AGAINST POLITICAL 'LEADERS' AND 'LEADERSHIPS'
 
 

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matthew 7: 5)

He has spoken like a traitor, and shall answer
As traitors do.
(Shakespeare, Coriolanus III: i)

Defiance, traitors, hurl we in your teeth.
(Shakespeare, Julius Caesar V: i)
 
 
 
 

PART I: HOW NOT TO RUN A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT




1. INTRODUCTION: THE UNRELIABILITY OF POLITICAL LEADERS GENERALLY

I have, on numerous occasions, warned of the dangers that accompany faith in political 'leaders' and 'leaderships'. My warning has consistently been this: show me a 'leader' and I'll show you a potential traitor.
    The capacity of political leaders to betray their professed ideals and their followers is truly breathtaking. Look, for example, at the Russian Marxist tradition: first we see Lenin's 'old Bolsheviks' resoundingly and fatally betrayed by Stalin, then we observe the legacy of Stalin betrayed by Khrushchev, then we see Suslov and Brezhnev ousting Khruschev, only to institute a form of state-capitalism that is eventually sold out in favour of the more laissez faire approach of the American New World Order by Gorbachev. The Marxists have hardly fared better elsewhere. In China we had the ignoble spectacle of hard-line Maoism suddenly transforming itself into a rabidly pro-Western capitalist dictatorship. In Albania we saw Ramiz Alia, the supposedly loyal and unflinching communist, deliver the entire country into the American camp as soon as he was able. In Voice of the Resistance we exposed the manner in which the North Korean leadership, despite its anti-American rhetoric, is also making moves to 'open up' the country to Western influences -- and we have already seen where that typically leads:1 North Korea's direction is set; the only question at the outset of 2004 is whether Kim Jong Il will perpetrate the final betrayal himself or whether the deed will be done by his successors.
    None of this should come as a surprise -- the old anarchist, Bakunin, foresaw the dangers of leaderships and 'vanguards' and did not hesitate to give voice to his qualms in his various debates with Marx.2 His warnings about the dangers of leaders and leaderships were striking in their prescience:
 

Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits.
    'The masses' a man says to himself, 'recognising their incapacity to govern on their own account, have elected me their chief. By that act they have publicly proclaimed their inferiority and my superiority. Among this crowd of men, recognising hardly any equals of myself, I am alone capable of directing public affairs. The people have need of me; they cannot do without my services, while I, on the contrary, can get along all right by myself; they, therefore, must obey me for their own security, and in condescending to obey them, I am doing them a good turn.'3
    It is not only the Marxists who have found themselves repeatedly betrayed by leaders and leaderships. Wherever the cult of leadership has become entrenched, disaster has ensued. Sometimes leaders have overestimated their power and have embarked on catastrophic wars, which they have lost to the ultimate advantage of the Americans (Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein). Sometimes, enticed by the American dollar and scared by American power, they have simply sold out on everything for which they purported to stand (Franco, Qadaffi). More usually they have simply proven incapable of staying in power and have been overthrown, eventually to the advantage of the Americans. (Argentina is the best example, giving us a delightful string of unstable leaders, culminating in Mr Bignone handing the country over to the New World Order , which promptly plunders it, not least through the activities of the International Monetary Fund. Latin America is full of such cases. Even the more stable regime of Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, eventually bit the dust in 1989, being overthrown by those who performed the inevitable tinkering to guarantee the country's future loyalty to the New World Order. Countless other examples may be found in the history books.)
    What is true of the leaders of nations is equally true of the leaders of political parties and political movements. Such organizations are easily infiltrated by agents of the Establishment, who render them ineffective in a variety of ways, not least by causing splits, by disrupting communications, by inducing supporters to commit unlawful acts for which they are subsequently arrested, or simply by creating a state of paralysis and inaction, which leads to disillusionment. Is it any wonder that Marxist parties and white nationalist parties alike throughout the world have such a lamentable history of splits? Is it any wonder that resistance has never made any headway? Is it any wonder that they have failed to make any inroads against the New World Order? Any organization that is reliant upon a single individual or a small group of individuals, is vulnerable to betrayal, sellouts, hijacking and disruption. And they happen as predictably as the setting of the sun.
    Bakunin advocated a very different approach from the elite-led leadership vanguards and all-encompassing ideology of the Marxists and the dictators, and an approach from which we might learn much:
And the first word of this emancipation can be none other than 'Liberty', not that political, bourgeois liberty, so much approved and recommended as a preliminary object of conquest by Marx and his adherents, but the great human liberty, which, destroying all the dogmatic, metaphysical, political and juridical fetters by which everybody to-day is loaded down, will give to everybody, collectivities as well as individuals, full autonomy in their activities and their development, delivered once and for all from all inspectors, directors and guardians.
    The second word of this emancipation is solidarity, not the Marxian solidarity from above downwards by some government or other, either by ruse or by force, on the masses of the people; not that solidarity of all which is the negation of the liberty of each, and which by that very fact becomes a falsehood, a fiction, having slavery as the reality behind it; but that solidarity which is on the contrary the confirmation and the realisation of every liberty, having its origin not in any political law whatsoever, but in the inherent collective nature of man, in virtue of which no man is free if all the men who surround him and who exercise the least influence, direct or indirect, on his life are not so equally. This truth is to be found magnificently expressed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man drafted by Robespierre, and which proclaims that the slavery of the least of men is the slavery of all.
    The solidarity which we ask, far from being the result of any artificial or authoritarian organisation whatsoever, can only be the spontaneous product of social life, economic as well as moral; the result of the free federation of common interests, aspirations and tendencies.4


2. A CASE STUDY: THE SELF-STYLED 'LEADER' OF THE NATIONAL-ANARCHISTS

2.1 Casting out the beam from our own eye
How can we national-anarchists credibly contribute anything of value to the question of leadership when we ourselves have in our midst an individual who is spoken of as our 'leader' and who is, as leaders generally tend to be, busy delivering us into the hands of the enemy? I assert that if we are to have any credibility whatsoever on this issue or on any other issue we must give a firm 'no' to Troy Southgate and all others who would set themselves up as our leaders. We must not hesitate to expose Southgate to the world for the servant of the Establishment that he has (knowingly or unwittingly) become, and to replace him not with another leader or a group of leaders, but rather with new forms of leaderless politics.
    The purpose of the first part of this article will be to illustrate the dangers of 'leaders' and 'leadership', and hence the case for doing away with these things as far as possible, by showing how the self-styled 'leader of the national-anarchists' has become a dangerous clown. The article will go on to argue that national-anarchism has no place for such buffoonish leaders, or any leaders at all, and that it needs to evolve techniques of leaderless activism if it is to avoid the dangers posed by such traitors. It will then discuss how leaderless activism can progress to community building.
    In November 2003, Southgate launched a savage attack on us. This was no surprise -- relations with him had been poisonous for some time. The most notable thing about Southgate's attack was not its content (which consisted of a series of non sequiturs followed by an admission that he had no evidence whatsoever for his principal allegation) but rather that, within days, it was reproduced on the Website of Kenneth McVay, a Canadian 'anti-hate-speech activist' with close connections to B'nai Brith and the security forces (we discuss McVay further below).5
    Our doubts about Southgate had been increasing since early in 2003. The following sections will reveal why. Our discussion of the 'leadership' of this man will then be followed by a discussion of the alternative to his approach: leaderless politics.
 

2.2 The unreliability of our 'leader'
Our doubts about Southgate, this self-appointed 'leader' of the national-anarchist movement, first arose in connection with the manner in which he single-handedly destroyed our magazine, Voice of the Resistance. This journal was a genuine attempt to take national-anarchist ideas beyond the Internet and to gain publicity for them by circulating copies to individuals in mainstream politics, academia and other opinion-forming circles. The idea was that the publication would be the journal of the national-anarchist movement as a whole, and that my function would be simply to finance, edit and publish it. Southgate offered to publicize the journal on the autarky.rosenoire Web site and in the national-anarchist online discussion group and, indeed, did this for a short while. We were somewhat amazed, however, to find that he produced no articles for the journal and did not contribute to it in any other way, apart from assenting to our reproducing an article that he had written for another forum. Indeed, he did not even subscribe. His 'excuse' for failing to subscribe was that he didn't have enough time or money. This looked very hollow indeed in the light of his subsequent boasts in his Internet discussion group of numerous trips abroad to sample the delights of foreign beers and, indeed, his willingness to pay for his own rather expensive train ticket to travel a considerable distance across England to meet me (the meeting never took place). In any event, the upshot of it was that we were left to do most of the work ourselves, with a little help from other sympathetic comrades. This was when we first began to sense that something was seriously wrong in the world of national-anarchism.
    We invested much time and not a little money in the Voice of the Resistance project. After a shaky start (caused, among other things, by mail mysteriously disappearing before reaching our mail forwarding service, the security services being at the top of our list of suspected culprits) Voice of the Resistance managed to attract a reasonable number of subscribers, was breaking even, and was beginning to look like a potentially valuable asset for the national-anarchist movement. Suddenly, and without any consultation or explanation, Southgate discontinued the entire autarky.rosenoire Web site -- including the Voice of the Resistance section. Given our difficulties with the postal service, this meant that it was almost impossible for new people to subscribe! At this point, without any consultation whatsoever, Southgate unilaterally announced that he was going to produce his own printed publication, Terra Firma. Given the difficulties that Voice of the Resistance had experienced in finding contributors it was plain that there would not be sufficient material to support two magazines, which, of course, would also compete for subscriptions. As Southgate was clearly intent on going ahead with his project and was not prepared seriously to negotiate, Voice of the Resistance had to cease publication -- the time, effort and money that had been invested in the project were wasted, and substantial expenses were incurred in refunding our subscribers their money and in sunk costs. Of course, Southgate's Terra Firma project (like most of his projects) was a resounding flop and (as of January 2005) has apparently still not seen the light of day, except in the form of a mediocre and rarely frequented Web site.
    When I expressed my annoyance to Southgate he apologized. I accepted the apology in good faith, noting, however, that there was no offer to compensate me for the expenses that I had incurred as a result of Southgate's apparent negligence.
    Voice of the Resistance is not the only radical publication to have been sabotaged by Southgate. He did similar things to several National Front (NF) and ITP-aligned publications earlier in his career (in his incarnation as a white nationalist -- see below).
    It was at this point that the thought crossed my mind that Southgate might, in fact, be working for the security services; that his entire project might be designed to attract radicals to a single Internet discussion group where their identities could be logged and traced, where they could be encouraged to engage in interminable 'discussions' in which they would reveal personal details about themselves, and where they could be encouraged to engage in a variety of useless activities with the aim of demoralizing them and turning them away from radical activity. In this regard we had noted that Southgate had taken little action to encourage the growth of the national-anarchist project and, indeed, seemed to be actively trying to dampen any sign of enthusiasm that we showed, for example by describing the entire project as 'escapism', and by refusing to accept subscription payments from me on the grounds that he was winding down the National Revolutionary Faction anyway. We said nothing and rejoined the 'team', determined to watch and learn more.
    In the months that followed I limited my contribution to participation in the national-anarchist e-group and to the creation of the nationalanarchist.com Web site.
    I became aware that I was being subjected to intense flattery from certain quarters. One of these individuals was apparently one Jeremy Wilcox, from time to time a close associate of Southgate. Wilcox made me suspicious from the outset because of the obsequious and insincere nature of his flattery. He praised my political writings to the high heavens, yet it quickly became very clear that he had not bothered to read them in any depth. Something else didn't quite fit either. Wilcox adopted the persona of a rather stuffy, old-fashioned Christian Identity supporter. He regularly spoke out disapprovingly of the esoteric religious material on certain other national-anarchist Web sites and spoke affectionately of certain Christian 'gals' who assisted him with his own Web site. The Web site he ran was called 'FolkandFaith' -- although its content had negligible Christian content at the time, which might seem unusual given the tendency of most Christians to preach at every possible opportunity. But the really interesting thing about Wilcox was this. I had also noticed that he ran an e-mail account using the name 'G G Allin'. G G Allin is not a well-known figure and presumably Wilcox had assumed that neither I nor anyone else would notice that Allin was a 'rock singer' whose performance involved defecation and sex acts on stage, who spent several months in prison for an unpleasant assault on a woman, and who wrote, while in prison: 'The Jesus Christ they preach about in the Bible is a phoney imposter -- just a crutch for the cripples to lean on. F*ck that weak sh*t! I am the man to deal with. I created myself inside the womb from the fires of Hell. There are no separations between Jesus Christ, God and the Devil, because I am all of them' (asterisks added to protect children who might stumble upon this article). The titles of his songs included such things as 'I'm Gonna Rape You' and 'C*nt Sucking Cannibal'. Hardly the stuff one might expect from the rather stuffy Christian Identity FolkandFaith persona portrayed by Wilcox elsewhere. It might also be mentioned that Wilcox repeatedly referred laughingly to a rather crude joke that I had once made about a goat. It was not a particularly good or funny joke and I would have thought it odd had Wilcox referred to it even twice, but it surfaced and resurfaced, time and time again. I suspected that Wilcox was not being entirely honest with the world about his religious sympathies or, indeed, much else. (We shall have more to say about Satanism and its connection with Southgate later . . .)
    Nevertheless, I played along with Wilcox. However, in September 2003 he suddenly launched a vicious and unprovoked written attack on me, misrepresenting my views on national-anarchism and making several demonstrably false statements against me. Southgate has argued that Wilcox merely 'misread' my words, yet Wilcox told three separate untruths and all in an extremely aggressive and uncomradely way:
 

When I protested about these lies, our nationalanarchist.com Web site was summarily expelled from the Web ring that had been administered by Wilcox but which included the principal Web sites aligned to Southgate. This was not, in itself, a great loss as we received very few hits from that source, about 0.1% of our total. What was interesting was the reaction of Troy Southgate.
    In the event of a dispute between the owners of what appeared to be two important pro-national-anarchist Web sites one might have thought that the self-appointed 'leader' of the movement would have intervened to mediate. In the event he said nothing in public. In private he circulated an instruction to a few of his closest supporters (we know that it did not go far) urging them to support Wilcox against us.
    We were given no reason for this behaviour. Indeed, we were not even formally told of the action that had been taken against us. It seemed that the entire strategy was intended to demoralize us and to turn us away from national-anarchism. And, of course, this would be precisely the strategy that would be employed by those who felt that we had come too close to something that they wanted to hide. Or those who felt that we were converting something that had been intended to protect the Establishment into something that was becoming dangerous to the Establishment. The hope was clearly that we would slink off into the night.
    We have not done so. We will not do so.
    Numerous provocations followed, many of a minor nature. We will mention but two such provocations.
    First, Southgate had given us a clear written assurance that if we linked nationalanarchist.com to his own Web site then he would put a return link to us on his site. This return link suddenly disappeared in flagrant violation of Southgate's agreement with us. We have now retaliated by eliminating all links to pro-Southgate sites.
    Second, it was brought to our attention by a comrade that, on 25 September 2003, Michael Lujan, an associate of Southgate, had purchased a Web domain name very similar to nationalanarchist.com. After a letter to Lujan about this elicited no response whatsoever it appeared to us that moves were afoot to cybersquat. We immediately took steps to secure ownership of the principal domain names similar to ours, together with domain names similar to sites operated by Lujan and Wilcox. Lujan's site was eventually used for cybersquatting on our domain; we retaliated by cybersquatting on domains owned by Lujan and Wilcox for one year.
    In short, then, our relationship with Southgate has been characterized by one betrayal from him after another over a long period. He has sabotaged publications, he has flagrantly broken agreements, his associates have apparently sought to sabotage our Web site, he has conspired against us. As we shall see, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our problems with this fellow.
 

2.3 The inconsistency of our 'leader'
Southgate seems to find it difficult to hold any particular view about anything for a long period of time, either in the sphere of religion, in politics, or in personal political relationships. One moment he says one thing; the next moment he says exactly the opposite. Thus, for example, in his article entitled ‘National-anarchism: beyond the fascism of the right and the dogmatism of the left’ he espouses a view with which we could strongly identify:

We firmly believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities.6 However, by autumn 2003 we see a very different Southgate. In an article entitled ‘Enemy within: Hizb-ut Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the growing threat of Asian colonization’ he writes the following: Islamic militants have no time for the traditional culture and heritage of the British Isles and clearly intend to exert their own alien rule (al-Khilafah) over the country as a whole. As another party representative said on a Talk Sport phone-in several years ago, the HUT 'will not rest until the green flag of Islam is fluttering over every town hall in England'.
    If these words don't make every full-blooded Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman and Welshman sit up and take notice then what possible hope is there of ever preventing these fanatics from stealing our country beneath our very noses? 7
Our country? But did not the earlier article espouse the abolition of nation-states, favouring their replacement with autonomous communities? Is he in favour of English nationalism or national-anarchism? The truth is that he fluctuates between the two as the mood takes him. (Let us not forget that before the ‘National-anarchists’ were the National Revolutionary Faction, they were called the English Nationalist Movement -- before that Southgate was in the ITP and before that the NF. Before that, he claims, he supported the Labour Party.) If he were a national-anarchist then he would view the Union flag fluttering over the town halls of England as nothing more than a mere proxy for the stars and stripes and would welcome at least some green flags as a sign of progress in the struggle against America’s New World Order. He would regard ‘England’ and all existing nation-states as lost causes. He would regard radical Islam as a potentially powerful ally in the fight against American-inspired globalism and imperialism.
    We might add that Southgate’s new-found hostility to radical Islam espoused in the ‘Enemy within’ article is itself a radical u-turn. Only two years earlier Southgate had taken a very different position on Islam: ‘The NRF supports Islam from the perspective that many of its adherents are vigorously opposed to International Zionism, although those groups which act as mere pressure-valves for opponents of immigration will achieve very little if they do not attempt to awaken a spiritual consciousness within their own people.’8 Southgate has informed us that in the past he actually attended a mosque at which Hizb ut-Tahrir was active and, further, that he contacted al-Muhajiroun in attempts to form contacts with the radical Islamic world. Both organizations, hardly surprisingly, appear to have rebuffed him and much of the ‘Enemy within’ article can be understood in terms of sour grapes from Southgate at his apparent inability to make headway in forming ties with radical Muslims.
    Southgate’s views on the nation-state and Islam are, of course, not the only example of his ‘butterfly mind’ -- it seems that he is unable to hold a consistent position on other matters concerning fundamental beliefs for long. The ITP has launched a bitter attack on Southgate9 in which it also notes his rapid (apparent) jump from Catholicism to Odinism, commenting on what it views as his bizarre and inconsistent behaviour and, more to the point, to its demoralizing effect on some of his former supporters. Nor is this the only example it gives:
We said that Mr Southgate was not principled. Why? Because it is a fact. Firstly, he was agitating amongst Catholics for their support, and that is why The English Alternative was originally called The Crusader. When they did not respond, they were denounced as 'an apathetic Catholic bourgeoisie' . . .
   Having failed with the Catholics, and although having taken a strongly 'anti-Nazi' line for years, Mr Southgate, in the quest to become 'Leader' (of what does not seem to be too important), transformed himself into a defender of 'National Socialist orthodoxy'. Whether this conviction is any deeper than his 'Catholicism' is open to question, but if he does not succeed in becoming 'Leader' of the NS-inclined, it is only a matter of time before they are denounced as 'reactionary' in his time-honoured fashion.
   
    What about Southgate's position on that most fundamental of national-anarchist principles -- a scepticism towards the 'Left'/'Right' distinction in politics? In 2002 he was publishing articles titled 'National-anarchism: beyond the fascism of the right and the dogmatism of the left' and rejecting the left/right distinction like a good national-anarchist. However, in January 2005 he was announcing the formation of yet another of his little organizations -- something called the 'British New Right'.
    So, dear reader, what are we to make of this wonderful 'leader' of ours? First he tells us he's a Catholic, then he's an Odinist. First he's attending mosques and trying to make contact with Islamic fundamentalists, then he's cursing these same people as 'fanatics'. First he tells us that he's all for the 'eradication' of nation-states 'like England' and then he's telling us how 'every full-blooded Englishman' should 'sit up and take notice' because the Islamic fundamentalists are 'stealing our country'. First he tells us that he opposes Nazism, then he comes out in favour of 'National-Socialist orthodoxy'. First he tells us that he's beyond left and right in politics, then he participates in the formation of an organization called the British New Right. Can anyone truly be blamed for being just the tiniest bit suspicious about this chap's motives? Can anyone truly be blamed for not trusting him an inch? And yet there are those who call themselves national-anarchists who do trust him and look to him as a leader! Would we not be doing them a disservice by remaining silent on the Southgate question?

 

2.4 Is he for 'fascism' or against it?
I do not personally much care whether Southgate is a secret ‘fascist’ or not. ‘Fascists’, when they are at their best, can create a lot of problems for the Establishment and thus are by no means automatically enemies of national-anarchism (or any other intelligent brand of anarchism -- it was, after all, the Falangist Francisco Franco who unwittingly gave orthodox anarchism its best ever shot at gaining control of territory in the 1930s). They can also radicalize people admirably. However, if a man purports to be the ‘leader’ of the national-anarchists, and claims repeatedly that he is ‘certainly not’ a fascist, it would be helpful for the national-anarchist movement as a whole to have some clarity about whether he is, in fact, telling the truth. That it is by no means clear even to national-anarchists whether Southgate is telling the truth when he informs the world that he is ‘certainly not’ a fascist makes it very difficult for those of us who are trying to convince a sceptical world that national-anarchists are, in fact, offering something new and different from the fare served by the Adolf and Benito show during the last century.
    Southgate has been unable convincingly to rid himself of a certain ‘far right’ fetishism. His use of symbolism such as the sunwheel, his reverence for individuals such as Codreanu and Evola, his involvement with organizations with names such as ‘The Green Shirts’, and other similar traits, all give ammunition to those who wish to smear national-anarchism as a ‘far-right’ faction. Some of his associates and many of his ideas also frequently betray a ‘far-right’ interest. In our writing On a decisive break with 'far-right' ideology,10 we have argued that much could be gained by making a clear and sincere ideological break with the ‘far right’, but co-operating with them on a pragmatic basis when it is in our interest to form a common front with them against the Establishment (as would be the case with the ‘far left’, Islamists, Christians and anyone else). Insofar as Southgate seems incapable of breaking convincingly with the ‘far right’ he simply invites all the practical and theoretical problems of which we warned in that writing.
    In this regard, Southgate’s protests that he is not a fascist received a withering response from one (apparently pro-fascist!) post to Southgate’s national-anarchist discussion group on 3 August 2003. The poster began by listing the ‘thinkers’ cited on Southgate’s Web page as being ‘for discussion’ in the group:11

 
Let's go through them:
Otto & Gregor Strasser (two of the left-wing of the NSDAP)
Pierre Drieu La Rochelle (famous French Nazi sympathiser and fascist;
executed by the Allies)
Karl Otto Paetel (proto-fascist German Conservative Revolutionary, if
I recall)
Frithjof Schuon (Traditionalist scholar who had an association with
the SS)
Ernst Junger (proto-fascist Conservative Revolutionary; big influence
on Nazi ideology)
Ernst Niekisch (National Bolshevik)
Schwaller de Lubicz (German racialist; don't know if he had a
connection to the NSDAP)
Francis Parker Yockey (the brilliant neofascist philosopher)
Mircea Eliade (Traditionalist, member of the fascist Iron Guard)
Otto Rahn (Traditionalist and member of the SS?)
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (proto-fascist Conservative
Revolutionary)
Gabriele D'Annunzio (along with Mussolini, the founder of Italian
Fascism)
Walther Darre (NSDAP minister for the environment)
Corneliu Codreanu (premiere Romanian fascist)
Julius Evola (along with Yockey, one of the most important
ideologists of European neofascism)
What on earth do all these Nazis and fascists have to do with
National Anarchism? Better purge them from the homepage, or otherwise
people will accuse you of having jackboots and a uniform in your
closet.
But then, your own relationship with neofascism has always been
rather schiz-y. You put together a group called the European
Liberation Front (named after the group founded by Yockey), you're
mentioned in publications on British neofascism (the most recent I
read was Goodrick-Clarke's book) and everyone knows about your former
association with the neofascist National Front and International
Third Position (actually, that group is extreme conservative, not
fascist, but I digress). You founded a volkish hiking group called
the Greenshirts (hmm, wasn't that the name of Oein O'Duffy's Irish
fascist party?).
That may all be in the past - you're a National Anarchist now. But in
that case you should stop reading Evola and get rid of all those
Nazis and fascists from the homepage, and rigorously censor anything
fascistic which comes up for discussion here, and not just from me.
(Including references to all that neofascistic metal and rock music
everyone - including yourself - talks about here all the time). You
can't have it both ways.
2.5 Imperialist too?
Southgate has taken to espousing a brand of 'national-anarchism' that appears to us to be imperialistic and dangerous. In a posting to an Internet discussion group on 7 October 2003, Southgate put forth the following view:
 
I have often used the words "decentralised imperium" to describe a network of self-contained units within a larger framework, thus creating a greater principle of unity. I think it's complimentary [sic] to both tribe and "empire". Rather like the unity which appears in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". In other words, where various tribes come together to maintain their liberty in the face of a globalist oppressor.12
    We note that in the past Southgate has also offered qualified support for ‘anarcho-monarchism’, a concept that seems surprisingly similar. The danger inherent in this approach should be obvious with a moment’s thought. The American New World Order has historically been more than willing to use bribes and threats to encourage small countries to do its bidding. Once a ‘network of self-contained units’ becomes an acceptable approach it is clear that a viable Establishment strategy would be to ‘persuade’ the leaders of weaker or less reliable communities to join together into a federation that could then be subverted centrally. A parallel might be drawn with the European Union, whereby nation states were initially invited to join an ‘economic club’ (the Common Market) to further their commercial interests. Once this had been done, this ‘economic club’ subsequently metamorphosed into a superstate and the members were gradually encouraged to sacrifice their independence to this superstate, which has consistently acted in the interests of international capital and against national independence. In short, it became an exercise in national suicide, centralization and globalization. One of the strengths of the national-anarchist idea as we support it is that by decentralizing to remote, isolated, fiercely autonomous communities one can preserve valued lifestyles in the face of a ubiquitous globalizing imperialism -- one could turn one’s back on the filthy outside world of American-style capitalism with all its snares and traps and inducements and duplicity. Southgate’s ‘decentralized imperium’ has nothing to do with this approach. It is simply the first step on the slippery slope back to treachery and imperialism.
    Or an attempt by the state to gather information on more statist-minded anti-Establishment activists . . .
 

2.6 The hidden agenda
It is difficult to associate with the Southgate clique for more than a few days without gaining the distinct feeling that it has a hidden agenda. The strange pseudonyms adopted by some of the group’s adherents (Arktos, Anarktika, Archonis . . .); Southgate's numerous apparent pseudonyms (including, but by no means limited to, Michael Phillips, Les Cotton, Peter White, Charles Pottins and Arktos); the fact that absolutely everyone who is anyone appears to have read and been awed by the works of Julius Evola (a mediocre purveyor of just-so stories, whom they revere almost as a guru); the intense interest in esoteric religions; the interest in certain specific types of music; the neo-fascist fetishism -- these all combine to give one a sense that far more is going on than meets the eye. One’s unease grows when one encounters the clique’s bumbling attempts to use psychological tricks such as flattery -- tricks that certainly led me to suspect that moves were afoot to manipulate myself and others towards hidden goals. Indeed, Southgate has been quite open about the manipulative nature of his project (the degree of openness on this point perhaps suggesting a mouth that is larger than the accompanying brain):

Single out those individuals who may be more sympathetic towards National-Anarchist ideas and start to work on them. Slowly, quietly and with a degree of subtlety. Do not arouse suspicion, make friends with those concerned and arrange to meet him or her outside of the organisation's own events. Make them part of our group without them even knowing who we are. Flatter them, buy them drinks, make them feel welcome, but keep your politics to yourselves. Let some more time elapse and then start to increase the heat even more. Start to criticise the target organisation, perhaps you can pick out something which the membership is clearly not happy with. Do this within your own group. Get one of our people, maybe even two, to argue against you so that no suspicion is aroused. Don't let the person or people you are working on think that you are in league with one another, but make sure that your 'opponents' eventually capitulate and come over to your side of the argument.13


All of these considerations plus Southgate’s repeated rapid changes of direction invite suspicion that he has a hidden agenda -- that his ‘national-anarchism’ is insincere and that he is merely attempting to use it as a front for something else.
    The question then arises of ‘what?’ The ITP comes close to making an allegation of Satanism. Satanism and its Allies,14 although not a large work, contains a good deal of material suggesting that there has been, over a long period of time, an attempt by Satanists to infiltrate the ‘nationalist movement’ (the term ‘nationalist movement’ here referring to the organized white ‘far right’). (It also points out that there have been attempts by the security services to penetrate and use the Satanist movement over a long period of time -- the significance of this point will become clearer shortly.) It traces this attempt by the Satanists to infiltrate nationalism back to the doings of Aleister Crowley at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth and shows varying degrees of association between the Occult and ‘right-wing’ white nationalist individuals and groups in subsequent years. The underlying argument need not concern us here. What is of interest is that the book associates Southgate with this infiltration attempt. The ITP has published additional material on the Satanist connections of Southgate on its Web site at http://politicalsoldier.net/satbkltupdt.html (accessed 4 May 2004).
    Southgate has denied being a Satanist, claiming instead that he is an Odinist. Satanism and its Allies has an answer for this line of argument: ‘Of course, a pagan is not necessarily a Satanist, but it is remarkable . . . how many Satanists regard Paganism and Satanism as interchangeable terms, or the move from Paganism to Satanism as the most logical of processes.’ As the ITP also notes, Southgate's move from Roman Catholicism even to Odinism is quite a jump by any standards!
    What evidence do the Third Positionists have about Southgate’s alleged connections with Satanism? Disappointingly, perhaps, Satanism and its Allies does not give much in the way of hard evidence, devoting only a few pages to Southgate’s doings (mostly concerned with attacking him personally) -- although I am aware that moves have been afoot to update the book:
 


We can perhaps add a little more evidence that appears, at first glance, to support the ITP’s line on this point.
    When attempting to assess a man, much can be learned from those with whom he associates. His ‘national-anarchist’ Web site was, until February 2004, hosted as a subdomain of a larger site -- Michael Lujan’s Synthesis site -- which concentrates on, inter alia, ‘occulture’ and contains material from self-confessed Satanists (as well as numerous articles from Southgate, one of which is a review of ‘Melek-Tha -- "De Magia Naturali Daemonica"’, and a great deal of creepy, Satanic-looking artwork). Various posts by Southgate to the Rose-Noire Internet discussion group display a knowledge of Satanic matters that would be quite remarkable in someone who did not take a great interest in these matters, and it is by no means clear why Southgate should take an interest in these matters if he does not, in fact, subscribe to this religion. Thus, for instance, in a post made on 15 October 2003, Southgate displays his interest in the doings of Satanist Aleister Crowley by telling us:

I've read a fair bit about The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage over the last couple of years, but never come across anyone who has actually followed its precepts to the letter. Even Crowley, of course, decided to ignore the compulsory six months of solitude and remained in society whilst trying to do the various workings. If memory serves me right I think he was living at Chancery Lane during that period . . . 15 In a subsequent post to the same forum on the same day, Southgate tells us: John Symonds' THE GREAT BEAST (Macdonald, 1971) is fairly ambiguous with regard to where Crowley was actually living whilst undertaking the Abra-Melin evocations. On page 23 we are told that Crowley leaves home and occupies a flat in Chancery Lane with the specific purpose of shunning his family and going 'into the wilderness' to perform the . Meanwhile, on pages 26 and 27 the author notes that Crwley prepared his oratory (or temple) at Boleskin House 'for the practice of Abra-Melin magic'. But we know that he did some of the evocations at Boleskin, of course, not least because of the effect they had on some of the residents . . .16 The effect of Halloween on Southgate might be likened to that of a full moon on a werewolf -- but worse! It prompts this 'serious political leader' to post 'poetry' to the Internet! This 'poetry' betrays a certain religious predisposition. This is a post made by Southgate to the Rose-Noire Yahoo! Internet group on 31 October 2003 under the heading 'Samhain':
Just a few simple lines that I've been toying around with for something I'm planning to do with my kids (with humble apologies to Will Shakespeare). Happy Samhain!
___________________________________________
"Eye of newt, and toe of frog"
In darkened wood through mist and fog
"Wool of bat, and tongue of dog"
Round yellow flame and burning log
"Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting"
Upon the wind our dead shall sing
"Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing"
Summer dies and Winter is King
"For a charm of powerful trouble"
Beasts shall pass through veil a-double
"Like a hell-broth boil and bubble"
Human waste reduced to rubble
"Double, double, toil and trouble"
Life renewed in Samhuinn's stubble
"Fire burn, and cauldron bubble"
Nature's forces shall redouble
    We can only imagine what Southgate was planning to do with his 'kids' and what precisely is meant by 'Human waste reduced to rubble'. What do such lines have to do with Odinism? What does such juvenile drivel have to do with national-anarchism?
    We find reviews by Southgate of Evola posted on a Usenet Satanist group, alt.satanism.17 Likewise, we find an advertisement for the Web site of Michael Lujan, who is, as we have seen, a close associate of Southgate, posted to the alt.satanism newsgroup.18
    More interesting still are some of the posts about Southgate that appear in the world of Satanism on Usenet. One of the most fascinating Usenet threads appeared in January 2003:
From: "Draco The Elder" <webZweSpin@ya.net>
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.tarot,alt.slack
Subject: Russian Alchemy, A Plowed Down_COLD WAR_Berlin Wall, China To Russian To German To French Diplomacy, And Three Out Of Four Fire! "Heads" Who Kept Oath in The Great Work...
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:15:36 -0600
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <b0m55d02tqe@enews1.newsguy.com>
Reply-To: "Draco The Elder" <webZweSpin@ya.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-160.newsdawg.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

...Bush is in limbo. We'll worry about him later.
Does anyone here know how I can get in touch with the woman who helped write
the article posted below?

I believe she is referred to by some as OX SINISTRA or even LEPER. I wish to
congratulate her and offer her my friendship.

http://english.pravda.ru/columnists/2002/05/29/29483.html

Remember:

" DEATH IS JUST A PART OF KILLING."

Rev. Nu Monet, High Priest
of
The Church of Kali(Reformed)

The Pravda link referred to an article by Southgate entitled ‘Julius Evola a radical traditionalist’. Clearly the poster felt that the article was not written by Southgate alone but rather with the assistance of a woman who is acting as a close partner and has a Satanist connection. A follow-up post in alt.magick is equally fascinating:
From: glass@panix.com (Robert Scott Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.tarot,alt.slack
Subject: Re: Russian Alchemy, A Plowed Down_COLD WAR_Berlin Wall, China To Russian To German To French Diplomacy, And Three Out Of Four Fire! "Heads" Who Kept Oath in The Great Work...
Date: 22 Jan 2003 10:00:48 -0500
Organization: Bombay Dry
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <b0mbn0$2pc$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <b0m55d02tqe@enews1.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1043247648 2630 166.84.1.2 (22 Jan 2003 15:00:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:00:48 +0000 (UTC)

In article <b0m55d02tqe@enews1.newsguy.com>,
Draco The Elder <webZweSpin@ya.net> wrote:
>Does anyone here know how I can get in touch with the woman who helped write
>the article posted below?

>http://english.pravda.ru/columnists/2002/05/29/29483.html
Troy Southgate's working with a partner? Interesting. You can probably
reach her through him if needed.

However, the whole Evola vibe's getting fairly big (especially in Russia),
so there are other ways to tap that particular spring if the Southgate
party doesn't work out.

Who wrote the first of these two items? Some evidence is provided in another post made at roughly the same time:
From: AINSUPH@aol.com (AINSUPH)
Newsgroups: alt.freemasonry
Subject: Re: I just don't know
Date: 14 Jan 2003 15:11:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <a494eb51.0301141511.1fdc9f7b@posting.google.com>
References: <avut9e0duj@enews1.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.145.95.205
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1042585895 13069 127.0.0.1 (14 Jan 2003 23:11:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jan 2003 23:11:35 GMT

Dear JASON DEAN SCOTT:

I followed back through your threads of webZewSpin@ya.net to the point
that you signed yourself as iao11@msn.com, and then back through
further threads where you signed yourself in alt.freemasonry as JASON
DEAN SCOTT. I was just wondering why you abandoned your handle as
JASON DEAN SCOTT and started calling yourself
"Draco The Elder" <webZweSpin@ya.net>. It seems that your entire
style of writing, what newsgroups you post in, etc. etc. retain a
certain constancy through your transition from JASON DEAN SCOTT to
"Draco The Elder", although, in the latter rendition, you have
occasionally appeared with an uncertain gender identification. Is it
possible that you are undergoing a sex change operation, and hence,
the new moniker. If so, may I suggest that you are making a mistake.

You should join regular Freemasonry BEFORE undergoing a sex change
operation, then have the operation, whereupon you will become a
REGULAR FEMALE FREEMASON!!!

AIN

Scott’s posts have shown a national-anarchist tendency in the past. He is a real person and in 1999 was residing in Houston, Texas, as might be ascertained from his CV, which he conveniently posted to misc.jobs.resumes and houston.jobs.wanted in November 1999. It is thus reasonable to assume, given his knowledge of Ox Sinistra, that he is or was one of Southgate’s inner circle. A flavour of the man’s mentality might be gleaned from the following post:
From: "Jason Dean Scott" <iao11@msn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Truth
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:18:26 -0600
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <autm8702nia@enews1.newsguy.com>
Reply-To: "Jason Dean Scott" <iao11@msn.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-414.newsdawg.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

I can't believe each and everyone of you were involved in a conspiracy to either shut me up or kill me. I can't stomach it any more. Liars. Fuck y'all. I hope you all rot in the hell you created for yourselves. I spit on each and every one of you; and if you're Sicilian, you know what that means and what comes next.

    Michael Lujan, one of Southgate's closest associates, appears to have been associated with the White Order of Thule and is known to have associated with Hendrik Moebus, who has boasted to the press of his former Satanist connections. Certainly, in 1998 Lujan was posting their agenda on Usenet:
 
Following Faustus' and Grimwald's agenda, The White Order's avowed aim is to put an occultic dimension into the US fascist and racist movements, many of which have adopted a corruption of Christianity called Identity, which declares the white race to be God's Chosen People, condemns the Jews as the children of Satan, and identifies Negroes as "beasts of the field." The White Order offers a substitute religion which it considers the "light" or Luciferic counterpart to the dark of Satan, considering Satan and Lucifer to be representative of two aspects of the cosmos. In organizational terms, then, The White Order is the light or Luciferic counterpart The Black Order's dark, or Satanic fascism. Both work symbiotically.  However, as The White Order explains in its brochure Wherefore Satan? An Introduction to the Sinister Aspect of the White Order of Thule,
"We nevertheless acknowledge the importance, nay, the necessity, of giving voice and expression to the 'sinister', or darkside of our nature. ... While we do not profess to be a 'satanic' or 'sinister' order, we have previously acknowledged the dutiful place of what we call the Black Order...
The brochure goes on to acknowledge the potency of Satan as the leading symbolic rebel against Christianity.  “Would it not benefit us to tap into the energy latent in such a symbolically, and therefore potentially, destructive symbol in order to aid the natural process that is birthing the New on the ashes of the Old?"
The White Order also acknowledges the place of Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey in giving popular expression to the complex ideas of the 'anti-Christ' philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche whom, we have seen, was a seminal influence on the birth of fascism, and who is a principal influence on the Faustian Satanism of the OSV. Finally, The White Order acknowledges Loki as the specifically Germanic personification of Satan.
Hence, the agenda of The White Order has taken its cue from its spiritual founders, the New Zealanders Faustus and Grimwald, to subvert and utilize Nazism and racism as a means of inaugurating a New Satanic Order upon the ruins of Judaeo-Christian morality, where compassion, humility and charity will be purged as the morality of the 'weak", as per the dictums of Nietzsche, Crowley, LaVey...19


    One final piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that Southgate might be working somewhat more closely with Satanists than is immediately apparent is the logo drawn up by Michael Lujan for national-anarchism. One notes the letters NA in front of a five-pointed star. Lujan has described it thus:

I deliberately chose purple because of its royal and aristocratic connotations, as being emblematic of the sovereign principle in general, which is embodied in the figure of the Anarch. It is also the 'synthesis,' if you will, of the colors red (heat/fire/sun) and blue (cold/ice/moon), thus indicative of the axis on which the polarities operate. The star is, of course, a traditional symbol of Man, and also points to the ethic contained in the phrase "per ardua ad astra"- "Through Struggle To The Stars".
A cynic might also point out that another, simpler interpretation could be applied to the logo: national-anarchism as a front for Satanism. It should be noted that Southgate’s NRF logo was remarkably similar, except there was a gun instead of the letters NA in front of the five-pointed star. A five-pointed star is not, in itself, a Satanist symbol, but as the ITP has pointed out, in this case it appears to be a disguised pentagram, which is.
    Now national-anarchists appear to have no a priori reason to object to Southgate practising whatever strange religion he wishes. However, if he is merely using national-anarchism as a means to a further end -- namely to draw people into his own close circle and gradually bring them into Satanism -- then it is perhaps hardly grossly unreasonable of me to remark that he does not seem the ideal person to direct the national-anarchist movement. Where is he trying to lead the world: to national-anarchism or to Satanism?
    In fact we shall shortly suggest that one possible answer is ‘neither’ and that a case can be made to suggest that he might have very different motives. Southgate certainly does have strong Satanist and pagan connections but there is some evidence to suggest that simply to dismiss his clique as a secret ‘Satanist front’ would be oversimplistic.
    First, if Southgate's national-anarchist movement is supposed to be some sort of secret pagan or Satanist front organization one cannot help observe that it is hardly very secret. Indeed, it seems to positively delight in dropping hints of dark and occult connections at every possible opportunity, presumably to catch the eye of those with Satanist inclinations. In an interview with Wayne John Sturgeon, Southgate (presumably with an eye to the Odinist market) was quite open about his (supposed) religion when answering the question 'Do any religious or spiritual beliefs influence your political theory?':
The NRF is a neo-pagan or heathen organisation, although we do not adhere to any one form. In many ways, we consider religion to be a personal thing and our activists range from Chaos Magicians and Crowleyites through to followers of Mithras and the Norse pantheon. When I left the Catholic Church I became attracted to Odinism, viewing this as the most genuine expression of European spirituality, culture and identity. I am particularly heartened by the growth of organisations such as the Odinic Rite and the Tribe of the Wulfings, both of which are very loyal to the gods of the Northern Tradition. At the same time, however, I agree with Traditionalist thinkers like Rene Guenon and Julius Evola in that most religions appear to contain fragments of a hidden albeit distinct and fundamental truth. In fact my investigations within this field of study are still ongoing. Other interests of mine include the history of the Thule Society and Armanenorden, and to some extent I have also studied the fascinating and scholarly works of highly respected runologists like Guido von List and Occultists such as Maria Karl Wiligut. I also take an interest in Peter Carroll and the I.O.T., polar symbolism [see Arktos by Jocelyn Godwin], the work of Miguel Serrano, Synarchy and Saint-Yves d’Alveydre, and the lost cities and myths of Agartha, Shambhallah and Atlantis.20
    (By describing the old NRF as a 'neo-pagan or heathen organisation' Southgate clearly places the religious character of the organization foremost. Lujan has taken a similar line on his Web site, in declaring 'National-Anarchism is the political weltanschauung -- or, perhaps, scalpel blade -- of the Circle de la Rose Noire.')
    Second, while Southgate is certainly working with pagans and Satanists, there is strong evidence that he may well be playing a far darker game in which the pagans and Satanists, far from being the villains of the piece, could well be the intended victims. Life is, in short, both more complicated and simpler than it might at first appear. This will emerge in the following sections.
 

2.7 Our 'leader' as a security threat (to put it mildly)

2.7.1 The taste for structured organization
Southgate is very fond of creating structured organizations. To be sure, the ‘group’ that he ‘leads’ (if group it be -- we are talking here of some 10 individuals of varying ideological shades and with varying -- but uniformly low -- levels of commitment) changes its name and character from time to time in keeping with Southgate’s ‘butterfly mind’, but it remains an organization nonetheless and, as such, carries with it all the dangers inherent in political organizations. Structured organizations invite many problems. They are easy to infiltrate -- particularly at the upper levels. They involve fixed channels of communication, which can be intercepted or disrupted. And most serious of all, their leadership can be bribed, threatened, subverted or co-opted, particularly where that leadership is weak and ‘flighty’. If someone were to offer Southgate a hefty bribe to hand over the names, addresses and personal details of his supporters, given what is known of his behaviour, how much confidence would you have, dear reader, in his ability to resist?

2.7.2 The dangers of e-groups and Internet ‘discussion forums’ generally
Much of Southgate’s work is conducted on the Internet. He claims that he also has an operation that works beyond the Internet -- if this is the case then it is difficult to identify any impact that it has ever had on anything; it does not, at the time of writing, seem to have attracted much attention from anyone. His Web sites and other propaganda direct people to participate in a certain discussion group currently hosted by those robust opponents of capitalism at Yahoo!
    The establishment of ‘forums’ and ‘discussion groups’ should be an obvious way for the security services to gain intelligence information about potentially subversive elements in any society. People who are perceived as likely to engage in criminal or subversive activity would be attracted to the Web sites of these ‘forums’, at which point their IP numbers would be automatically logged. This means that the authorities could potentially track them down. Thereafter, these people would be engaged in all sorts of friendly and casual conversations in which, of course, they would relax enough to reveal all sorts of information about themselves -- and their colleagues.
    This should be fairly obvious to anti-Establishment activists but it is not and they appear to fall for it hook, line and sinker, time and time again. The amount of careless talk floating around these forums is frightening. Certainly, we have seen the national-anarchist group being used to attempt to gain personal information about people. One Danish supporter was asked to divulge his real name, for instance (he wisely refused, although unfortunately he has already passed precisely this information to absolutely the wrong people). We also see various 'polls' being set up to ask members of the group about personal matters -- one in early 2004 asked them for their location.
    Just think. Suppose that you are a police force or other security service very concerned about terrorism, political subversion, ‘political extremism’ and so forth. Could you really miss an opportunity like this? Would not the temptation be overwhelming to set up a discussion forum on ‘communism’ or ‘Osama’ or ‘National Socialism’ or ‘national-anarchism’, for the specific purpose of finding out who is who, what they are thinking and what they are doing? Indeed, you might not need to set up such a forum: you can simply take over an existing one, or flood it with agents, or simply watch the chit-chat and learn from it. The security services would, indeed, be completely mad to miss such a tactic.
    The use of ‘sting’ Web sites and discussion groups by police to trap paedophiles is a well known and well publicized tactic. One of the most famous examples is the Operation Candyman case. The FBI’s own Web site  described the operation thus:21
 

On 01/02/2001, FBI Houston initiated an investigation after an undercover agent identified three Yahoo! Egroups involved in posting, exchanging and transmitting child pornography. One website depicted the Egroup as the following: "This group is for People who love kids. You can post any type of messages you like too or any type of pics and vids you like too. P.S. IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER WE WILL HAVE THE BEST GROUP ON THE NET." (SIC)
    An Egroup is described as an "Electronic Group" or "community" of people communicating via the Internet, for one purpose and/or issue (i.e.: child pornography). These groups can be "closed" or "open" communities. In a closed community you must be invited in by a member of the group and the identity of the group cannot be identified by non-members searching the Internet. In open communities, such as "Candyman," any person searching the Internet can conduct a search by title or category, locate the group, and may be granted membership by the monitor of the group. The monitor may be the creator of the group or a member selected by the group.
    Through the issuance of a court order to Yahoo!, FBI Houston concentrating on the Candyman Egroup, identified 7,000 unique E-mail addresses with 2,400 of the addresses outside of United States and 4,600 located domestically. Subpoenas were issued on all of the Internet providers for the addresses within the United States. Information on approximately 1,400 subjects were provided to Houston.


Given the widespread public disgust at paedophilia, and the high priority afforded it by law enforcement, it is perhaps surprising that pro-paedophile Web sites can still be found at all on the Internet. But they can -- quite easily -- as a few minutes’ work with a good search engine will reveal. Some have discussion boards. Can these be anything other than ‘sting’ operations?
    There is no shortage of very suspicious political Web sites. For instance:
 

It is worth noting that the mainstream press have commented on the police use of the Internet to monitor dissident political groups. For example, the Toronto Star of 28 June 2004, in an article titled 'Web is terror's tool -- and trap', carried the following observations by Anick Jesdanun of Associated Press:

NEW YORK—Al-Qaida-linked terror groups and their sympathizers have in recent months made a big splash on the Internet, making it their communications channel of choice.
    They're benefiting from free discussion boards, e-mail accounts and other online forums for propaganda, recruitment, fund-raising and even planning.
    If law enforcement has done little to squelch these outlets, it's only in part because of the difficulty of catching moving targets. More importantly, these online soapboxes can provide investigators with crucial leads.
    'It's a game of cat and mouse in which the cat is always going to be behind,' said Michael Vatis, former cybersecurity director at the FBI. 'It's a more effective strategy to actually use these sites for gathering intelligence rather than engaging in a futile effort to shut them down.'
    Mark Rasch, a former U.S. justice department computer crimes prosecutor, said he wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement agencies set up some of these forums -- much as undercover investigators create phony businesses to lure mobsters.
    When such sites do get shut down, it's generally the work of hackers or the private Web hosting companies that unwittingly allow them to publish online, said Gabriel Weimann, who studies terrorism online at the U.S. Institute of Peace.


Even if we take the charitable view that Southgate is not working for the Establishment, is it really an act of wise leadership for Southgate to set up an Internet forum where all who take an interest in national-anarchism are encouraged to participate and where their identities and gossip can be monitored easily by the state? Is this not an act of asinine incompetence?

 

2.7.3 The tendency to 'take things down'
We have noted Southgate's 'butterfly mind' -- his tendency to flit from one cause and position to a diametrically opposed cause and position. Such people are, of course, always somewhat dangerous to their colleagues but the danger is particularly high when they inflict damage upon the movements that they leave.
    According to an interview with Dan Ghetu, Southgate started out as a Labour voter (!).23 He became involved with the National Front in 1984. What happened next is explained in his article 'Transcending the beyond: from third position to national-anarchism'

By 1986 the NF claimed to have finally purged its ranks of -Tories- and -reactionaries- and, much to the chagrin of the traditional Left, was soon forging alliances with Black separatist organisations like Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam and commending the 'third way' stance of Khomeini's Iran. Indeed, whilst the works of Belloc and Chesterton were used to provide the NF with a unique economic platform, the organisation was also advocating Popular Rule, an interesting socio-political theory in which the structure of British society would become so decentralised that it would come to resemble that of Colonel Qathafi's Libya. Not culturally, but in terms of establishing street, area and regional committees through which power could be decisively channelled up from the grass roots. This, of course, was in stark contrast to the NF's former dependence upon the electoral voting system. The NF, in awe of its Libyan counterparts, was now distributing copies of Qathafi's Green Book and happily chanting the mantra 'no representation without participation'. As a consequence, therefore, the NF's rejection of the ballot box confirmed its inevitable admittance into the revolutionary domain of extra-parliamentary politics. The movement went on to express its support for regional independence, European solidarity, positive anti-racism and co-operation with Black and Asian communities residing in England.
    These were exciting times for supporters of Revolutionary Nationalism, but the personality clashes which tend to prevail in all political circles eventually tore the organisation apart during the Autumn of 1989. On one side were gathered the supporters of Derek Holland, Colin Todd, Nick Griffin and Roberto Fiore, all of whom were involved in the establishment of a new rural project in northern France. On the other were Patrick Harrington, Graham Williamson and David Kerr, who believed that the administrative core of the organisation should remain in the British Isles. Holland, Todd, Griffin and Fiore all left to form the International Third Position (ITP), whilst Harrington and the remaining supporters of the NF disbanded the movement in March 1990 and formed Third Way.24
    Given that Southgate left the NF for the ITP, one does not need to do much reading between the lines to see that Southgate became involved in much faction fighting, the end result of which was to tear the National Front apart.
    However, those in the ITP who had regarded Southgate as an ally were to find themselves bitterly disappointed. The same article continues:
Throughout those years I had served as Regional Organiser with both Sussex NF and the Tunbridge Wells branch of the ITP, publishing magazines such as The Kent Crusader, Surrey Action, Eastern Legion and Catholic Action. Combined with Northern Rising (published by the ITP-s Yorkshire and Lancashire branches), these publications comprised five-fifths of the organisation-s literary output. When the ITP virtually disintegrated in 1992, these magazines all withdrew their support. The ITP, meanwhile, was left with Final Conflict, comprising a mixture of skinhead youth culture and Christian bigotry.
    The split occurred for a variety of reasons, most notably the fact that the ITP had rejected the internal cadre structure which had been used to such great effect during the NF period. Coupled with the fact that Derek Holland and several others had left the country and were now completely disinterested in the Third Positionist struggle in England, Roberto Fiore was attacked by myself and many others for his involvement in a ruthlessly Capitalist enterprise which operated from Central London. Several outgoing ITP activists also accused Holland and Fiore of stealing many thousands of pounds they had invested in property based within the group-s rural enclave in northern France. But the most decisive factor of all, however, was the ITP leadership's increasing obsession with Catholicism and its gradual descent into the reactionary waters of neo-fascism.25
In short, having played a prominent role in 'taking down' the National Front, Southgate launched what he thought was a devastating attack on the ITP, fermenting dissent within its ranks, accusing its leadership of all sorts of things and taking down its publications. The ITP survived and Southgate was left to try to mop up stragglers by creating a new group:
 
From the tattered remains of the ITP came a new independence organisation, the English Nationalist Movement (ENM). New attempts were made to restate the principles of the Third Position, and ENM publications like The Crusader and Catalyst attacked both Hitler and Mussolini and preferred to emulate home-grown English socialists like Robert Owen, William Cobbett, Robert Blatchford and William Morris. This was combined with a call to arms.26
Of course it was only a matter of time before Southgate unilaterally decided to 'take down' both the ENM and its publications, although the Rising Press continued. Southgate describes his efforts thus:
 
In 1998 the ENM changed its name to the National Revolutionary Faction and began to call for armed insurrection against the British State in even stronger terms. A series of detailed pamphlets and internal bulletins were disseminated amongst Nationalists across the length and breadth of the country, seeking to end the British National Party-s (BNP) obsession with marches and elections. The revamped organisation also forged contacts with like-minded Third Positionist groups abroad, such as Nouvelle Resistance (France), the American Front, Spartacus (Canada), the Canadian Front, Alternativa Europea (Spain), National Destiny (New Zealand), Devenir (Belgium), Rivolta (Italy), Free Nationalists (Germany) and the National Bolshevik Party (Russia).27
So, having played a major role in the demise of Britain's National Front and having made a valiant effort to do the same to the International Third Position, Southgate then launched a serious onslaught against the (then very wobbly) British National Party and sought connections with wobbly groups overseas, presumably with an eye to 'taking them down' (Russia's National Bolshevik Party, of course, saw a split between Limonov and Dugin, although I have no evidence that Southgate was instrumental in this).
    The National Revolutionary Faction (NRF) project was no more successful than the ENM. The British National Party was taken over by Nick Griffin and began to preach a reformist agenda fairly harmless to the Establishment, mushrooming in size, at which point Southgate seemed to lose interest in it. Southgate has informed me -- and has been putting it about to others, including those aligned with the ITP -- that even at its height the NRF had no more than 20 members. (I suspect that, if this were indeed the case, several of those were probably Troy Southgate.) Accordingly, it adopted national-anarchism, apparently in response to a perception that anarchist groups had the potential to cause much more of a security problem for the Establishment than the white nationalist groups that had been Southgate's earlier target: 'In recent years the NRF has rejected Third Positionism and now describes itself as a National-Anarchist movement.' Of course this 'rejection' of Third Positionism has not prevented Southgate from continuing to attempt to forge contacts with, and keep an eye on, Third Positionists and National Bolshevists via his Web sites and the national-anarchist Internet group.
    On 29 January 2003, and much to the surprise of at least some of his associates, Southgate posted the following message to various Internet groups:
 
URGENT ANNOUNCEMENT

We are currently designing a new website to promote the cause of National-Anarchism. However, rather than continue as an organisation with a membership structure, we have decided to disband the National Revolutionary Faction (NRF) altogether. This is a decision which should have been made some time ago. The NRF no longer exists and we shall now function as a political think-tank and be known as the 'National-Anarchists'. This group of thinkers and intellectuals is centred around a philosophy which will hopefully make a considerable contribution to the anti-capitalist struggle in the years ahead. If you are a free spirit and genuinely identify with this current or wish to write articles for the new website, then please get in touch immediately. The idea must come first and this is your chance to become involved in the advancement of a new ideology for the future of all peoples.
Yours for National-Anarchism,

Troy Southgate,
London.28

In a subsequent post to the national-anarchist Internet group on the same day, Southgate elaborated: 'This was something which was well overdue. We are now building a brand new website that will promote National-Anarchism on a world scale . . .' A Greek comrade was somewhat surprised: 'This decision was approved by all the members of the NRF?' she enquired. The response came back: 'Yes, it was. The NRF no longer exists. This is not the tme for organisations and movements. The world is already full of them. We must now enter the intellectual and ideological battlefield in order to promote National-Anarchism as an IDEA . . .'
    Nor was even this the end of the story. As we have seen, in January 2005 Mr Southgate launched an organization called the British New Right! Presumably the objective of this is to forge links with right-wingers, persuade them to provide information about themselves, lead them into a variety of dead-end activities that never accomplish anything, and then to abandon them as he moves on to form yet another organization . . .
    As a historical note we should remark that our own Web site, http://www.nationalanarchist.com, was created specifically because of the complete failure of anything noteworthy to happen even some months after the announcement of the demise of the NRF was made. The rest is history. We have already commented on Southgate's role in taking down Voice of the Resistance and his attacks on me personally and on the nationalanarchist.com Web site.
    This, then is the horrible truth: not only does Southgate have a record of lurching from one worldview to another but he has a perhaps unrivalled record for lurching from one organization to another, wreaking havoc on everything that he touches, taking down numerous initiatives and publications, completely demoralizing those few of his associates who he does not stab in the back, making no headway whatsoever with any anti-Establishment project, and invariably ending up serving the cause of the Establishment.
    This is the man whom we are supposed to support as the leader of anti-Establishment forces throughout the world!
 

2.7.4 Violence
Since its inception, the http://www.nationalanarchist.com Web site has always held a consistent view on violence and criminality and upon those who urge their followers to engage in such. Its message has been:

As a general rule the costs of unlawful acts vastly outweigh any benefits. The forces of law and order, in the Western world in particular, are vigilant and have access to quite frightening technology. If someone suggests to you that you should do something unlawful the chances are that the person making this suggestion is either (a) an idiot, and therefore dangerous, or (b) an agent provocateur -- an enemy deliberately trying to get you into trouble. We therefore explicitly do not encourage you to break the law or commit acts of terrorism.29
In the light of these words, Southgate's position on violence is rather interesting. Let us return to his article 'Transcending the beyond' and revisit the words we quoted earlier:
 
From the tattered remains of the ITP came a new independence organisation, the English Nationalist Movement (ENM). New attempts were made to restate the principles of the Third Position, and ENM publications like The Crusader and Catalyst attacked both Hitler and Mussolini and preferred to emulate home-grown English socialists like Robert Owen, William Cobbett, Robert Blatchford and William Morris. This was combined with a call to arms.30
Note the last sentence. When Southgate left the ITP and set up the ENM he issued a 'call to arms'. The article adds, further on: 'In 1998 the ENM changed its name to the National Revolutionary Faction and began to call for armed insurrection against the British State in even stronger terms.'
    The ITP has had enormous fun commenting on Southgate's 'call to arms' and 'call for armed insurrection'. The idea of Southgate, apparently a married man with a family and only a handful of supporters who have proven extremely reluctant to do anything at all (even to write articles for his journals) suddenly leading an 'armed insurrection against the British State' -- the British state with its vast intelligence resources, its numerous police officers, its state-of-the-art armed forces complete with sophisticated weaponry and other technology -- is truly the stuff of comic strips. I shall resist the temptation to repeat the ITP's jibes about 'Field Marshall Southgate'. I shall instead content myself merely with reproducing part of one paragraph from the ITP's book Satanism and its Allies:
 
Of even greater consequence is the fact that Mr Southgate is actively promoting terrorism. Those who have been around in the National Struggle a great deal longer than Mr Southgate will know that such a position has always been pushed by two types: lunatics or State agents. Why? Because the British State is one of the strongest in terms of repressive capabilities -- to believe that a handful of 'revolutionaries', who publish irregular, photocopied bulletins, can rid the country of the State through terrorism is tantamount to believing that the moon is made of cheese. Have we been unfair? Read this . . . 'It is impossible to beat our enemies at their own game and to participate in a System which is inherently corrupt is to give credence to the very system itself. Violence, on the other hand -- or what we would prefer to call legitimate armed struggle -- is not born out of frustration, due to our inability to gain power through the ballot box; on the contrary, it is a necessary evil which must be used in self defence. On the other hand, in order to facilitate our self defence in the cause of the Nation, we must remember that it is often wise to strike first.' Big words, but what is Mr Southgate going to strike back with? Unsold copies of The English Alternative wrapped up in bundles?! . . . 31
  Has Southgate's position changed in recent months? Unfortunately not. He's still playing the same game, which appears to be the game of trying to get young and innocent anti-Establishment activists with violent inclinations in trouble with the police. Having been mocked merciliessly by the ITP in the past he is now a little more subtle -- but not much.  As at January 2004 his Web site calls for 'revolution on the periphery' (which is a somewhat more defensible position than 'armed insurrection against the British State' although one is still left wondering how he would carry it out). In his 2003 article 'Organising for the collapse' Southgate argues that 'Creating a counter-culture or, indeed, a counter-power structure alongside the existing system is a basic necessity, but looking at current trends realistically, there is to be no peaceful or purely political solution to the multifarious ills of modern society. '32 He continues: 'But where do we begin? 'The means for the preparation of revolutionary combat already exist, and are there to be exploited. Let's examine three areas into which National-Anarchists should be integrating themselves with the specific intention of gleaning some vital knowledge for the future . . .' These three areas in which he urges national-anarchists to become involved are listed as '1. Physical fitness', '2. Self-defence' and '3. Further activity'. He elaborates 'further activity' thus: 'If revolutionary activists are forced to defend themselves and their families from the faceless mercenaries of the State - and this includes the police, army, landlords, tax collectors, bailiffs etc. - then they must become familiar with the means to do so. It is worth noting that if you can spare one evening a week and just one weekend every month, then why not join the Territorial Army (TA)?'
    I do not even need to ask at this point whether Southgate's position on violence is not powerful evidence that he is in the pocket of the security services -- a classical agent provocateur attempting to induce young radicals to plan criminal acts that would then permit the security services to arrest them and pass them on to the courts, which would 'take them down' for several years. I am quite content to permit readers to look at the evidence presented in this article and draw their own conclusions on that matter, as I have drawn mine. Let us grant him the benefit of the doubt and assume, purely for the sake of argument, that he is not working for the British intelligence services. Can anyone really take seriously, let alone accept as a leader, a man who, with no resources, apparently no military experience, and no discernible organizational ability calls upon others to engage in 'armed insurrection against the British State'? Are we not dealing here with, at best, a fruitcake?
 

2.7.5 Questionable connections
I want to begin this section with a thought about policing tactics and then a couple of anecdotes. The relevance of both will become clear in due course.
    The security services have a problem whenever they want to infiltrate or disrupt radical anti-Establishment groups or to spread gloom and disillusionment in their ranks. One would imagine that an experienced intelligence officer would need at least a few years' training -- it is presumably important and even dangerous work. This means that experienced intelligence officers are unlikely to be young (although they might look young). This poses a difficulty given that many of the groups they wish to spy on and wreak havoc upon are young -- they tend to be full of people in their late teens and early twenties. The age factor means that it would not always be easy for an experienced officer to fit in. Moreover, as officers age they become increasingly incapable of fitting in. It is just not possible for a security service officer nearing retirement age to mingle naturally with a group of students or teenagers. Thus, although they might accumulate valuable experience and contacts as they grow older, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to deploy these assets 'in the field' as it were.
    We might speculate that one possible solution to this would be for them to persuade their children or other family members to use some of their spare time casually to join and report back on targeted groups, perhaps in exchange for financial remuneration. This would be a win-win scenario (although not for the groups being targeted). The parent receives on-the-ground intelligence; the child receives training for a possible career in the intelligence services; the intelligence services receive trained recruits whose backgrounds and idiosyncracies are known to them as well as the all-important intelligence information.
    Hold that thought.
    My first anecdote concerns an experience that I had as a member of a small, legal but somewhat anti-Establishment political party in the 1980s. Our local branch had a few active members and we met on a monthly basis. These meetings were attended by a young fellow called Stanway. Stanway openly admitted that his father was 'in the police'. We thought nothing of this -- we were not out to do anything illegal and Stanway had, indeed, been open about his connections. One day we decided to stage a protest against an activity held by a rival political group. As far as I was aware this was supposed to be an entirely lawful event. Unknown to me, one of our number had brought a firework along, presumably with the intention of using it to disrupt the activity in question. When we arrived on the scene, the police were waiting for us. They went straight for the person in possession of the firework and arrested him. He was charged with possession of an offensive weapon and received a fine. (We later pitched in to help pay the fine.) It was evident from court proceedings that the police had acted on information passed to them -- in short, we had a mole in our ranks. Strangely enough, we did not immediately think of Stanway as the culprit -- there was another supporter who seemed more dubious, although we had nothing definite on him. Many months later, I was sitting with a fellow member in a local police station. Party property had been stolen and, as we were young and innocent and not particularly anti-police in those days, we had decided to see whether we might get official help in recovering it (such help, of course, was not forthcoming -- but that is another story). We were ushered into a room and told to wait. We waited. While we were waiting we amused ourselves by looking at various bits of paper on the noticeboard. One of the pieces of paper detailed various police football teams. As we looked at it we noted the name 'Stanway'. We also noted that, thanks to a supreme piece of incompetence on the part of some rather sleepy police officer, this individual's Special Branch affiliation was noted. At that point the penny dropped.
    My second anecdote concerns a much more recent experience. I was again a member of a small, legal but somewhat anti-Establishment (although by no means anti-police) political party. Time and time again, I was warned by various people, especially the party leadership, to beware of a certain individual named Braithwaite. He had a track record of causing disruption and mayhem and was widely regarded as a probable plant. My own observations of him bore this out as he was exceptionally disruptive and unhelpful, although I did not regard him as the primary threat to us. One day I was distributing leaflets with him and we began talking about the police. He mentioned, very casually, that he had a close family member (I believe he said an uncle -- I cannot recall) in the police. At that point I felt a definite sinking feeling.
    Since then I have always been rather suspicious of radical individuals with 'family connections' in the security services.
    Let us now return, with a bump, to our 'dear leader', Mr Southgate. Let us look at some of the people, other than Satanists, with whom he has associated.
 

2.7.5.1 The Bill White connection
White's main claim to fame is that he runs the Overthrow.com Web site. He has, in the past, been closely associated with Southgate. Thus, for instance, on 27 April 2003, he reported 'I often trade emails with Troy Southgate and like both him, the NRF, and the publication Synthesis.'33 In January 2005 his Web site reproduced Southgate's press release announcing the birth of his 'British New Right' project. He has been a prominent contributor to Southgate's National-Anarchist Internet group. His name has frequently been mentioned alongside Southgate's in the outpourings of those opposed to national-anarchism. He has identified himself in the past as a national-anarchist, and has considerable knowledge of 'paganism',34 Evola and Traditionalism35 -- the classic trademarks of this particular faction. He even has the almost obligatory Satanist connections:

I once let a girl stay with me who had been a prostitute and who was a heroin addict and who was almost entirely dead inside -- but who would sit in the sunlight in the morning with a picture book of puppy dogs and smile in a child-like fashion at them. She was an extreme case -- she once attacked a small child and tried to drink its blood and killed and ate a cat raw because Satan told her to -- but the extreme cases prove the rule.36
Like Southgate, White appears incapable of maintaining a coherent political position for any period of time. He appears to have drifted from being a 'utopian anarchist' to a 'libertarian socialist'  to a Marxist to a supporter of the National Alliance, to an opponent of the National Alliance, to a national-anarchist, to a supporter of the World Church of the Creator, to a denigrator of all political movements, to some sort of National Socialist. There was supposed to have been some sort of 'falling out' between White and Southgate during the latter part of 2003 -- White ceased to post on Southgate's national-anarchist Internet list and several articles critical of White appeared in that forum -- however, as recently as late 2004 adverts for Wilcox's Web-ring were appearing on White's Web site and, as we have seen, White has publicized the British New Right venture for Southgate, which seems to suggest that the supposed split is more apparent than real.
    White's Web site deals in gossip and appears to spend even more effort in attacking anti-Establishment individuals and groups than in attacking the Establishment itself. In this regard it serves to spread suspicion, disunity and disillusionment in anti-Establishment ranks. Indeed, its tone is very similar to the Red Action Web site and to the British 'anti-fascist' magazine Searchlight, both of which clearly have an agenda of destroying their target groups from within by disillusioning members and setting leaders at each others' throats. The anti-Establishment articles that do appear, together with the very crude anti-Jewish line taken by the site (quite at odds with White's evident intelligence in other fields), seem to be 'hooks' to create a readership among anti-Establishment individuals and to appeal to hardline 'white right' elements -- presumably his principal target. (Infiltrators of 'far-right' groups frequently overdo the anti-Jewish line -- partly because they are anxious to build connections with more 'extreme' individuals and partly because they tend to subscribe to the patently incorrect Establishment dogma that all 'far right' groups are secretly hardcore Nazis and that more moderate noises from such group are merely false propaganda.) That White poses a danger to the very 'far right' movement whose attention he seeks can be observed by a comment on a Web site apparently belonging to the Jewish Defence League (JDL), itself a fairly anti-Establishment Jewish group, which, although ferociously critical of White in many respects, nevertheless concedes that 'he may be taking down various Nazi's [sic] for his own financial and political advantage'.37 An example of this 'taking down' appears to have been his Shopwhite project. This solicited readers to send him their credit card and other personal details in order to purchase items of 'white' interest. Needless to say, the project ceased after only a fairly short period. On 5 September 2003, the following was posted to the White Survival discussion forum:
Now his ShopWhite site has been hacked and all the members' private information included names, home addressess, phone numbers, and credit card numbers have been posted to newsgroups (search for 'ShopWhite' on Google groups). I hope the members remember to cancel their cards, otherwise they will have thousands of dollars of charges on them at the end of the month!38
    Accusations that White is working for the intelligence services have come from a variety of sources. He has responded to these and various other, more eccentric, allegations in an article on his Web site. The relevant part of this article reads thus:
Accusation #2: That I have worked as a researcher for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Response: This accusation is the totally false creation of the mind of Mark Cotterrill, in trying to explain how and why CNN destroyed his poorly conceleaed illegally money-laundering operation known as the American Friends of the British Nationalist Party. Cotterill is absolutely convinced that I secretly worked with Morris Dees and co. to destroy him. This is not true.
My first reference to Cotterill was a passing reference to him in my discussion of the overall corruption of the Buchanan campaign. Later, LSN printed accusations that Cotterill was illegally laundering money and that groups like the SPLC were planning a media and federal law enforcement campaign to destroy him. Cotterill flipped out at what was our warning to him, and accused us (and me) of plotting to destroy him.
Eventually, CNN producer Henry Schuster did call me with their story, and I gave him some very vague and general information on the AF-BNP in exchange for hearing all the information he had -- which was already so much more than what I had that to say I contributed anything at all to the story that they didn't already know is ridiculous. What I did do is circulate to Cotterill, Griffin, and others (through back channels and middle-people), information on what CNN was planning to run.
This seriously screwed CNN, who had been working with the SPLC, and the story had to be transfered last-minute to USA Today. CNN later ran their piece separately.
Cotterill brought his misery on himself, by, among other things, refusing to believe my information was good. I have never dealt with the SPLC in any manner, and in fact have quite hostile relations with many of their writers (some of whom have expressed deep personal enmity towards me -- like Kevin Coogan and Michael Reynolds).

Accusation #3: I am under CIA mind control.
Response: Obviously, this is not true. This accusation circulates on some strange discussion boards, and is based on the fact that my father did, actually, work for the CIA (and hated it). I'll go into more detail on this with the next accusation.

Accusation #4: I work for the CIA, law enforcement, FBI, Mossad, et cetera ...
Response: Again, not true.
Amusingly, this accusation started when I was 16, and was first spread by Chuck "Chuck0" Munson, who is one of the only people I have ever observed actually maliciously sabotaging activist projects while pretending to agree with and lead them -- he is the most suspicious individual I know of in the activist scene. Not to go off on him, but he not only regularly writes poison pen letters to everyone from other activists to the major media to the FBI and police, he often recruits other naive activists to write similar letters for him. He is a not-right dude -- and he is ironically militantly defended by some as being a "real activist." I just don't deal with anyone associated with him, as a rule, and let him work, because often he has been the unwitting dupe spreading messages that I have wanted to see propagated, and I like that.
The only "evidence" ever presented for this is that my father did work for the CIA. My father fought as an officer in the Air Force in Vietnam and was awarded a Bronze Star (I think that's what it is) for bravery. After the war he joined NASA, where he designed space shuttles, worked on the Church Committee investigating COINTELPRO, and eventually went on to work for the CIA and Department of Defense. He was the author of several articles and a book on strategic airpower for the Brookinggs Institution in the 1970s. He absolutely hated the CIA, told me never to work in or for the government, and is now retired.
Beyond that, I have never had any links or ties to government agencies (of any government), and have never even been to the CIA. There are a lot of people in the radical world who are disturbed and paranoid and think anyone who disagrees with them politically must of course be working for some agency, because they honestly believe everyone not working for the government agreess with them. Besides saying that these things are prima facae ridiculous, I don't know that any other response can be made.

    There is another difficulty with White. We know that one of the main tactics used by the Establishment to neutralize opposition figures is that of bribery. For example, when the Americans invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taleban regime there were numerous reports of various warlords being offered large sums of money to switch sides. One ongoing reason for my scepticism about leaders and leaderships is simply the ease with which people can be bought. Can White be bought? It appears that he has already named his price: a humble $250,000. This is what he wrote in an article entitled 'How much would I sell this Website for':
I'm going to make an open offer to the people who are real upset and want to see this website shut down. If you want this website, you can buy it. My selling price starts at $250,000. For that, I will package in assignment of the trademark, assignment of all the copyrights to the published material, the software, the banner ad contracts, and a non-compete that says I will not author material for publication for one year.39
    It is not my intention, here, to reach any definite conclusion as to what game Mr White is playing. I merely present the allegations that have been made, together with his rebuttals, and leave my readers to draw their own conclusions (as I have done).

2.7.5.2 The Christian Bouchet connection
I have mentioned above the ITP's documentation of Southgate's connections to Christian Bouchet and their allegation that Bouchet  was 'known in France for shopping people to the police'. Like Southgate and White, Bouchet appears to drift from one organization to another, having apparently been expelled from at least two political groups and one Satanist group. That Mr Bouchet appears to have the effect of an agent provocateur, if not the intent of one, might be observed from the behaviour of one Maxime Brunerie. Brunerie was a supporter of Bouchet's organization and was referred to on the Web site of that organization as an 'enthusiastic, determined and serious militant'. On 14 July 2002, Brunerie attempted to assassinate President Chirac. He was apparently being watched: he was immediately wrestled to the ground and arrested.

2.7.5.3 The Larry O'Hara connection
The ITP publication Satanism and its Allies mentioned above has the following to say about our 'dear leader':
 

Of greater consequence, however, is the fact that Mr. Southgate appears to be very friendly with the 'Secret State' researcher, Larry O'Hara. It is to be doubted that this individual is working for the Left [the ITP takes the Left/Right thing seriously -- DM], since he has many of the hallmarks of someone working for the State. But whether it is the Left or the State is really of little consequence -- one is as bad as the other, but it does not stop Mr. Southgate raving about everyone and every group that he does not like to the said Mr. O'Hara. This in itself ought to make people who are in touch with Mr. Southgate wonder whether or not information is being passed on about them.40
Dr Larry O'Hara is an investigative journalist and the author of Turning up the Heat: MI5 after the Cold War. He thus purports to be an authority on the doings of the British security services, which is interesting as it forms a fairly direct link between Southgate and those who move in MI5 circles. He is widely described as an 'expert' on British fascism, apparently his doctoral interest. Like Southgate and White, O'Hara appears to have dedicated considerable amounts of energy to promoting gossip and tittle tattle about anti-Establishment figures (not just those who can be dismissed as fascists -- he appears to have alienated people from quite a variety of political backgrounds), typically fingering them as moles of the 'Secret State'. (This is not to say that his allegations are incorrect -- although some have claimed that they are -- but simply that a pattern is emerging here whereby Southgate and his associates seem to be part of a loose network that tends to spread gossip, suspicion and disillusionment in anti-Establishment ranks.) O'Hara publishes a newsletter entitled Notes from the Borderland. An advertisement for issue 4 offers readers the following:
 
Keynote article this time is that by Larry O'Hara and David Pegg concerning how the secret state and fascists disrupt the anti-EU movement. If that thought sounds fanciful and irrelevant, think again--it just shows how successful attempts have been (since the Labour Left's 1970s 'Alternative Economic Strategy') to keep anti-capitalist/Green struggles separate from anti-EU ones in the UK (but not Ireland/Denmark). Read all about:
• MI5's operation against James Goldsmith's Referendum Party using a fascist and a South African intelligence asset.
• How the secret state is trying to destroy the UK Independence Party. Dramatis Personae include the Cook Report, Alan Sked, Nigel Farage MEP, Nick Griffin & John Tyndall of the BNP. Also John Grieve, Met Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner. We catch Teflon John's mob bang to rights covering up the theft of UKIP membership lists.
• The real position of supposed anti-fascist organisation Searchlight on the EU, as let slip in a secret document by co-editor Nick Lowles. Read (in his own words) exactly how, speaking of anti-EU groups, he promised "utilising sources inside these organisations, the European Movement will be furnished with information not otherwise easily accessible. The report and drip flow of information will provide your organisation with invaluable ammunition to add to your cause".
• The true extent of fascist infiltration into the anti-EU struggle & what should be done about it.
• The truth behind Norman Tebbit's claim MI6 had infiltrated UKIP. We trace his source, and analyse the operation.


It should be noted that whereas Southgate has admitted having contact with O'Hara he has specifically denied the ITP allegation that he appears to be 'very friendly' with him, vehemently denouncing it as a lie.
 

2.7.5.4 The Ken McVay connection
Kenneth McVay runs an anti-racist Web site in Canada. Within hours of Southgate publishing his notorious attack on me, that attack was reproduced on McVay's Web site. McVay has close connections with B'nai Brith. Particularly noteworthy is the discrepancy between McVay's version of his career and the version given in a local newspaper. The McVay version has it that he started in the marines, then moved to Canada to provide computer services to fish farmers, then this collapsed and he accepted menial jobs before making a career of giving anti-racist lectures. Eventually he became involved in Internet marketing consultancy work.41 However, there is evidence consonant with the view that much of this might have been fronting something rather more sinister.  The cat was apparently let out of the bag by an article in the Toronto Star, dated 22 March 1999, which stated that Ken McVay was ‘a member of the Vancouver police department for 19 years’.42
    It might also be worth mentioning that McVay's father worked in military intelligence.43 Given my above reflections on security officials and their children, and given Bill White's interesting comments about his own father, this latter observation makes the otherwise tenuous link with Southgate somewhat more worrying.

2.7.5.5 The Qasim Khan connection
In the final days before the parting of the ways between Mr Southgate and myself, Southgate was casting around desperately trying to manufacture an ideological basis to justify taking action against us. He evidently found this rather difficult, not least because we advocate a fundamentalist brand of national-anarchism that does not add much to the basics -- to reject us is to reject national-anarchism itself. Nevertheless, in a post to his national-anarchist Internet group on 30 November 2003 Southgate attempted to insinuate that the crucial difference between what he viewed as true national-anarchism and our brand was that we were not racialist enough:

 
There are thousands of anarchistic variants out there, but the fact that National-Anarchism came about was due to the racial separaist stance of its adherents. We have no problem with other forms of anarchism or other decentralists, we just want to stress that National-Anarchism is an essential racialist phenomenon. That's what makes it different. Anarchism sui generis, perhaps, but Anarchism all the same.44
Judging from some of the follow ups, this remark caused more than a little amusement among others in the group. Nevertheless, the remark is particularly interesting given that, for a long time, and certainly at the time of writing this article (October 2004), Mr Southgate's essentially racialist national-anarchist group has had a Pakistani 'contact' (described as such on Southgate's Web site) by the name of Qasim Khanzada, or Qasim Khan. On his Web site Southgate gives Qasim's e-mail address as qasim@jumeirahbeach.com.
    For a period of time Qasim maintained a Web site entitled jumeirahbeach.com. It took the form, predictably enough, of a discussion board on which participants were invited to discuss politics. It had several interesting features. One was that Southgate had a national-anarchist section of his own. The other was that many of the other participants appeared to be Muslims. Interestingly, the Muslims did not appear to object to having an essentially racialist phenomenon like Mr Southgate in their midst. Naturally, participants were encouraged to give personal details about themselves, and Southgate even posted a photograph, supposedly of himself. A militant anti-American line was taken by most posters, with one token American taking an aggressively pro-US stance (but not objecting to the presence of the national-anarchist section!). There were numerous attempts to encourage participants to express their views on 'terrorism', violence and related matters. In short, it had all the hallmarks of a CIA operation to uncover links between the 'far right' and Islamists, or to identify members of the 'far right' with sympathies towards Al Qaeda. However, nobody really bit and at the time of writing this article the site has been permitted to die.
    What is particularly interesting about Qasim, the Islamic national-anarchist, is that the very same contact address that Southgate gives for him leads us to some interesting Usenet posts made by Qasim a couple of years earlier. Here is what he wrote on 26 November 2002:

    From: qasim@jumeirahbeach.com (Qasim Khan)
    Newsgroups: soc.singles
    Subject: Want to be Penpals,Friends
    Date: 26 Nov 2002 21:58:11 -0800
    Organization: http://groups.google.com/
    Lines: 13
    Message-ID: <56f536ea.0211262158.47ca9359@posting.google.com>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.145.87.125
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Trace: posting.google.com 1038376691 13600 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2002 05:58:11 GMT)
    X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Nov 2002 05:58:11 GMT
 

    Dear ....,

    Im 27 Male from Pakistan (Karachi City) looking for someone with
    Interest in being a pen or epal. My msn messenger id is
    vsats@hotmail.com. I used to live in USA and had very good and bad
    experiences and I miss the culture very much. Ive started studying
    philosophy even thought Im an MS in Comp Science.

    Are you someone who like to make friends worldwide, I am for real.

    regards

    Qasim

It is quite fascinating that this 'national-anarchist' should have found himself missing the culture of the USA. Most genuine national-anarchists are sick to the teeth of US culture and abhor the manner in which US culture is imposed on other peoples. But worse was to follow from Qasim the next day, in a reply to a 15-year-old German schoolgirl who had been looking for penpals:

    From: qasim@jumeirahbeach.com (Qasim Khan)
    Newsgroups: soc.penpals
    Subject: Re: looking for penpals
    Date: 27 Nov 2002 00:41:01 -0800
    Organization: http://groups.google.com/
    Lines: 23
    Message-ID: <56f536ea.0211270041.65936e88@posting.google.com>
    References: <3DBD0D9A.BFFF5482@yahoo.de>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.145.87.125
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Trace: posting.google.com 1038386461 26186 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2002 08:41:01 GMT)
    X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Nov 2002 08:41:01 GMT
 

    Matze [address deleted] wrote in message news:<3DBD0D9A.BFFF5482@yahoo.de>...
    > hi,
    >
    > i'm a 15 years old german girl and looking for penpals all over the
    > world!
    > my hobbies are paying piano, doing a lot of sport, and much more!
    >
    > if you are interrested write to: weldumdaucherin@yahoo.de
    >
    > hope to hear from you soon
    >
    > martina

    Dear Martina,

    I hope all is well and youre making the best out of what you do. Im a
    27 year old Pakistani born living in Karachi, I like fun loving people
    and I enjoy the outdoors very much. I have lived in the United States
    and enjoyed my self there and same here. I like reading , poetry ,
    social sciences. I m a technologist and like to make friends from all
    over.

    Qasim

One wonders how Southgate reconciles his view of national-anarchism as an essentially racialist phenomenon with the fact that his 27-year-old Pakistani 'contact' was attempting to initiate a relationship with a 15-year-old German schoolgirl. (Note also Qasim's subtle shift, in the space of one day, from a philosophy student to a technologist.) Some 12 minutes before replying to this young lady Qasim had made the following comments:
 

    From: qasim@jumeirahbeach.com (Qasim Khan)
    Newsgroups: soc.penpals
    Subject: Looking for single woman
    Date: 27 Nov 2002 00:29:30 -0800
    Organization: http://groups.google.com/
    Lines: 7
    Message-ID: <56f536ea.0211270029.3836b05c@posting.google.com>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.145.87.125
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Trace: posting.google.com 1038385770 25252 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2002 08:29:30 GMT)
    X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Nov 2002 08:29:30 GMT
 

    27 years old dynamic eductaed I am , likes of philosophy,reading
    having fun and passioatte 6.1" tall technologist seeking woman for
    marriage. Divorced and simgle again I am from Pakistan. A good person
    of any ethnicity and class will go with an ample level of intellect
    ,loving caring and charming. Never did I know marriage would end but
    shit happens and I am only human. I used to ilve in texas now in
    Karachi pakistan.

Again, one wonders how Mr Southgate would reconcile his view of national-anarchism as an essentially racialist phenomenon with his Pakistani 'contact' soliciting marriage from females of 'any ethnicity'. One further notes how now Qasim merely 'likes' philosophy (and has added 'having fun and passionate' [sic] to his interests), and that his aims had, in the space of a few hours, progressed from acquiring a penfriend to acquiring a second wife.
    These three Usenet posts certainly raise interesting questions about the sincerity of Qasim and of Southgate, but subsequent Qasim Usenet posts are even more damning. First, a fairly innocuous post dated 27 December 2003 shows us Qasim in the process of changing his e-mail address from qasim@jumeirahbeach.com to corporation_666@yahoo.com, and acquring the nickname of ~TRUTH 666 ~. This post contains the new address and nickname in the headers but the old details in the body (which simply reposts material he found elsewhere on the Internet):

    From: corporation_666@yahoo.com (~TRUTH 666~)
    Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics,talk.politics.theory,alt.dear.whitehouse
    Subject: If this is freedom, what exactly is Dictatorship?...
    Date: 27 Dec 2003 12:26:07 -0800
    Organization: http://groups.google.com
    Lines: 45
    Message-ID: <51061492.0312271226.7b89e89b@posting.google.com>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.217.177.124
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Trace: posting.google.com 1072556768 31651 127.0.0.1 (27 Dec 2003 20:26:08 GMT)
    X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:26:08 +0000 (UTC)
 

    If this is freedom, what exactly is dictatorship?...

    Qasim KZ
    qasim@jumeirahbeach.com

    12/27/03: (ICH): Let me see if I have this right. In the United States of America:

    1. The president now has the unrestricted power to declare war against
    a country that has not attacked the United States, wreaking death and
    destruction on both sides of the conflict.

    2. The president now has the unrestricted power to round up unlimited
    numbers of American citizens within the United States and incarcerate
    them in military brigs or concentration camps for the rest of their
    lives and keep them from ever again communicating with friends,
    families, and attorneys, simply on the president's certification that
    the incarcerated Americans are "terrorists," as he has done with Jose
    Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi.

    3. The president now has the unrestricted power to seize American
    citizens abroad and remove them to its military base in Cuba, where
    they can be kept for the rest of their lives and kept from ever again
    communicating with friends, family, and attorneys, solely on the basis
    of his certification that the imprisoned Americans are "terrorists," as
    he initially did with Yaser Esam Hamdi.

    4. The president now has the unrestricted power to kill American
    citizens abroad solely on the basis of his certification that the
    killed Americans are "terrorists," as he did to Ahmed Hijazi, the
    American who was killed with a U.S.-fired missile in Yemen.

    Pardon me for asking the following two indelicate questions:

    First, if all this is freedom, what exactly is dictatorship?...

    Second, after the Iraqi people are freed from dictatorship, would it be
    asking too much to do the same for the American people through the
    adoption of the following two amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

    "The Congress shall have the power to declare war, and this time we
    really do mean it." "No person shall be denied life, liberty, or
    property without due process of law, and this time we really do mean
    it."

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5426.htm

The use of '666' in the new address and in the nickname is, of course, significant given my foregoing observations about the ubiquitous Satanist connections. One is left wondering whether Qasim has converted from Islam to Satanism even faster than Southgate converted from Catholicism to Odinism . . .
    Likewise, one is inclined to wonder what those who regard Southgate as some sort of white racialist would make of Qasim's views of the murderous skunk Nelson Mandela:

    From: corporation_666@yahoo.com (~TRUTH 666~)
    Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.society.liberalism,alt.military
    Subject: Cheney and Mandela: Reconciling The Truth about Cheney's Vote
    Date: 19 Jan 2004 09:51:20 -0800
    Organization: http://groups.google.com
    Lines: 16
    Message-ID: <51061492.0401190951.63abde1c@posting.google.com>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.217.177.65
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Trace: posting.google.com 1074534681 18893 127.0.0.1 (19 Jan 2004 17:51:21 GMT)
    X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:51:21 +0000 (UTC)
 

    Cheney and Mandela: Reconciling The Truth about Cheney's Vote

    When Rep. Dick Cheney voted against a 1986 resolution calling for the
    release of Nelson Mandela and recognition of the African National
    Congress, Americans did know this man had been waiting decades for his
    freedom. In a larger sense, so had all black South Africans. The
    tenets of American democracy -- one man, one vote -- were denied to
    the majority of citizens, along with the most basic economic and
    educational needs. Yet Republican vice presidential candidate Cheney
    still defends his vote, saying on ABC's ``This Week'' that ``the ANC
    was then viewed as a terrorist organization. . . . I don't have any
    problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.'' What, then, does
    this tell us about what information Cheney considers before he takes a
    decision?

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/080300-102.htm


2.7.5.6 The Jonothon Boulter connection

Londoner Jonothon Boulter is a close associate of Southgate. He worked alongside Southgate on the takeover of Alternative Green, which has listed him as being involved with something called the Anarchic Movement, and was involved with him in the ill-fated Heretics Fair project. The man has therefore purported to be an anarchist. OK -- so far that's straightforward.
    He also appears to have been involved with a number of organizations including something called the Green Flame Revolutionary Synarchist League. Fair enough?
    He has also been listed as a contact for The Conservative Alliance of Central Europe.45 Confused? Dear reader, you haven't seen anything yet!
    In an interview with Wayne John Sturgeon46 Boulter had this to say:
 

I work as a Freelance Librarian and researcher and live in London. I'm the Founder and Chairman of the Rennes-le-chateau research society,which I started in 1992. The aims are the independent research into the mysteries and Hermetic political and literary circles surrounding the subject. We have regular meetings and produce a journal 4 times a year. We are also directly involved with those in the mystery and the village itself.


He elaborated thus:
 

we were the major influence behind the book 'Templar revelation' although the conclusions and ideas weaved together are the authors. I believe the book opens up the obscure world of French occultism and Catholic Mysticism and the involvement of Hermetic Politics and i believe that this has important things to say to the Politics of the future.


and continued:
 

. . . the answers are a belief in a Hermetic/Synarchic/Occult Empire model with everything broken into regions. This is known as Eurasianism.


Perceptive readers will no doubt recall that 'Eurasianism' is a term very much associated with Dugin.
    Boulter has recently been involved in an attempt by Southgate's faction to subvert the National Bolshevik Party. On 1 May 2004 he posted the following to the National-Bolshevik Yahoo! group:
 

Dear Comrades,
In June in London there will be the first Meeting for the Social Movement which is to bring the Right and Left in to the Centre
through Democratic Centralism[Lenin] through a National Popular Movement[Gramsci]therby uniting Left Fascism and National Bolshevism through the Althusserian Legacy. We are connected to the National Left of the MSI in Italy and other Left Fascists and with the National Bolshevik Current in Belgium and France founded by Thriart. We believe in a Strong Political Centrism whilst allowing a variety  of Views to exist. We support the idea of Moral Imperatives and a Personal Moral Rearmament as in Fascism and the ideas of Stalin,Mao,Hoxa,Lenin.47


The following day he posted this to the same forum:
 

Dear Comrades,
Thank you for your Support  for the Social Movement.
In the Tradition of National Bolshevism, Louis Althusser's Philosophy
is a reconiling position where Marxist-Leninism is reconciled in to
the Dialectic with an Anarch Position of ever evolving Synthesis.
He gives us the ability to use Marxism-Leninism and Stalin,Mao,Hoxa
Ceaucescu etc.without being limited by Revisionism i.e being able to
take om board anything else.

Althusserian Philosophy believes and Scientifically at that,that
every situation is disconnected to the last and every situation has a
infinite number of Possible openings and Potentials.
This allows us to take on board Class as  Subject and not be limited
by the subject as Class,Race,Religeon etc as these are all relevant
but no one subject can define anything. This takes us to Structural
Anarchism which allows us to be Leninist/Stalinist with Democratic
Centralism which allows for the Fredom of thought in the Movement.
I look forward to discussing this with other Comrades.

Fraternally

Jonothon48

On the next day he gave us this:
 
Dear Comrades,

Here is an essay on Sovietism against Cosmopolitanism.

[URL deleted]

This is from an excllent site of [URL deleted]

All things Soviet.

Fraternally

Jonothon49

Boulter's apparent movement from anarchism to conservatism and on to 'All things Soviet' might seem as remarkable as some of the apparent ideological conversions experienced by the likes of Southgate, White and Khan. We leave readers to decide for themselves what to make of them. Boulter's mis-spelling of the name of the late Albanian leader, together with his evident theoretical confusion (which reads like a parody of the worst Marxist jargon), seem to suggest that he is neither as familiar with, nor as enthusiastic about, communist theory as he represents.
    Stranger things were to follow. On 17 January 2005, Troy Southgate posted the following announcement to his national-anarchist Internet group:

ON Sunday 16th January 2005 the British New Right was launched in Central London, with almost 30 people in attendance from a variety of intellectual, cultural, political and esoteric backgrounds.
    Organised by Troy Southgate and Jonothon Boulter, there were a variety of literature stalls selling 'Alternative Green' and various National-Anarchist and Traditionalist pamphlets.


It is indeed entertaining to find that Mr Boulter, who only a few weeks earlier had been extolling the virtues of Gramsci and 'Hoxa' (sic.) and
ending his posts with 'All things Soviet' , is now organizing something called the 'British New Right'. And it should not be surprising to see Mr Southgate mixed up in all of this strangeness.
     What was Boulter up to? We don't know. However, if something smells like a pig and acts like a pig then is it not reasonable to suspect that it might squeal like a pig when suitably rewarded?

 
2.7.6 Southgate the watcher
In mid-2004 Southgate established yet another 'discussion forum' and began trolling the Internet attempting to encourage people to subscribe. This time he used the ezboard network.  On 29 July 2004, using the nym Arktos Anarch, Southgate posted the following to the National-Anarchist ezboard forum .50

NATIONAL-ANARCHIST MAILOUT

In July 2004, London-based National-Anarchists sent out almost 4,000 N-A FAQ pamphlets to those people across the British Isles who have contacted groups such as the NF, ITP, ENM or NRF over the past 18-20 years. Having extensive membership lists in our possession, we decided to put them to good use. We accept that many people will have moved since then, but it was certainly worth all the effort because many of the names in our files have been former activists or people who have donated time and money in the past.

Meanwhile, if you would like to donate money to assist the cost of future N-A mailouts, please contact us at: . . .

THANK YOU!

This raises three interesting points.
    First, it suggests that collecting and storing names and addresses has been something of a habit of Mr Southgate's for many years and throughout his dealings with many different organizations. This might prompt us to wonder why. Did he have the consent of these organizations to collect personal information on their members? Did he have the consent of the members themselves?

    Second, it suggests that if you have dealings with Mr Southgate, he might well be collecting information about you.
   
Third, where was this information being stored? In a police computer? Or if we take the charitable view that Southgate was a silly person rather than an employee of the state, was it being stored in his home? A home that could be raided by the police? Southgate tells us that he was once in trouble with the police. I am somewhat sceptical about most of this fellow's stories but , if this particular one is true, we might wonder whether the police raided his house and took note of the address lists sitting there just waiting for their attention.


2.7.7 Isn't this just a little paranoid?
Actually it isn't. Unfortunately. The security services have a well documented track record of infiltrating and setting up radical organizations in order to watch those who oppose the Establishment. Let us look at examples from both the so-called 'right' and the so-called 'left' of the Establishment's imaginary 'political spectrum'.
    First we might recall a recent attempt by Germany to ban its 'right-wing' Euronationalist party, the NPD. The court hearing came to a grinding halt when it was revealed that as many as one in seven of that party's leaders had been planted by the state security organs.51
    Second, on 4 December 2004, the mainstream British newspaper, the Guardian, carried an amusing account by Jon Henley of the successful creation, by the Dutch security services, of a completely fake Maoist party that was used to gather intelligence on Maoist regimes and individuals world wide. The article, titled 'Mr Chips turns out to be 007' and subtitled 'Dutch maths teacher admits fake communist party scam that fooled Mao Zedong' tells us:

A 76-year-old retired Dutch maths teacher described yesterday how for more than 25 years he was feted by communist leaders around the world as the inspired head of a radical Marxist-Leninist party that never, in fact, existed.
    As Chris Petersen, head of the supposedly 600-member Marxist-Leninist party of the Netherlands, Pieter Boevé travelled to Beijing more than two dozen times and met Mao Zedong. He was also welcomed with open arms in Albania by Enver Hoxha, and in the eastern bloc capitals of Europe.
    'In fact we had at most a dozen members, none of whom had the faintest idea of the truth,' Mr Boevé said yesterday from his home in the seaside resort of Zandvoort. 'The whole thing was a hoax, set up by the secret services to learn all they could about what was going on in Marxist Peking.'
    The Mao regime was so impressed by the revolutionary zeal of Mr Petersen/Boevé and his MLPN that it gave him regular briefings on the chairman's latest thinking at the Chinese mission in The Hague. Beijing even funded the non-existent party's newspaper, De Kommunist, which was written entirely by Dutch secret service (BVD) agents.

It is a fairly simple matter for the Establishment to infiltrate the large socialist, anarchist, Islamist and Euronationalist parties and organizations. It is less easy for them to keep track of lone wolves and the less conformist elements, yet these are precisely the people they appear to fear most. Would it not, therefore, be sensible for them to encourage someone like 'Troy Southgate' to mix with such people, encouraging them to reveal details about themselves and taking note of their names and addresses? Does not even the name 'Troy' make one think 'wooden horse'? Perhaps that, too, is no coincidence.

2.8 The 'leader' as 'founder' of national-anarchism
Southgate has long been putting it about that he was the founder of national-anarchism: that it was his invention and did not exist before he thought of it. I have to confess that I believed him and was involved in the propagation of this myth. My apologies, dear reader. I was wrong.
    Bill White had the following to say at a time when he was on the friendliest of terms with Southgate:

I once stated on the anarchy-list (a mailing list for Chuck's crew) that it seemed the 'far right' was as opposed to the government as I am, and that anarchists should invent something like 'anarcho-fascism' to draw the far-righters away from their erroneous beliefs in things like Christianity and Capitalism and into some real ideology. I never said that 'Anarcho-fascism' should be postulated as a serious movement, but more as a left-wing Trojan Horse.
    Three years later, Troy Southgate invented 'National Anarchism' which is a serious and real ideological movement which does a lot of what I speculated an 'anarcho-fascist' doctrine would do in some respects, but is in reality very different. I can say that Troy Southgate was a 'National Anarchist' before I ever met him or encountered his ideas, and my teenaged speculation on subverting the right has never played a role in the formulation of his or other people's ideas.52
However, Southgate himself let the cat out of the bag in a post to his national-anarchist Internet group on 27 November 2003:
In fact the 'national' part of the phrase National-Anarchism is something of a misnomer as far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that I was responsible for coming up with it in the first place (although, to be fair, Peter Topfer developed his version separately).53
So Topfer developed it separately. And called it national-anarchism separately. Right.
    This is what Topfer's Web site had to say (as at early 2004) on the history of national-anarchism:
 
Als ich 1999 den ersten eigentlichen nA-Netzort im Weltnetz einrichtete, war der Begriff Nationalanarchismus so gut wie unbekannt. Seit etwa 1996 trug ich mich mit der Idee, mit einem nationalen Anarchismus an die Öffentlichkeit zu gehen.
    Später sollte sich herausstellen, daß drei Männer unabhängig voneinander begonnen hatten, sich als Nationalanarchisten zu bezeichnen: Hans Cany in Frankreich, Troy Southgate in England und ich, Peter Töpfer, in Deutschland. Der Nationalanarchismus ist an verschiedenen Orten der westlichen Welt als Áusdruck des radikalen Antimodernismus und des radikalen individuellen und kollektiven Selbstbestimmungswillens entstanden.
    Eigentlich müßte von uns als Neo-Nationalanarchisten („Neonanis“) gesprochen werden, denn Nationalanarchisten (z.B. Helmut Franke) gab es in den 1920er Jahren bereits in Deutschland. Das habe ich aber erst später aus dem Buch „Linke Leute von rechts“ von Otto-Ernst Schüddekopp erfahren. Auch Cany und Southgate wußten nichts davon.
    Der Begriff Nationalanarchismus ist mir zum ersten Mal irgendwann in der ersten Hälfte der 1990er Jahre begegnet, als in einer französischen Zeitschrift von einem gewissen Hans Cany die Rede war, der trotz seines Namens Franzose sei und sich als Nationalanarchist bezeichne; Hans ist der eigentliche NA-Pionier: Er definiert sich seit 1991 oder 1992 als National-Anarchist.
    Of course, as we have seen, there are connections between White and Southgate. Likewise, Southgate and Topfer appear to be on friendly terms. It is not, therefore, simply the case that Southgate stole pre-existing ideas but rather that he tapped into a current of thought that had been gaining support in 'far right' circles for some time: the idea that people should be working to build communities rather than to save nation states. These ideas have been remarkably widespread for many years and may be encountered in such varied contexts as Afrikaner demands for a volkstaat and American neo-Nazi demands (from individuals such as Harold Covington) that activists concentrate in certain areas of the United States and turn them into autonomous areas.
    Indeed, we noted the following post by a loyal Southgate supporter, 'Chris Donnellan', on Southgate's national-anarchist Internet group on 13 July 2004 (under the fascinating subject heading 'Asatru Anarchism & Gustav Landauer'). It read as follows:

Fellow List Members,

Does anyone know the current whereabouts of one Phil Ward, former assistant editor of The Odinist back in the 80's and early 90's. I had a brief  correspondence with him around this time period and would say that he was the very first "National Anarchist" I ever encountered (more than a decade before the term was coined by Troy Southgate). He had a small Folkish Anarchist group in South Florida called The Raven's Banner Collective. He had articles & letters published on Folkish  anarchism in The Scorpion, Love & Rage(a now defunct Anarchist Tabloid out of NYC), and a few other pubs around that same time period.     I'm trying to locate back issues of The Odinist where he and Else Christiansen published articles on their definition of Folkish Anarchism. I think these would be of great interest to many people out here. I will certainly post these if I ever find them(again). He was definitely ahead of his time in trying to take legitimate White Nationalism out of the authoritarian & NS/Fascist millieu much of the  American "Movement" was/is mired in. Unfortunately, his initiatives and writings attracted little interest from either WN's or the Asatru/Odinist community.
    Phil Ward's biggest influence after Bakunin, was the German-Jewish Anarchist, Gustav Landauer. Wasn't he murdered by the Freikorps after the Bavarian Soviet was put down in 1919/1920? Has anyone out here actually read articles/books by or about Landauer? How is Landauer regarded in contemporary Anarchist circles? Thanks for your help/info/tips.

Chris

So, if Mr Donnellan is correct it appears that we have here yet another person who 'invented' national-anarchism before Mr Southgate 'coined the term' (simultaneously with Mr Topfer).
    It is not, therefore, the case that Bill White produced the notion of anarcho-fascism and then, three years later, Southgate and Topfer 'separately' produced national-anarchism quite independently of him.
    National-anarchism is a significant variant of the broader trend of national-bolshevism -- a tradition that, according to Alexander Dugin, emerged simultaneously in Russia and Germany in the early twentieth century.54 And it was from the national-bolshevism of Alexander Dugin that White and Southgate, if not Topfer, Cany and Ward, appear to have derived their inspiration.
    Southgate knew Dugin and had been in touch with him. Dugin has, in the past, credited Southgate with proofing some of his texts and it was at the suggestion of Dugin that I first made contact with Southgate. But, more than this, there is a staggering similarity between the writings of the two men, with a similar fascination with the Satanist Aleister Crowley (yes, dear reader -- the ubiquitous Satan again!) and the Italian Evola. There are, however, two key differences. First, Dugin is a statist whereas Southgate purports to have been influenced by the anarchism of Richard Hunt. Second, Dugin is a far cleverer individual who has succeeded in penetrating the Russian government at very high levels whereas Southgate is a bumbling character whose only political achievement has been to play an important role in demolishing British anti-Establishment organizations and publications.
    Southgate did not invent national-anarchism. It was happening anyway. Instead, knowingly or otherwise, he harnessed it in order to attract anti-Establishment activists into participating in forums where they could be monitored and tricked into revealing information about themselves to the security services.
    The task for those of us who are attracted to the broad trend of national-anarchism is to reappropriate it and develop it in directions that make it very difficult for individuals such as Southgate to subvert it.
 

2.9 The 'leader' and his approach to alliance formation
Southgate's approach to alliance formation, like most of his other activities, is characterized by a lack of planning, strategy or direction and is probably counterproductive. It consists of making friendly noises towards various anti-Establishment groups and exchanging e-mails and Web links with them. Beyond that it appears that he either has no wish to develop the relationships or do anything with them, or (being charitable) that he wishes to develop them but does not know how to do so.
    Those who are attracted into Southgate's net frequently end up in his Internet discussion group. This leads to a situation where that discussion group becomes filled with people from a variety of backgrounds who disagree with each other on numerous issues, all arguing in public about their points of disagreement and forming little factions against each other. Those who take a line with which the 'leader' disagrees too strongly are, of course, summarily banned (as happened to us). The newcomer, instead of being taught about national-anarchism, thus beholds a veritable zoo -- a chaos of perpetual discussion, devoid of direction, which never seems to be going anywhere or accomplishing anything (except the occasional new Web site, which nobody ever visits).
    All this, of course, is taking place in public. The various alliances are doubtless noted by those whose business it is to note such things, their IP addresses are doubtless watched, their identities filed, the appropriate database archives updated.
    Moreover, the quality of the people whom Southgate attracts is, with some very notable exceptions, often abysmal. Their level of activism is frequently very, very low.
    In short, Southgate's system for alliance formation functions like an enormous funnel, sucking anti-Establishment individuals and organizations into a single forum that appears to serve no purpose other than allowing them to be observed by the Establishment.
    This cannot be a sensible way to engage in alliance formation or to further national-anarchism.
    It is my view that the most useful alliances take place away from the public gaze. They are informal, exist for specific purposes and are pursued strategically rather than simply to enable the 'leader' to proclaim that he is engaging in alliance formation. If alliances are pursued in this manner, they can work even between individuals and groups that have very little in common. Thus a hardline neo-Nazi group and a hardline Islamic group could theoretically co-operate in staging anti-New World Order actions, such as demonstrations, but sustained or formal contact between such groups would be fatal because of their vastly different aims, and the inevitable infighting that would result. Similarly, environmentalists of very different backgrounds could co-operate strategically on specific issues, where fundamental differences would otherwise make sustained contact undesirable. Certainly a habit of such strategic alliances could be formed between specific groups, although any form of regularity brings with it security risks. National-anarchists should be always on the move, seeking out specific opportunities for specific alliances with specific individuals and groups for specific purposes. Vague all-round friendliness and camaraderie certainly has its place, but it also has its dangers and it is certainly only a very small part of what I would regard as 'alliance formation'.
    Note, too, the peculiar requirements of the task of forming alliances with radical Islam -- a task that has long filled Southgate (and other 'far right' individuals) with such frustration. Commentators on terrorism, as well as those on the 'far right', often suppose that alliances should be forming between the 'far right' and militant Islam and cannot understand the apparent absence of such alliances. If these individuals actually bothered to study fundamentalist interpretations of Islam they would note that such Muslims consider themselves forbidden from entering into alliances with non-believers. Nevertheless, as commentators on terrorism have also noted, this has not prevented fundamentalist Muslims from learning from the actions of 'far right' people -- their interest in the Oklahoma bombing incident being one instance that has been cited by academics. And this teaches us much about how business can be done with militant Islam. One does not knock at the door and say: 'hello, I don't believe in Allah but I'd like to be your friend.' Far from it. There is no formal contact with them whatsoever. One leaves ideas where they will be found. One attends demonstrations. One is in the right place at the right time. One learns what is needed and, if one has it and can provide it, one places it where it will be discovered. If local Muslims need pushchairs, let pushchairs find their way into their charity shops. And if militant Islam responds by making its needs clear, the task of leaving what is needed where it may be found becomes even easier. Thus no 'alliance' is formed and these holy people do not violate the requirements of their religion. To be sure, one gets very little back from such an approach -- but the satisfaction of aiding the sworn enemies of the American regime should be satisfaction in itself. Such techniques, of course, should not be used to aid 'terrorist' groups -- quite apart from anything else, the security services could easily pose as militant Islamists and engage in entrapment operations. Alternatively, the security services could pose as national-anarchists and entrap our dear Islamic friends. It is a recipe for disaster. This approach would be specifically for aiding the lawful political objectives of militant Islam.
    Of course, all this is far to subtle for an ass like our 'leader'. When he attends a mosque and they fail to welcome him immediately into the senior ranks of Al-Muhajiroun (if not Al-Qaeda itself!), he immediately has one of his testosterone-fuelled tantrums and performs yet another ideological U-turn, changing from a supporter of radical Islam to a ferocious critic and leaving potential friends (once again) feeling hurt, puzzled and betrayed.
 

2.10 The 'leader' and his failure to offer leadership
If there is to be any argument at all for political leaders it must surely be that they offer leadership -- that they provide some sort of strategy to take their organization from A to B and that they mobilize people to implement that strategy. Insofar as they fail to offer such strategy and mobilization then they are failing to offer leadership and are failing to provide any reason for their existence qua leaders.
    Let us put aside, for one moment, our various suspicions about Southgate's motives and assess him purely on the question of whether he has provided sound leadership. Assessed on this score it is clear that Southgate has failed to offer anything resembling coherent strategy. Throughout his political career he has been -- or has portrayed himself as -- a creature of impulse, taking up one idea and then abandoning it a little later to play with another notion. What he has spectacularly not produced is any sort of coherent road map taking us forward and any sort of sustained effort to push us along a path to any sort of success.
    He might counter that he does have a plan but that it is a secret. One would have to respond to this with the utmost scepticism. If he does have a strategy then there has been precious little sign of it bearing any sort of fruit (apart from causing a lot of trouble for opponents of the Establishment). Let us take, for example, his call for armed insurrection against the British state. Cast your mind back, dear reader. Do you recall the British state being overthrown or even seriously threatened, by armed bands of national-anarchists? Do you recall a single British policeman being threatened by even one national-anarchist armed with a gun, or even a pop-gun? Let us take another, more recent, example: the call to infiltrate organizations. We pointed out to Southgate, in a comradely and friendly way, that for infiltration to succeed you usually need to have more supporters, and particularly more active and/or influential supporters, than whatever you are infiltrating. Our reservation was dismissed. Cast your mind back, dear reader. Do you recall the British state crumbling as a result of national-anarchist moles planted at the highest levels of the military, civil service, media, legislature or judiciary? Do you recall even a small, local newspaper adopting a pro-national-anarchist editorial policy? No?
    What we have here are not seriously considered strategies but whims that appear and disappear, leaving little mark on anything. Leadership by whim is bad leadership. It leads nowhere.

2.11 The 'leader' criticizes us
In his attack on us in November 2003, Troy Southgate made a number of criticisms. I now examine each briefly.

2.11.1 We insulted his friend
The main criticism made against us is that we 'insulted' Jeremy Wilcox (because we referred to him as a 'liar'). Southgate states that he will not 'associate with' those who insult his closest political allies. There are several points to be made here.

2.11.2 We might be agents provocateur
Second, Southgate alleged that I am personally 'acting like an agent provocateur' (although he admitted that he had no evidence that I am one).
    With regard to his allegation that I might be an agent provocateur, the response is that anyone might be an agent provocateur. This is precisely why anti-Establishment activists should always maintain an untrusting, alert approach to all who present themselves as potential comrades, remaining sufficiently businesslike to carry out specific work  but without becoming intimate, keeping words and interactions to a minimum. I would defend myself against Southgate's accusation by making the following observations: 2.11.3 Various 'ideological' criticisms
It is difficult to pin down the ideological criticisms that Southgate has made of us because they seem to fluctuate so much. It seems, for example, that when he is talking to racialists he protests that we are not racialist enough, when he is talking to anti-racialists he protests that we are not anti-racialist enough, and when he talks to anarchists he protests that we are not anarchist enough. One receives the impression that he is casting about desperately looking for some ideological ground to justify his attack on us -- that he is somehow aware that 'you insulted my friend' is perhaps somehow inadequate and unconvincing; that he is somehow aware that it is clownish.

2.11.4 Implications of the attack
The implication of the attack is that Southgate was clearly up to something. The attack was so bizarre, the grounds so unconvincing, that there was obviously some ulterior motive. We submit that Southgate was aware that we had lost faith in him and that we suspected him of being an Establishment agent. He was in a blind panic. His instinct was to try to marginalize us and make us disappear as quickly as he could. He was too late. We had already grown too strong and we had already learned too much about his little game. In short, we were already onto him.

2.12 So what?
The first part of this article has shown what can go wrong when an anti-Establishment movement falls into the hands of a bad leader. The usual solution is to proclaim 'let us get rid of this terrible leader!' 'Let's throw this fellow out and replace him with someone better!' But suppose the new leader turns out to be just as bad? Certainly, effective anti-Establishment leaders appear to be very few and far between, whereas there is no shortage of very poor ones. The tiny size and the hunger for resources of small organizations means that their leaderships are very vulnerable to infiltration or co-optation. In my view, simply replacing the leader with another one does not go far enough. We need to replace all political leaders and leaderships. We need to evolve new styles of leaderless politics.
    And, dear reader, it is to this question of leaderless politics that we now turn.
 
CONTINUE

HOME