Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:44:01 +0100
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Anarchy Magazine and Violence


Hi all

Chuck0 wrote:
> 
> I'm back after a two week hiatus from discussion-oriented lists. Can
> guarantee that I will stay long. I'm trying to devote more of my time
> these days to constructive projects and less to silly and stupid
> movement politics.

Welcome back! I know how you feel, btw. Its funny how doing mailing
lists from home makes you less likely to do -- far more important
things to do!

<snip>
 
> > > PS and "Green anarchist" are not anarchists, imho, they are at best
> > > liberals (with the usual elitism and so on) and deeply vanguardist.
> > > Thats why they support such stupidity as the infamous "irrationalists"
> > > article. Their idea of a "new society" are so unappealing that no
> > > one would voluntarily agree to it, and so they must be "encouraged"
> > > by the enforced breakdown of society. Thats not anarchism. Its
> > > Leninism given a primtivist coating.
> 
> I think that they are anarchists, even though I disagree with some of
> their opinions. 

Well, I was at a meeting in London when a member of GA said that he
"would perfer mass starvation than mass government" and by mass
government he meant "existing society". What is anarchic about mass
starvation? Even to suggest that would be a step forward from
todays society implies a total lack of concern about people.

And I should also note that in the GA utopia, we would not
have to worry about epidemics as there would be so few 
people left and no concentrations of population that the small
groups who did get diseases could not spread it!

Now, what the *hell* has this to do with anarchism? Or even
about human freedom? Who would support such a development?
Thats why they are not anarchists -- people will have to
be "forced to be free" for their utopia exists. And so
their support for "irrationalists" (i.e. fascists who
murder lots of people) -- it helps break down "mass
government" and so their vision is enforced on society.

Words cannot describe how evil this is.

It's a shame that the anarchist movement hasn't been
> more supportive of them in their legal problems.

Funnily enough, one of my old comrades from Edinburgh 
(Micha) is really anti-GA and *he* states its a shame 
that the anarchist movement has been so supportive of 
them!

The idea that the UK anarchist movement did not support
GA is not true. All the anarchists papers reported on
the trail and many individual anarchists gave support
(via the details presented in Black Flag, Freedom, 
Counter Information, etc).
 
> > Yeah, I really mostly was dissapointed with the Green Anarchist
> > editor interview and the attacks on people who didnt support the
> > Unabomber. I would like people to remember that regardless of the
> > public's perception that he was for "anarchy", most real anarchists didnt
> > like or agree with him.
> 
> I really liked the interview, probably more than Jason does. I was a bit
> pissed at the petty disses of friends Micah and Ramsey, but they had
> some things to say that shouldn't be ignored. 

They *really* hate Micah. Thats because he has been at the forefront
of exposing the implications of GA's politics. GA also claimed that
the anarchists in Glasgow (including me!) were all sheep who followed
Micah, who in turn got his instructions from Fabian! And lets not
forget the "Irrationalist" article which provoked Micah's campaign.
They, GA, argued that the Omh cult had "the right idea" as did the
Oklahoma bombers! Totally and utterly sick.

It's obvious that the U.K.
> anarchist movement engages in the same mud-slinging that we do over here
> in the world's remaining superpower.

Actually, no (not that much). GA has been consistantly slagging off
everyone who disagreed with them, including Black Flag (the latest
issue has some utter nonsense about how AK are Black Flag's pay
masters!). The discussion has been on the implications of GA's
article "The Irrationalists" -- which is a totally sick article.
 
and they also call anyone who disagrees with them as "liberals"
(and so anyone who objects to blowing up children or gassing
commuters is a "liberal" -- and their defence of their article
amounted to saying, "we don't agree with the politics of the
terrorists we praised, only their tactics"!). 

If thats the case, I'm a liberal and proud of it! And notice
that GA;s approach is to try and intimate those who disagree
with them by name calling. I'm not a liberal, but it takes
time to refute the claims that I am. Time I could be better
using elsewhere. Mud sticks...

> Just to piss you anarcho-liberals off, I'm planning to add a Unabomber
> support page to my infoshop. You liberals are out of touch with ordinary
> folks who sympathize with the Unabomber's anger towards the system that
> kills them.

I don't support blowing people up. I don't think "ordinary folks" 
feel that killing those who disagree with them is something to
sympathise with (useless its the state doing it, of course).

Unabombers "anger" may have been justified, but his tactics are not.
I'm against the Unabomber being railroaded by the us state, but I
don;t support his work (or his non-anarchist politics).

> I'm also completely tired of this hair-splitting about who the "real"
> anarchists are. The only people concerned with this are anarcho-liberals
> like Jamal and Ed Stamm. I'm interested in building an anarchist society
> and trashing capitalism, NOT rehabilitating anarchism's public image.

How is supporting people whose actions harm the very people who will
create an anarchist society help that? It will not. GA argued that
right-wing murderers had "the right idea" -- opposing that is not
"rehabilitating anarchism's public image" its opposed deeply flawed
and authoritarian politics calling itself anarchist.
 
<snip>

Iain