How unfunny is the 'humour' page??? Required viewing for all the muppets who bleat on that the BNP is 'respectable nowadays' methinks...

The really funny thing is that this image was lifted from an Palestinian-hating Zionist site. You know, Zionists... Searchlight.... Jews.... your great pals in the anti-fash fight.

If that's the case the BNP were lying because they claimed it was created by one of their members. You people wouldn't know honesty if you tripped over it.

I'm opposed to any form of intellectual copyright - all intellectual ideas are stolen and all copyright is oppression - but I'm also opposed to violence and I'd still give the BNP a passing kick. So good on you, you made me have a laugh at their expense.

"and Wiley, the publishers (the '...for dummies' series of books."

Not intended as any sort of defense of the BNP -- but what PRECISELY is the violation here (I haven't gone to the BNP site and won't so can't see for myself).

The APPEARANCE of a Wiley "...for dummies" book? (copyright protects the artwork).
The use of the title format? UH -- book TITLES are not protected by copyright. The fact that you have written a book and titled it "X Y Z" and hold the copyright to that book does NOT restrict somebody else from wiritng another book also with the title "X Y Z"

A good example of how anarchism/libertarianism cannot and will not work. When push comes to shoves those who claim to be anarchists/libertarians/activists will always run to the man, the law, the courts, the big corporations (ie. those they claim to despise) in order to enforce a political program.

You have not exposed the fash. You have simply exposed yourselves as being, well, full of idealistic bullshit really.

A good example of how anarchism/libertarianism can and does work. When push comes to shoves those who claim to be anarchists/libertarians/activists will always run to the man, the law, the courts, the big corporations (ie. those they claim to despise) in order to enforce a apolitical program.

Anti-racism isn't a political issue, it's a moral issue. It is just plain indecent and stupid to discriminate on skin colour or to tolerate fascist activity without doing something to harrass them on whatever level. And to enforce a moral agenda it is perfectly fine and pragmatic to pit the forces of oppression against themselves. Smart even, if somewhat lazy. I agree its a rather lame action but it was a good comedy stunt and I think that was the spirit in which it was offered.

I never saw you track down and imprison Antony Walkers murderers.

So how exactly would YOU deal with the fash?

Personally, I don't have a problem with using may method that works to give them as much trouble as possible.

After all, they would do the same to anti-fascists.

If you have a better plan, then by all means share it with us.

If not, keep your pathetic sneering to yourself.

Anti-racism a moral issue? Oh dear, that's even worse. Conjures up images of witch-burning and Oliver Cromwell's puritan army, particularly the bit about enforcing a moral agenda.

And, er, Pilgrim. If you don't know then don't ask. I keep hearing your excuses being used by GW Bush to justify his "War on Terror".

Yes, it's a good stunt and yes, it's a great way to laugh at the BNP and their stupidities. Fascists (and their followers) don't seem to have a sense of humour, which makes every dig a little more fun.
The more serious point is that this is another nudge towards Paypal dumping the BNP, which should cause them a whole bunch of problems and frankly, anything that causes the BNP a problem is fine by me.
And yes, if I thought it might help to get rid of the BNP forever, I'd go to Tony Blair and George Bush and kiss their feet - dressed up as Mr Bump. It'd be well worth the humiliation. :-)

As I've mentioned Paypal, forgive a further mention. They've written to a supporter suggesting that a far better place to write to complain about their provision of banking services to the BNP would be to BOTH  complaint-response@paypal.com and  appeal@paypal.com Both of these should 'lead to further action'. Let's hope so.

It seems strange to claim 'anarchism' can't ever work ( Spain and the Ukraine proves the lie of that anyway) simply because one activist has used the law against the fascists. And it seems even more bizarre for someone who feels anarchism can't work to lecture everyone else on tactics. Tactical issues such as this are debateable but they don't impinge on the practicality of the philosophy. If the establishment can be encouraged to harrass the fascists rather than us I can't see the problem.

'Moral' was a poor choice of words - my point is anti-racism isn't a political issue any more than being anti-war is. They are apolitical issues that cross political boundaries and are valid anarchist issues - challenging the existing power structures. Now if someone chooses to pit one unfair power structure tactically against another unfair power structure, that's a debatable tactic but to claim it as proof of inherent failure is daft. Now my enemies enemy isn't my friend but I'm happy to have them do my fighting for me in certain circumstances.

Do you consider yourself an anarchist WJ ? The natural extension of your argument is that anarchists shouldn't use the NHS, shouldn't live in council housing, shouldn't use public highways and shouldn't complain when the cops beat us up. Which would be fair enough if we weren't forced to pay for these things the same as everyone else is.

Anyone can call him/herself an anarchist. There's no central registry confirming anyone's anarchist credentials. There's no party card. Hitler could have called himself an anarchist and invaded Poland. Doesn't mean he was though.

You claim that the establishment can be encouraged to harrass the fascists rather than us so you can't see the problem. This sounds like the establishment can be a good thing for people, given the right circumstances. Sounds almost Marxian that. And we both know what happened in the Ukraine and Spain when the Marxists got involved. So no Danny boy, you are simply cutting your own throat in the longer term by thinking you can use the establishment for your own benefit. In actual fact, the establishment is using you for its own benefit. Very civic minded of you though.

If the fash did not exist, the government would have to invent them. They are a smokescreen. Don't play their game. But I'm not sure this is the time or place to discuss such weighty issues. But that is my opinion, you may or may not agree with. Except to say, why shouldn't anarchists use the NHS? Health is a right not a choice. Shelter is a right not a choice. Freedom from harrassment is a right not a choice. If the government expects society to obey its laws then it must give something in return.

"Anyone can call him/herself an anarchist....Doesn't mean he was though."
Very true. A lot of the best anarchists refuse to label themselves as such because they refuse to be labelled.

"You claim that the establishment can be encouraged to harrass the fascists rather than us so you can't see the problem."
Yes, I can't see what your problem is, I thought I'd said that.

"This sounds like the establishment can be a good thing for people, given the right circumstances."
Yes I do. One example would be when it harrasses fascists like I said. Bad things can be useful in certain circumstances.



"Sounds almost Marxian that."
Heavens no. 'I am not a Marxist' as the man himself once said.


"And we both know what happened in the Ukraine and Spain when the Marxists got involved."
Well the SWP like to refer to those folk as Stalinists not Marxists for obvious reasons, though they probably called themselves Marxists. Unlike Marx of course, which was very anarchist of him.

"So no Danny boy, you are simply cutting your own throat in the longer term by thinking you can use the establishment for your own benefit."

But I can and I do ! I take your point that any reliance on the establishment delays the time that I develop my own networks to replace the state, but that is an ideologically pure position and tactically flawed. However, to speak in proverbs, 'a drowning man will clutch at a snake'.

"In actual fact, the establishment is using you for its own benefit. Very civic minded of you though."
Really ? The establishment is using me ? Oh if only someone had told me before! I've been such a fool.


"If the fash did not exist, the government would have to invent them. They are a smokescreen. Don't play their game."
'Their game' ? You mean the establishments game ? Do you mean our rather pathetic smalltown fascists aren't worth opposing while our genocidal government and 'establishment' are profitting from murdering hundereds of thousands of innocents abroad ? If so, I agree with the analysis but I still think it is worth taking 5 minutes everyday to 'engage' the smalltown yobs.

If Nick Griffin was in my street I would drive him away physically. If Tony Blair was in my street I would attempt to kill him. I hope that is clear. Your average Labour party member is worse than a BNP member in my opinion. I don't see much difference between the parties - I happy harrass Green party members because they are happy to 'take office' and send the poolice to harass me.

"But I'm not sure this is the time or place to discuss such weighty issues."
Some of the power-mad, unpaid, unthanked IM volunteers do seem to regard this as a newswire rather a discussion forum. However luckily someone smarter than them already decided to allow comments for participation.

"But that is my opinion, you may or may not agree with. Except to say, why shouldn't anarchists use the NHS? Health is a right not a choice. Shelter is a right not a choice. Freedom from harrassment is a right not a choice. If the government expects society to obey its laws then it must give something in return."

For anarchists, there are no rights as nobody has any more authority than yourself to grant rights. To have rights means having bodies to enforce those rights and you can't impose anything on a free person. You can only ask nicely, which is common courtesy after all. Nobody has rights and nobody has responsibilities, except to themselves. Use whatever tactic or strategy you are comfortable with that complies with your own conscience and don't give orders. And I'd suggest until you think this through a bit more in depth then don't give out too much 'authoritative' advice on what other fre-thinking folk should or shouldn't do.

Non-anarchists would argue that anarchists shouldn't use any state-provided service as they oppose the state. However, as an anarchist who is violentally (via the police) forced to obey certain rules or risk punishment (such as paying taxes to my oppressor) then I feel no compunction in fucking with the state-services however I wish. And that means I enjoy the freedom to call the cops when my girlfriend gets raped simply to stop aniother rape or to call the cops when the fascists at the end of the street are bigger and stronger than my mates. That does not make me a friend of the state and I think you are being overly restrictive and overly proscriptive in criticising Mr. Constantine.

You are right, it would be nice if John had either cured the fascists of their idiocy or directly destroyed their means of spreading hate, but I see him reporting his efforts towards that here and from you all I see so far is piety.

>>>"For anarchists, there are no rights as nobody has any more authority than yourself to grant rights. To have rights means having bodies to enforce those rights and you can't impose anything on a free person. You can only ask nicely, which is common courtesy after all. Nobody has rights and nobody has responsibilities, except to themselves. Use whatever tactic or strategy you are comfortable with that complies with your own conscience and don't give orders. And I'd suggest until you think this through a bit more in depth then don't give out too much 'authoritative' advice on what other fre-thinking folk should or shouldn't do."<<<

Try *inalienable* rights Danny boy. Rights that can never be granted and therefore never taken away. Eg. Workers have the right to withdraw labour whether the state grants that right or not.

Ah, see now you are falling into their trap, talking about a workers 'right' to withdraw labour. That implies several things. It implies there are certain things that a worker is permitted to do 'rightfully'. That implies that there are certain things that a worker is not permitted to do and that there is a higher authority who can judge what is permissible. I don't accept that. Any worker has the 'right' to do anything they want to do. I'm all for a workers inalienable right to steal pens and stationary from their workplace. Or to burn down their bosses house if he gives them grief.

Although sticking with your example of an 'unalienable right' to strike, many workers don't have that right today and no workers had a legal right to strike until they decided for themselves that they would. And more importantly most workers have very little ability to strike on the really important issues because their unions are full of officials affiliated with the genocidal Labour party. Who seem to think 'the workers' have an unalienable right to murder Iraqis for their oil.

Pardon my ignorance as I skipped more than a few classes at Anarchist Day school but you think like a socialist. Which isn't the worst insult I've used today.

Ketlan of lancaster UAF is a pro zionist serachlight stooge who slledgedly gives money to anti palastinian causes, protest now.
Free palenstine

Look Danny boy, why not try this site:
www.conservative-party.org.uk/

I'm sure you'll find it more to your liking. Very into "individualism" I believe.

In the meantime, come back when you actually know what you're talking about...

Toodlepip.

The Conservatives are very into individualism ? Well, now at least you are trying to be funny.

The reason I was happy to talk about anarchism with you was just to see if you were one of the more-anarchist-than-thou idiots who are happy to criticise anyone elses actions while doing nothing and suggesting nothing better, or whether you are a fascist yourself. And I never found out, but giving you the benefit of the doubt then I'll quote one of the world's leading anarchist intellectuals at you, someone even you don't have a bad word for :

"You have simply exposed yourselves as being, well, full of idealistic bullshit really".