophy' crew, I've changed it to 'national anarchists CLAIM TO reject fascism'. There, everyones happy. 121.221.245.72 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it back. You can't "claim to" reject a thing. As I noted in my edit summary, saying you reject is by definition an act of rejection. Neutrally-phrased articles can't make judgments as to whether it's a "marketing claim" and shouldn't just slip in language which suggests it might be. During the Cold War people used to say it was a marketing claim when anarchists denied being agents of Moscow, and with no better logic. As a matter of plain fact, though, N-A doesn't fit either the classic definition of fascism or the newer ones which purposely shift the goalposts to ensure that people like Alain de Benoist get trawled in, who would have been called leftists if we weren't all so cynical and paranoid. Even Graham Macklin, whose critical analysis (Co-opting the Counterculture) argues that N-A still bears "the recognizable mark of Cain", is able to do so only on the basis that it fulfills HALF of this new concept of fascism — the "palingenetic" half — whilst "rejecting the very cornerstone of fascist ideology" in the nation-state. So who's redefining words here? Gnostrat (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What Nonsensical Obscuratism. 203.161.85.233 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your OPINION. Gnostrat (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal: 'Anarchist critics argue...'

OK, I've put this bit back in, since it is a sourced statement, but I'm willing to discuss this - it's left over from the (often disastrous) 'other movements' section, which for a time merely acted as a mouthpiece for lefty dogmatists. Belzub 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've no particular attachment to it, either: it could be rephrased, re-sourced or both, but not arbitrarily removed. And I suggest re-connecting it with the sentence "Many National-Anarchists..." which looks forlornly out of place in the lead section. Gnostrat (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of covered in "This rejection however..." anyway, so it could be merged in with that I guess. Is it worth maybe getting rid of "Many National-Anarchists..." altogether? Belzub 22:33, 06 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in with "This rejection..." because we have to keep the fascism question distinct from the separatism question (even if some people would happily infer the one from the other). I've provisionally joined it with "Many NAists...", which seems to fit this context better. Welf's articles aren't the ones I would source it to, though. Gnostrat (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll dig out some more sources today. Belzub 11:44, 07 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added in the sources. This article is in a better shape than it's ever been I reckon; previous versions tended to define N-A by its relationship to its ideological opponents. Pats on backs all round! Belzub 14:10, 07 May 2008 (UTC)

Calls for Deleting

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

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

Importance

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

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

Lack of sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German "Anarchist Nationalists"

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

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

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

Injudicious Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

Two points:

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

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

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