Article:Smash the Fash

"Smash The Fash!"

or

"A Brief Discussion As To Why Anarchists Are Retarded"

( Originally posted as an online journal entry, of 2003-12-20 )

Last night, Andrew Novak and I went to the Death In June show at The Bluebird Theatre. I got in for free, 'cuz I schmooze in the right circles, and I agreed to get Andrew in as my guest, so long as he gave me a ride to the show.

So, I walk in, grab a beer, and soon thereafter, I bump into Boyd Rice. The first thing I said to him was, "Oh neat, you've got your Dark Shadows cane !" (an exact replica of the one Barnabas Collins carries in the old TV serial).

And he says to me, "Well, yeah, I might need it tonight  it can be used as a very effective weapon."

I stare at him quizzically, and I say, "Huh?"

To which he replies, "Oh, you haven't heard about what happened in Chicago, have you?"

I hadn't.

This is one 'sanitized' version of what happened in Chicago:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/derogatis/c st-nws-bottle16.html

One can find various accounts  some exaggerated, some understated  all over the internet, in newsgroups, on message boards, fan sites, livejournal, etc.

The short n' quick version that I heard from the mouth of one of those closest to the band itself was:

There was a Death In June show scheduled in Chicago. A bunch of lefty-anarcho-socialist-activist types called in a bunch of death threats, and bomb threats, and got it cancelled. It was moved to another venue. The anarchists proceeded to do the same thing to the second venue. It was moved to a third venue. The show was, again, cancelled, but by now, all the would-be attendees were already there  as were a bunch of black-clad anarchists with facemasks and (as some accounts go), collapsing steel batons. Violence erupted between the dejected Death In June fans, and the crowd of 'anarcho-activists' who'd shown up to the show (armed) for the specific purpose of protesting / disrupting it. The police showed up, but nobody was arrested.

A number of people were hurt/injured, and at least one Death In June fan was sent to the emergency room as a result of his/her injuries.

That's how I heard it.

The anarchist community's version goes something like this:

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.ph p?story=03/12/16/7922038

An even more slanderous character-assassination attempt is made here:

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.ph p?story=03/12/17/8467619

(I'll address this stuff later)

Anyway, apparently, similar problems were expected here in Denver, as there were also a series of death / bomb threats called in to The Bluebird last night (though the show went on unhindered).

Boyd didn't seem too concerned (he rarely does), though he was clearly quite prepared for whatever 'inconveniences' might arise.

So anyway, I'm standing there, looking sharp, in my suit-jacket, with the razor-parted Hitler hair I've had my entire life, and I'm thinking, "Oh Christ, this is just fucking great, I'm going to walk outside this venue and get fucking jumped by some dumb, over-zealous, 'globally conscious' college kids, because they think I'm a racist or something, just because I happen to be here  just fucking wonderful."

Why?

Because people are retarded, and anarchists are especially retarded (but I'll get back to that later on).

Anyway, so I was at the Death In June show, and, ironically, one couldn't hope for a more docile crowd. The entire place was full of twenty-something boys and girls playing dress-up make-believe. Goth. And I mean G.O.T.H. Leather corsets, vinyl pants, six-inch heels, Art nouveau tattoos, complex aerodynamic hairdos, and makeup  so, so much makeup, on both the boys and the girls and of course, everyone was clad in black. There were some 'militaria' guys there, yes, but they were in the minority  it was mostly either waify or chubby goth chicks, or excessively effeminate goth boys.

It reminded me a lot of Dark Sparkle in San Francisco.

So anyway, while waiting for the show to start, I drank some beers, smoked too many cigars, shot the shit and chit-chatted with the various characters I'm acquainted with who were in attendance: Andrew Novak, Shannon Dickie, Jaime Dunkle, Bob Ferbrache, Gregory Ego, that super-nice guy Frank, etc.

Boyd, dressed as Mussolini and wearing white face makeup, was the master of ceremonies for the evening. About an hour after I'd gotten there, he came out on stage, took the mike, quoted an Oscar Wilde aphorism about "truth and beauty," and introduced the band.

So, Death In June came on, and they played for a long, long ass time. They're a two piece: a guy named Douglas Pearce, singing and playing acoustic guitar, and another guy named John Murphy doing percussion and backing vocals. Their music is generally referred to as "dark folk" or "acoustic industrial" or something like that  and all in all, it's pretty mellow stuff. Nothing one could mosh, headbang, or pump one's fist to. Not aggressive in the slightest.

There was no opening band, and all their fans are absolute fanatics, so everyone in the place was swooning the whole fucking time. I swear man, those gothic girls could listen to Death In June all day, every day, and never tire of it.

Not me though.

I tire of things pretty quickly.

I kind of like Death In June  I have their retrospective "best of" double CD, and it's got some pretty good moments to it, but I'm not really what you might necessarily call a 'fan.' I've seen 'em a few times, but usually because they were playing with someone else I wanted to see. (I was glad, however, that they played my two favorite songs, "Little Black Angel" and "Heaven Street.")

Anyway, after a while, there was an intermission, at which point Boyd re-took the stage and did a comedy routine using props.

And that's why Boyd Rice is the Carrot Top of industrial music: prop comedy.

No, really: he's the Carrot Top of industrial music.

(ahem)

Then Death In June re-took the stage and played for a really long time again.

Let me be frank: They played too long.

I started getting bored.

As the night was wearing on, I got hungrier and hungrier, and beer and cigars just weren't going to do it. I wanted to venture outside for food ( The Bluebird doesn't serve any), but then I remembered the packs of anarchists ominously hiding in the bushes, waiting to jump me and beat me to death with batons, because of what they think I think so I waited.

And I waited

Eventually, I was just too hungry, so I said, "fuck it," and went to 7-11 for some taquitos.

Thankfully, I was not jumped by anarchists.

It sounds silly  I know  but my apprehension and caution were perfectly valid. After all, there had been as many preemptive death threats and bomb threats here in Denver as there had been in Chicago, and a local anarchist 'collective,' The Breakdown is right on the same street as The Bluebird 

So call me paranoid, but I was glad to be carrying my canister of mace that night.

Anyway, at around 12:45 or so, the show ended, and about a half an hour or so later, Andrew, Shannon, Frank and myself were all backstage schmoozing it up with the band.

I had made a point not to get too drunk this time. It was a long evening, and thus, this was a lot harder than it should have been, but nonetheless, I managed to pace myself, and didn't act like a total drunken asshole, (unlike the time I met Marilyn Manson).

Shannon he, um he didn't pace himself.

Shannon was drunk.

Anyway, there was some schmoozy photo-taking and whatnot, and some gear-loading and small-talk and such, and then eventually we all ended up at The Streets Of London just in time to make 'last call.'

And there, at a bar, at the end of the night, I found myself sitting between Douglas Pearce and John Murphy, the two insidious members of the violence-inducing dark folk band, Death In June.

Had I been a gothic girl, perhaps I would have feinted from the excitement, but thankfully, I am not a gothic girl, so I just calmly sipped my beer.

Anyway, I made small talk with both of them, and both proved quite conversational and friendly.

Being a little tipsy, I posed a rather uncouth question of Mr. Pearce. I said, "So Doug, what was all this about things getting ugly in Chicago?" And he just looked at me for a minute, and said something to the effect of, "I can't talk about that right now. It was just really, really ugly, and stupid, and pathetic, and I just want to sit here and enjoy this chardonnay right now."

I apologized for bringing it up.

I wasn't trying to be rude, I was just curious.

He assured me that I didn't need to apologize, and then went on to talk a little about it anyway. In doing so, he made one comment on the subject that I thought was a bit telling. It was something along the lines of, "Those people are just terrible, hypocritical, disagreeable people. I don't care either way about their politics, or opinions, or whatever, I just think they're rotten people  as people. I used to run with those sort of people, and I know exactly what kind of people they are."

Unfortunately, so do I.

So I gave Doug P. a truncated version of the speech I've been giving a lot of people lately. Something along the lines of: "In practice, people are almost always the opposite of what they're trying to be in theory. Almost nobody practices what they preach. Those people who feel most compelled to don the mask of 'goodness' are those who most need to overcompensate for their inner monstrosity."

(Of course, it wasn't nearly that well-stated when I actually said it, but never mind that)

But I knew exactly what he was referring to by saying he used to be involved with the same type of folks. See, if you do your homework  and I always do my homework  you find out very fascinating things about people like Douglas Pearce. Like the fact that in the late seventies, at the dawn of punk rock, he fronted a band called Crisis. A very left-wing punk band, very much along the lines of Crass. They played a lot of "Rock Against Racism" shows in England, and seem to have been very concerned with things like 'anarchism,' 'socialism' and fighting 'racism.'

Following what one can only assume must have been a serious disillusionment with the ideologies he'd been buying into at the dawn of punk, Mr. Pearce dissolved Crisis in the late seventies, and formed Death In June, a band that went in quite another direction entirely...

This kind of stuff interests me about people.

I find it fascinating.

It's kind of like how Jim Goad, author of The Redneck Manifesto , describes himself as having been "the original wigger," and P.J. O'Rourke , author of Give War A Chance and Peace Kills , admits to having been a peacenik, communalist hippie in his youth.

It makes perfect sense: people sincerely immerse themselves in something (like an ideology, for instance), then since they've completely immersed themselves in it, they eventually realize that it's complete and total bullshit, and  being ultimately concerned with the truth  they abandon it and go in the other direction.

It makes sense, really.

When you know something inside-out, you find out exactly what's wrong with it.

Of course, I have a suspicion that, unlike myself, the Chicago anarchist types don't do their homework. They either don't know, or don't care that Doug Pearce used to be involved with the exact same shit they're into. They don't have to: they're more concerned with being 'good' than with being objective.

They aren't concerned with finding out the truth of the situation, because doing so might conflict with their assumptions, and thus undermine their ideological agenda. Ergo, they certainly wouldn't do what I did, which is actually sit down and talk to Mr. Doug Pearce.

So, I have a problem with these moralistic crusaders who call themselves anarchists.

They've created an incredibly hypocritical and ironic situation.

The hypocrisy and irony of it all is so overwhelming, that it's almost funny.

I say almost, because it really isn't funny.

It's not funny, because the guys from Death In June are nice, decent guys.

Really, really nice guys, actually.

I like them.

I'd lend them money.

Heck, I'd even go so far as to have them over for dinner at my  middle class, suburban, liberal  parents' house.

You know what Doug P. and I mostly talked about at The Streets Of London ?

Animals.

I was a lil' drunk and I was jus' tryin' ta make conversation with the guy, so I said, "So, Doug, my perception of Australia (where he lives these days), is that it's the land of deadly animals  you guys have the funnel-web spider, the sharks etc." and that's what we talked about.

He told me about poisonous Australian spiders.

He was a nice, polite, considerate man, with a good sense of humor.

A sweetheart, really.

He seemed 'tolerant' even  when a certain drunk someone made an off-color comment about his homosexuality (yes, he's gay), he didn't flip out and start shrieking at them about how they were intolerantly oppressing his sexuality, as someone like, say, oh, an anarchist might do. No, instead, he just laughed and ignored it.

That was my personal experience with Douglas Pearce of Death In June.

I actually had the chance to talk to him, and as I said, he was a sweetheart.

But the Chicago anarchists, they just can't deal with it, man!

They're, like, fuckin' freakin' out man!

Cuz' the fascists  they're everywhere man!

They're among us!

It's 1933 all over again!

Holy shit!

Look out!

Take to the streets and resist the neo-fascist onslaught, before it's too late!

It's time to take a stand against fascism!

It's time to strike back!

(insert hoots, cheers, stomping and the sound of torches being lit here)

Right.

What-ever, dude.

(sigh)

Let me tell you a little story about why anarchists are retarded:

(ahem)

About a year ago, when The United States was in the process of declaring war on Iraq, I was living in the city of San Francisco. Being a fairly, liberal, 'progressive' city, there was naturally a lot of protest against the war. Actually, there was a fuck of a lot of protest against the war  downtown SF was so clogged with human bodies, that I didn't even leave my house for a couple of days. At one point, people actually came onto the bay bridge, and the police had to use city busses to cart off all the arrestees.

So anyway, there were a lot of protesters, from all walks of life: middle class, upper class, lower class, old, young, middle-aged, etc. Of the thousands of people from all over the Bay Area who showed up to the San Francisco protests, there were, perhaps about two hundred or so black-clad, mask-wearing anarchists.

These anarchists showed up not only to protest the war, but to protest the entire western concept of capitalism, as well as so-called 'colonialism,' 'racism,' 'globalization,' the money system, the concept of private property, ect. (pretty much everything about a first-world country that allows them the luxury to be able to have the leisure time to be anarchist protesters).

The important thing, however is that on the most basic level, the anarchists in attendance at the San Francisco protests were there under the auspices of being 'against' violence, and therefore 'against' the war.

That was the idea.

Of course, the fact of the matter  predictably  was that these anti-war/anti-violence folks ended up causing violence, rather than preventing it.

These black-clad, mask-wearing anarchists brought with them to the protests, a wide array of illegal and homemade weaponry, attacked police officers (seriously injuring one, maybe two  I don't remember), destroyed both private and public property, and generally tried to turn an otherwise peaceful protest against the war, into a chaotic mob riot.

Now, during this time, I watched a lot of news. Much like the anarchists, I had the luxury of being unemployed at the time, so I sat at home and flipped channels. I noticed, that in particular, FOX news was surprisingly un-objective in their coverage of the war debate  they were very conservative, very biased, and very, very pro-war.

So anyway, FOX news, they did some reports on the massive protests in San Francisco, and what did these reports consist of?

Footage of anarchists.

Footage of the small minority of ultra-left extremists who were not only protesting the war, but pretty much the entire concept of modern-day America.

There was quite a bit of choice footage provided for FOX and other networks by these anarchists. I recall footage of a group of about thirty of them converging around some governmental building in San Francisco, clad in black, wearing hoods and facemasks, armed, throwing things, stomping towards the camera shouting, "Whose streets? Our Streets! Whose streets? Your streets!" Of course  predictably  the cops showed up almost immediately and following a bit of a scuffle and some minor violence, arrested the lot of them.

What did they accomplish?

Nothing.

They probably got to brag to their friends about how they got arrested at the 'demo.'

They got the 'street cred' of being able to say, "Yeah, I did time for an 'anti-war action' back in '03 - those were the days man... fucking up the pigs... fighting for the workers... bla... bla... bla..."

But the important thing to note, is that they actually accomplished absoluetly nothing.

They acted like spoiled little bitches demanding a toy from mommy, and only succeeded in giving the ultra-conservative right exactly the kind of pro-war propaganda it needed. When edited properly, this footage was made to present the image of this meager group of loonies as being a serious threat to "America."

Thanks to the footage provided by these San Francisco anarchists, FOX (as well as many of the other major networks), was able to paint a picture for the rest of the nation, which presented all the thousands of Bay Area protestors as being simply crazed, black-clad zealots out to destroy the government and abolish the money system.

With this image of 'anti-war' protest presented as being 'the norm,' the war and the government begin to seem a lot more reasonable than anyone  left, right, moderate  who was against the war, no matter how reasonable their arguments may have been.

This footage of zany anarchists played its part in effectively rendering serious, moderate, level-headed anti-war protest mute, because it made it appear as though anyone who was against the war, was just some hippie communalist nut (and who cares about their wacko opinions?).

This, in turn, made it just that much easier for G.W. Bush's cabinet to push the war through.

So ultimately, if anything, the San Francisco anarchists in attendance at the anti-war protests in 2003, not only accomplished nothing (aside from getting arrested), but in fact hindered their supposed cause far more than they helped it.

They made it easier for the media to present all anti-war protesters as being left-wing extemists, and this served to compromise the legitimacy of arguments against the war, in the eyes of the general public.

They succeeded in accomplishing exactly the opposite of what they'd set out to do.

And this, is but one of many reasons why anarchists are retarded.

(sigh)

So, let's look at this whole 'incident' that happened at the Death In June show in Chicago.

I'll assume that you've perused the above-mentioned articles, and thus, I won't repeat them.

So here goes:

(ahem)

The groups involved in orchestrating the shutting-down of the Death In June show, and who later "militantly confronted" (their words, not mine) Death In June fans outside the venue, were: Anti Racist Action, Anarchist Skins And Punks, Midwest Unrest, and "various local activists and anti racists."

All these people, from all these different groups, felt it necessary to keep two guys from singing some acoustic folk songs on a small stage.

(And you still think punk rock is iconoclastic?)

So, curious as to why they felt this was necessary, I wet to their websites, and I checked out the things their 'members' had to say about the incident, after the fact.

Among all the posted comments regarding this issue that I found on the (above-referenced) Infoshop/Anti-Racist Action messageboard, there was only one that was reasonable and level-headed:

"Convincing venues not to provide a stage for certain bands might not be 'censorship' in the technical sense of the word, but it is in the same spirit as formal censorship because it decreases people's ability to choose what cultural influences they would like to expose themselves to. Furthermore, in the case of convincing venues not to provide a stage to bands by making threats of violence, as was done in this instance, this IS censorship, and is totally unacceptable. I don't see anything morally wrong with these bands using traditional European symbols like the life rune, black sun or even the swastika for that matter. All of these have a history predating Nazism and are not in and of themselves racist or fascist; they have different spiritual and philosophical connotations to different people. Some of these bands might be hardcore racists but for the most part they don't talk about their racial views. I don't really care if they are racists or fascists. They are doing nothing to physically hurt or intimidate anyone."

Most, however were more along the lines of:

"The last thing I'll ever do is give fascists a safe space to organize. What if Skrewdriver and H8 Machine were playing in your neighborhood?"

Skrewdriver ?

That shitty German Oi! band from the eighties?

Yeah, omigod, what if they were playing in your neighborhood? What would you do? I mean, how could you just sit there in your living room, knowing that right down the street, they were playing a show, and people were liking it.

What a terrifying thought indeed!

Christ.

Others are far more articulate, along the lines of:

"smash facism. destroy capital."

or:

"free speech for fascists is crap, i am not in support of the state silencing them, however i also am in no way in support of allowing them to organize action towards the ultimate silencing of all who disagree with their view of an authoritarian world gulag. So until next time bash the fash!"

Still another:

"You can wax poetic about "free speech", but it's really just masturbation with theory. Fascism *must* be opposed."

Yet another:

"Naive liberal fucks I hope I never have to tell ya I told you so. Militant street anti fascism without apologies. We can debate it all day long but the fact still remains when Nazi scum come to our towns to organize they will be confronted and called out on their racist bullshit. This non confrontational free speech crap is just another privileged liberal excuse to do nothing."

My personal favorites:

"Holy fuck what's with all the liberal "Nazis have rights to" bullshit? Folks who are actively working towards and promoting white supremacy deserve a steal toe boot in the ass. Read your history people these folks dont wanna debate you at the local hippie coffe shop, they want to displace/murder/enslave millions of people! You can go over to their side of the fence and tell em how you support their right to free speech but I don't wanna hear you whining when we mistake you for one of them and maul your naive liberal ass."

And:

"what ARA usually does to nazis is nothing compared to what Nazis actually deserve - a bullet in the head."

(and there are many, many more along those lines)

(ahem)

So, literally, what's being said here is that a person's beliefs, if they are of a particular bent, justify their being killed.

Wow.

I mean wow.

Ya' know what that sounds like ta' me

I mean, the irony is patently obvious, but it sounds to me like these anarchists are behaving like FASCISTS.

Yes, it's ironic, and yes, it's very, very, very hypocritical.

But these are the times we live in.

We live in a time of disturbingly twisted morality, and a time in which ethics are all but absent from discourse. It's a time when everyone is shouting about diversity, but nobody can deal with real diversity. It's a time when the people who claim to be the most tolerant are in practice, the least tolerant. A time when those most insistent on 'multi-culturalism' can't accept the naturally occurring dissidence within that multi-culturalism. A time when the people who appear to be most concerned with 'freedom' (whether that be George Bush, or anarchists), are those most interested in curtailing freedom.

We live in some ass-backwards times, folks.

Those Chicago anarchists aren't simply 'mistaken'  they're fucking wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

And because I care  because I want to help the anarchist community of Chicago find its way  I wrote them the following letter:

Dear anarchists of Chicago,

You moral superstars recently beat up some Death In June fans, for reasons that I find ethically unsound.

That isn't very nice, kiddies.

Think about this logically for just one fucking second (assuming that you can).

(ahem)

You're opposed to 'fascism.'

You think fascism is 'wrong.'

So what you do, is you find someone out there in the arts, who you feel  for whatever reasons  is advocating 'fascism' or 'intolerance' or 'hate' or whatever it is you want to be opposed to this week.

So you find out that they're playing in your town.

So, you, being 'tolerant,' being 'open minded' and being into 'diversity'  what do you do?

You do everything in your power to stop this artist from expressing their views in a public forum.

You attempt to censor them.

You attempt to get their show shut down.

You attempt to impose your views on them and everyone else as well.

You'll do whatever it takes to be the dominant voice in a one-sided discourse: bomb threats, death threats  whatever.

You behave, in essence, like a fascist.

Oh, the irony.

The irony, the irony, the irony.

But it gets better

Not only are you  a peace-loving, tolerant, open minded little ball of diversity  not content with the amazingly hypocritical (and ironic) act of censorship via PC bullying, but you need to up the ante: you  noble lover of peace and hater of hate  you need violence.

You need to kick some 'fascist' booty.

You need to shove a steal (sic) toe right up a fascist's ass.

You need to put a bullet in a Nazi's head.

Wow.

Hmmmmmmm....

Where is the logic to any of that?

I don't see any.

I see absolute bald-faced hypocrisy.

And moreover, what I can't help but wonder, is what, exactly is fascism?

I mean, when you talk about fascism, what exactly do you mean?

Is 'fascism' a set of symbols  the swastika, the totenkamph, and others?

Is it a manner of dress  jackboots and brownshirts?

Is it an ideology that was attempted as a political form in Europe during the early part of the last century and ultimately failed ?

Or is it A TYPE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR ?

Well?

Well ?

Does dressing up in old, foreign military regalia make one a fascist, or does imposing one's beliefs and opinions on others  with force  make one a fascist?

Have you even considered this?

Have you even thought about it  at all?

"All symbols  and here I mean primarily graphic symbols, though it applies to others as well  operate in a manner similar to that of a mnemonic device or post-hypnotic command. They serve as catalysts for particular responses in the audience. We see a swastika, for instance, and think of nazis, war, and tyranny. This in spite of the fact that the swastika in and of itself means nothing. It is neutral. But we have been mass-programmed to respond to the symbol in a certain way Because we respond to common symbols in common ways, all of us are under a form of mass hypnosis. To be aware of the process is to wake a bit from the trance, to pause a moment before barking at the sound of the bell."  Thomas Wiloch

So who's the fascist  the guys dressed up like Nazis, or the guys who're actively persecuting the guys who're dressed up like Nazis, for no logical reason other than the fact that they're dressed like Nazis?

Who is more 'intolerant'?

Who is more 'open minded'?

Who is more accepting of 'diversity'?

(ahem?)

I mean, really, give me a fucking break you stupid, half-witted monkey cunts.

What abstract point are you trying to prove, anyway?

That Hitler was a bad guy?

That the holocaust was a bummer?

Whoa, cowboy, that's really going out on a limb there!

You brave, brave soul.

"Stand up against Hitler!"

Well la, dee fucking da.

Please.

Forgive me if I'm not in any hurry to pat you on the back for standing up to such a pervasive, ominous threat as the resurgence of Nazism  as a legitimate political philosophy  on the continental United States.

Forgive me, but that just seems completely crazy and stupid.

But let's get back to the subject, 'racism':

You're opposed to 'racism.'

You're not opposed to behavior, you're opposed to belief.

You have a big problem with Nazi skinheads beating up immigrants, but you see Sharps (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice) who engage in the exact same type of behavior  for supposedly different reasons  as being somehow noble.

This, I fail to understand.

Racist skins and Sharps do the exact same shit  they just have different (lack of) reasoning for it.

What's the fucking difference?

Is unprovoked violence "wrong," or is it only "wrong" when certain people do it for certain reasons?

That seems crazy, hypocritical and stupid to me.

In fact, a lot of what you anarchists think, say and do, seems crazy, hypocritical and stupid to me...

I don't think most of it can stand up to any objective scrutiny whatsoever.

So okay, lets take a look at this situation objectively :

Death In June are accused of being a "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" or "anti-Semitic" band.

Ok, so that's the "charge," so to speak.

Now, notice, if you will, in the above-referenced article, and all its ensuing debate, that the justification for why Death In June deserves to be persecuted / censored / attacked is not because of anything they have or haven't done, but because of what they appear  and let me reiterate that, APPEAR  to believe.

Can anyone say Neo-McCarthyism?

I know it's a big word for you anarchist types, but what it's a reference to, in laymen's terms, is the fact that you're all a bunch of complete fucking hypocrites, basically.

So go eat a dick.

And no, not a vegan dick, a real, meaty, beefy dick.

Preferably a gay, British, 'Nazi' dick, at that.

Anyway, so lets get back to the "charge" at hand: Death In June are anti-Semite Nazi-white-supremacists (or some amalgamation thereof).

I can understand why people might think this upon first glance.

Death In June dress up in militaria from the World War II era, much of it of German origin. They use a symbol called the Totenkamph, which was also used by Hitler's SS. They're named after an incident relating to Hitler and the Nazis. Their lyrics do, on occasion, make reference to the World War II era. They have songs with titles like, "Rose Clouds Of Holocaust."

This is all true.

But hey, you know what?

It's Art.

Sometimes Art is, like, complicated n' stuff.

Sometimes it isn't entirely literal all the time.

Sometimes ya have ta actually think about it n' stuff.

So let's try thinking about these things, shall we?

Were Joy Division a Nazi band? I mean, shit, bro, they were named after a freakin' Nazi rape camp  should they be persecuted?

What about Motorhead, Slayer, Laibach and New Order  they've all flirted with fascist imagery.

What about Bowie? Yeah, David Bowie  total fucking Nazi, dude. I mean, you may not have noticed, but he went through a phase in the seventies look it up.

Marilyn Manson's been flirting with fascist imagery as of late

And what about The Melvins ? Those motherfuckers dedicated an entire album to Adolf Hitler! An entire album!

And Crispin Glover I heard he showed up to a Hollywood party dressed up as a Nazi.

He's a total fucking Nazi too!

And come to think of it, I remember seeing photos Sid Vicious wearing a fucking swastika tee-shirt! Fuck!!!

Boycott the Sex Pistols  they're Nazi's!

It's a whole fucking Nazi conspiracy, bro!

Time to mobilize, brothers!

Mobilize, against Crispin Glover, because he too is a threat to you, as anarchists.

Do you know what a philistine is?

I didn't think so.

Maybe you should look that up too, you fucking morons.

(ahem)

Anyway, so, I can see why upon first glance, one might draw the conclusion that Death In June is a neo-Nazi band.

Fine.

But now that we're taking an objective look at this  and we're keeping in mind that we're dealing with Art here, and Art can be complicated n' stuff sometimes  lets see if, upon closer inspection, we can find so much as ONE anti-Semitic or racist thing about Death In June.

That's right  just one thing.

Don't assume, just cuz stuff looks like stuff, n' stuff.

Don't take a vague quote out of content and try to make it look like it's proving your suspicions.

Show me one definitive, explicit, or overt anti-Semitic or 'racist' thing about Death In June.

(ahem)

(ahem)

(tick, tock, tick, tock)

That's what I thought - you can't find any.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about at all, do you?

Of course not.

You can't conclusively demonstrate for me that Death In June are 'racists' or 'anti-Semites,' and the fact of the matter is, even if you could, I would still argue that they have every right to perform, regardless.

The same is true of Boyd Rice, a sort of 'honorary member' of Death In June , whose concerts as NON have experienced similar problems in the past , for similar reasons. Much like Death In June, Mr. Rice is also often accused of being an anti-Semite, regardless of any objective analysis of his life and work.

I happen to know Boyd, and I also happen to know who some of his close friends and influences are

In spite of all the libelous slander about Boyd Rice posted on the above-mentioned websites, the idea that he's an anti-Semite seems pretty implausible when one takes even the most rudimentary look at the actual people who've been of major importance to his life:

Daniel Miller  owner of Mute Records (Boyd's record label) Anton LaVey  founder of the Church Of Satan (of which Boyd is a member) Adam Parfrey  owner of Feral House Books (long-time friend and cohort) Dan Kapelovitz  founder of The Partridge Family Temple (of which Boyd is a member) Little Fyodor  Denver musician featured in the "Boyd Rice presents" series Tiny Tim  A long-time musical favorite and influence.

What do they all have in common?

They're all Jews.

So you figure it out, retard.

Sheesh.

Oh, but you whine, "Even if the guys in Death In June and NON aren't necessarily Nazis, there are Nazis in the crowd! It's still pandering to Nazis! It's still bad!"

And?

So fucking what?

This is America, right?

They can pander to whoever the fuck they want to pander to.

I've seen Death In June three times, and each time  yes  there's been at least one literal-minded chump idiot in the back who yells out something like, "Hail the white race!" between songs.

And what does the band do?  they ignore it.

And what does the rest of the  predominately disaffected, gothic, female  crowd do?  they heave a collective sigh of "Uggggh" and roll their collective eyes.

Unfortunately, there are always lunkheads (like you) who take everything completely literally all the time, and some of them happen to be Death In June fans.

Oh well.

But yeah, you're right, there is probably a minority of genuinely racist white people at any given Death In June show.

Fine.

There is also probably a minority of nigra-hatin' whites at George Straight shows.

There is probably a minority of cracker-hating blacks at Wu-Tang shows.

There is probably a minority of Palestinian-hating Zionists at John Zorn shows.

There is probably a minority of man-hating dykes at Le Tigre shows.

And at even the most tongue-in-cheek of heavy metal shows, there is probably a minority of people who do, seriously, worship the devil.

So fucking what?

Welcome to America  the land of diversity.

Get used to it already.

In America, at least in theory, people can dig whatever crazy crap they want, and not have to worry about getting their asses kicked about it.

Is that okay with you, anarchists?

Is it okay with you that I went to the fascist Nazi monster show, and I drank a beer with the big nasty fascist homo monster, Doug Pearce?

Or do I now need to 'prove' that I'm not a racist?

Huh?

Is that it, you fanatical neo-McCarthyist zealots?

Are you gonna 'out' me or something?

Do I need to raise my right hand, put my left hand on a copy of Kapital, and state before the court, "I am not a racist. I am not a Nazi."

(sigh)

Have you even considered the possibility that there are minorities who are Death In June fans ?

Well, duh.

You know who first played me Death In June ? - a Korean guy. In fact it was the same Korean guy who gave me a copy of Might Is Right.

He must be a pretty confused Korean, to be going around supporting all this supposed 'white power' stuff, huh?

Maybe I should give you guys his phone number, and then you can set up an 'intervention' of sorts, and 're-educate' him about how he's being 'oppressed' by all this stuff.

(ahem)

You know what else is funny: I live with a black guy.

He's a smart guy, with a pretty good sense of humor, who makes a pretty decent living, working for THE CORPORATE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX STATE.

The other day, he showed me his reproduction Hitler Youth switchblade.

I have to admit, it was pretty goddamn neat.

It had a big swastika on the side.

I sort of fawned over it a bit, to be honest.

Now, see, my housemate  he's not like you. He's got a pretty good sense of humor, and he understands the complexities of the modern world we live in, and isn't under the impression that it's still 1933.

See, he's secure enough with himself to own Nazi memorabilia, and not feel 'threatened' by it  because unlike you, as I said, he realizes that it's not 1933 anymore, and moreover, unlike you  he isn't a complete retard.

That, really, is the problem: that you're a complete retard.

You're all complete retards.

Oh, but now I'm being petty.

Okay, look, I don't think you guys are all retards. In fact, I think you probably think you're doing the 'right thing' and all that. Deep down, your hearts are probably in the right place.

But you anarchist, activist, anti-racist, anti-fascist, save-the-world types, you want to believe in a dark vision of the future similar to that outlined by George Orwell in his novel 1984. You want to believe in such a thing, because it's simple, and because it gives you a pseudo-justification for 'rooting out' what you perceive to be 'threats' intended to actualize this dark vision of the future.

I understand your concerns, but I don't share them.

See, now me, as much as I like Orwell n' all, I tend to agree with Aldus Huxley 'bout these things. I think his Brave New World is far more plausible than Orwell's 1984, and I don't think 'fascism' as it existed in the thirties in Europe would be an effective means of social control in the modern world. Like Huxley, I'm much more inclined to believe that pacification and brain-dead contentment of our contemporary Prozac-addled culture are much more suited to today's world, than oppressive military regimes.

Modern day oppression isn't confrontational  it's coercive.

Modern day oppression isn't about guys selling hate and race war  it's about a government lulling you to sleep with words like 'freedom,' and 'peace keeping mission,' and 'necessary intervention,' and 'friendly fire,' and other nice, pleasant, warm, fuzzy words which are used to mask deeds which truly are naughty.

That is what modern "oppression" is really about.

But for you, dealing with that reality isn't as easy as fighting Nazi phantoms, who, incidentally, you seriously outnumber.

So, I guess, what I'm trying to say, is that 'fascism' as you define it, isn't really much off a threat.

Sorry to disappoint.

You may want to see it as a threat, but the fact is, 'fascism' in America is a pretty pathetic thing, really.

It's Loserville.

Don't fall for the self-serving figures presented by Resistance Records, about how they're selling 'millions' of white power CDs each year. They'd like that to be true (it isn't), and they'd like you to believe it ( sucker ), but the reality is that their sales are all but entirely negligible.

The 'white power' movement in the United Sates is a pathetic joke.

A pseudo-political crutch for the most mongoloid of white people.

A marginal anomaly.

Kind of like your political views.

Cuz, see, fascism (as you define it), like anarchism, is a pipe dream.

Power, as it exists in the modern world, is about money, marketing, advertising, sales, and the rest of the gamut of economic boredom-inducing terms.

You wanna attack someone in power?  get some fucking balls, and go jump someone on Wall Street, instead of picking easy targets like goths you outnumber outside a small, independently-owned venue.

You self-righteous pussies.

You're not 'smashing' fascism, you're beating up goths, who  aside from their aesthetic and musical tastes  probably lead lives very similar to your own.

You'd never have the guts to cause real trouble within 'the system,' but you have no problems beating down some music fans.

You fucking disgust me.

You could never operate as an individual.

Without six hundred other like-minded drones at 'the demo,' you'd never even think about 'taking action.'

None of you can operate individually, because none of you are individuals.

You're a group of collective complainers, whose entire lives are devoted to endlessly bitching and moaning about how the world ain't fair.

Your entire identity - from the clothes you wear, to the music you listen to, to the books you read, to who you choose to hang out with - is defined by what your against rather than what you are.

Why?

Because without something to complain about, you'd have nothing to say.

In fact, your complete lack of individuality is so profound, so overwhelming, that your entire political ideology - anarchism - is based on the idea of submersion into THE CROWD.

The people, the workers, the proletariat  the mob.

I hate the mob, because the mob doesn't think  it just acts.

Maybe that's why you're so fanatical in your defense of it  because you don't think.

Maybe that's what's so threatening to you about these so-called 'fascists'  that there are so few of them ( Death In June only has two members, and both NON and Der Blutharsh each only have one member), yet they're obviously capable of stirring up way more shit than legions of you zombies.

Is that what it is?

Is that what it really comes down to?

Because it seems to me, that that's what anarchism is all about : mob mentality.

Because it seems to me that individual thought is sublimated within the anarchist movement, in favor of empty brain-dead slogans like, "Destroy capital!" and "Bash the fash!"

You people seem incredibly fucking dumb.

You remind me of Christians.

Dumb people are a nuisance, but dumb people who feel a frantic need to, "Take action!" are perhaps the worst variety of people out there.

Again, you remind me of Christians.

So, so stupid.

In fact, I find the entire ideological foundation of anarchism to be resting on some pretty shaky assumptions. It's not about examining how things are, and then trying to fix or at least deal with them  it's about speculating about how things ought to be , according naïve utopianist assumptions.

Never mind the fact that the entire premise of anarchism is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, and pretty much flies in the face of even the most rudimentary examination of human nature.

Never mind them pesky details  you're willing to fight for your beliefs.

Yet again, you remind me of Christians.

You want to abolish the 'class system'?

Show me one culture in the history of the world, in which that idea has actually worked.

So, so, so stupid.

I can't believe you people.

I can't take you seriously at all.

I really, really can't.

So much of what you feel so passionately about is so, so questionable to me.

Like the idea of abolishing government  of living in a world without nations. Through the most kindergarten-esque of reasoning, you naïve dopes believe that by abolishing nationhood and government, one does away with war and violence, paving the way for a utopia of equality and unilateral fairness.

This, like so much of anarchism, is an abstract fantasy.

Here are some societies lacking in a stable government, a stable economy and a stable monetary system: Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, and much of Africa.

What do they all have in common?

Violence, death, hunger, martial law, chaos, more violence more death, some abject poverty, some more hunger, and then some more violence.

Oh yeah, and violence.

In Afghanistan, the 'anarchy' reduces people to growing poppies, for heroin production, so they can feed their families. In Columbia, the 'anarchy' reduces people to growing coca, for cocaine production, so they can feed their families. In parts of Africa, the 'anarchy' reduces people to hunting rare, near-extinct species of animal, so as to sell their horns/tusks/hides, so they can feed their families.

People living in anarchic societies don't have the luxury of having the leisure time to whine about the abstract social theories you see as horrific injustices  they're too busy simply fighting to survive.

That is Anarchy in practice.

Fuck your theories  they're bullshit.

So, so, so stupid.

(sigh)

Of course, best part of all this nonsense, is that ninety-nine percent of the rest of population couldn't possibly care less.

The rest of the world is all but totally oblivious to the complicated goings on of the racially hyper-sensitive underground. The 'mainstream' has the same attitude towards Sharps vs. Nazis or anarchists vs. goths, as it does towards "black on black crime" - it doesn't care.

In fact, it doesn't even notice.

You may think that what you're doing is very, very important, but the rest of the world couldn't care less about some group of marginalized weridos attacking some other group of marginalized weridos over some obscure disagreement about extremist politics.

Their attitude is simply, "Whatever, let the weirdos kill each other - the more the better."

And I'm beginning to agree with them.

I don't care much for anarchists or Nazis  so yeah, actually, why don't you all just go right ahead and kill each other, please.

People like you are problems, not solutions, regardless of how much you want to convince yourselves otherwise.

Someday, I hope you come to understand that.

In closing: You're all morons, and your moronic, hypocritical behavior only proves me right.

Fuck you.

Sincerely,

 Brian M. Clark

© Brian M. Clark