Tuesday 23 November 2010
A Sunny Sense of Humour?
From an earlier blog comment: "when one of his fans sent him a picture of the Italian Fascist Julius Evola on his Facebook account, Wakeford replies jokingly, with a nod and a wink ("How did you know I liked Leonard Cohen ;-)"). Fans like that understand what Wakeford's game is, and so do we."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I assume this photo was added on 23 April this year (2010). If you are able to do so, please confirm if this is the case. Regardless if it isn't from this year it must be from the past few years and demonstrates Wakeford is still into the fascist ideology of Evola; if he wasn't this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to denounce the moron as a reactionary fascist creep. I note it was posted on St George's Day and since this is the patron saint of England this may or may not have some significance to the poster. Wakeford in fascist journals like The Scorpion has stressed his specifically English nationalism and the poster may well have been aware of this when left the picture of one of Wakeford's fascist idols.
ReplyDelete@Telford Bob: I'm afraid I don't know the year - this was sent on to me. It may even still be on FB, though I can't see it myself.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, what do you reckon? Why don't we just err on the side of caution, and burn all Evola's books, and Wakeford's folk records? And while we are at it, just in case you know, we could nip round to Tibet's place, and burn some of his paintings too.
ReplyDeleteWell, you never know, I mean, someone might go to one of Tibet's art exhibitions, and , well, I don't know, turn into a fascist or something.
And that Steve Ignorant, I heard he once sang in a place that Wakeford played in, I mean, I am not sure it was on the same day, but maybe we could picket the concert hall or something?
I heard there are some second hand SPK records on sale at my local Oxfam -- should I report them to the race relations board ? What do you think?
The evidence are crystal clear. Only a nazi would reply to a picture of Evola with a joke.
ReplyDelete@Twitcher: Haven't you posted the same made-up arguments before on another thread? You want to make out that anyone who discusses Fascism in 'popular' (well..) culture is planning a book burning.
ReplyDeleteIn earlier posts you derided C93, DiJ, etc as worthless and irrelevant. I agree that the music is largely worthless, but whether it's irrelevant depends on whether there is anything to be learned from discussing it. You seem to think that the choice is between either ignoring it entirely or, if not, burning books and records. How about the point of view that it might be worth discussing how Fascist ideas arise, what forms they take and how they propagate, in order to learn something and be better prepared to oppose Fascism when it arises elsewhere?
I have never seen a book burning. Have you? Why do you like to pretend that that is what is being prepared here? What good does it do and what end does it serve to pretend that is the case?
On another thread on this site you'll discover that one musician in this scene is publishing works that call for Leftists, Feminists, anti-Racists, etc., to be summarily executed. Why don't you go and bother people like that, who are completely frank about the violence they hope to inflict on their opponents? Why do you prefer pretending that all anti-Fascists are necessarily prissy and censorious?
"one musician in this scene is publishing works that call for Leftists, Feminists, anti-Racists, etc., to be summarily executed"
ReplyDeleteMaybe the musician in question had enough of the righteous ones who know best and never stop ramming their truth down everyones throat?
"Only a nazi would reply to a picture of Evola with a joke"
ReplyDeleteMaybe not; but I do know how an anti-Fascist would reply to someone sending them a picture of Evola "with love and admiration" - they'd tell the sender to fuck off, especially if they were trying to distance themselves from their publicly documented past as a Fascist... unless, that is, they were trying to have it both ways, distancing themselves from Fascism in public while hinting otherwise to their supporters. Maybe he's still playing the old 'are they? aren't they?' game described in What Ends When the Symbols Shatter?
The point is that, one way or another, you'd have to think about it before you come to a judgement. You, on the other hand, like 'Curtain Twitcher' above, seem to find it more productive to pretend that all anti-Fascist will jump to the same conclusion, that a single joke constitutes 'proof', etc.. It's a peculiar straw man you are setting up. I don't find it in any way convincing.
Are people not allowed to respond to whatever in whichever way they like?
ReplyDeleteIf it doesn't constitute any evidence why post it? To me it looks like you are clutching at straws in order to convince the world of Wakeford's fascist beliefs. It's sad and desperate.
@Anon: Don't you see any contradiction between treating people who discuss Fascism as oppressors (for airing opinions about an ideology they disagree with), but treating those who want to murder them as free thinking spirits and libertarians?
ReplyDeleteAnd in what sense are, eg., mixed race couples 'ramming their truth down everyone's throat'? The book in question celebrates their murder too. I find it difficult to understand precisely what working class Blacks and Asians have done to persecute the privileged, public school educated, Fullbright scholar Moynihan.
Strelnikov: I see a future where so called anti fascists are the ones who opress those they don't like. It's already happening but so far only to a lesser extent. What have the artists you demonise here done except use symbols and expressed alleged opinions you don't approve of? Unlike your mob I've never heard of any neofolk fans terrorising people outside gigs.
ReplyDeleteI know nothing of mixed race couples ramming their opinions down peoples throats but I see plenty of that from the "Leftists, Feminists, anti-Racists, etc" you talk about. This blog being one example. Do you understand why that would be at least tiresome to most people?
Wakeford married a Jew. His band includes two lesbians and a Jewish homosexual flautist. His main musical associate and producer is a proud Zionist Jew. So, "Telford Bob", what's Wakeford's "game" here then? What fiendish plot is this? For fuck's sake, it's time for Stewart Home and his hangers-on to just get a life.
ReplyDeleteI am not a follower of Stewart Home; can you get that into your thick head and stop thinking in terms of conspiracies? I don't give a fuck how many lesbians are in Wakeford's group because, unlike you, I am not a liberal moralist. I am interested in the ideas that group spreads, no matter who the members are. Is there any chance at all that you will get over your liberalism even while you are trying to hunt it down in everyone else?
ReplyDelete"Do you understand why that would be at least tiresome to most people?"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it is infinitely tiresome to those people who, like you, voluntarily and entirely without the slightest hint of coercion visit this blog in order to get their rocks off by feeling victimised and somehow controversial.
In what way is writing a blog a form of coercion or censorship? That argument only works if you are a victim of academia and believe that any expression of an opinion is somehow oppressive. It is fucked that we live in a world in which having an opinion is considered to be utterly totalitarian, while posing like a racist serial killer is considered merely quirky.
I feel very worried : maybe someone can advise me -- I went round my mate's house in Romford --and I found he had a DAF album when he was a teenager.
ReplyDeleteWhat should I do? I mean, he may make other people get into really really bad ideas. And then,all of a sudden, quite casual like, he mentioned some song he liked by DAF about Mussolini or someone -- I don't mind telling you that, blimey, that was when I got very very worried.
Should I report him to somebody, I mean there must be somebody to report him to.
I mean....maybe he's playing *some kind of game* -- you know, like -- a game to make ME a fascist too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJust to put some facts down here about Wakeford's work let's have a look at his work since 2000 - In 2010 he released the album `Not all of me will die' an album dedicated to and using the poetry of a Jewish poetess killled by the Gestapo = here is the record labels press release: “Not All of Me Will Die” album. The album “Not All Of Me Will Die“ commemorates the life and work of the Polish-Ukrainian Jewish poetess Zuzanna Ginczanka, who was executed by the Gestapo in Kraków in 1944. All of the album’s lyrics are based on Ginczanka’s verses. In this album Tony Wakeford is joined by a range of guest musicians and vocalists, including avant-garde composer Susan Matthews and members of Orchestra Noir, Zunroyz and Sol Invictus.
ReplyDeleteReleased by The Eastern Front label in 2009,.
Zuzanna Ginczanka’s short biography:See press release here:
http://www.theeasternfront.org/releases.html
If we look at his other releases in this decade - Sol Invictus the albums - `Hill of Crosses', `Thrones', `The Devils Steed' , Tony Wakeford - `Into the Woods', `Not all of me will die' as Hawthorn with Matt Howden - `The Murky Brine', `Wormwood' and `Writ in Water'. Triple Tree - `Ghosts' (ghost stories of M R James) and a couple of others.
this has to be two posts so part 2 next..
[I'm reposting this Anonymous comment with a few of the links removed. The comment above refers to the following comment - S]
ReplyDeleteKadmon wrote -- "Wakeford's main musical associate and producer is a proud Zionist Jew."
Well, now you shift the subject to Zionism -- you ARE getting into very dodgy territory, as the following Israeli newspaper link shows :
Haaretz --
What is the connection between the Israeli occupation and references to the Holocaust in IDF slang?
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/the-mengele-squad-1.316622
And, as the following Holocaust survivor testifies --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSlFR541Uoo&feature=response_watch
And here's some REAL fascism for you -- Even self admitted fascism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjw8U0AcH4Q
[... links to fascists sites deleted - AS ...]
I don't know about you, but these guys out-do Wakeford and Tibet any day of the week....
Continued from previous post: In all of them I struggle to find any references to the type of Fascism/new rightism/revolutionary conservatism that you accuse him of. We know about his 1980s NF period and we know about the contribution to Flux Europa which is not entirely a clear political project - Home describes it as a war of position type attempt to flag up theorists of the far right – yes, there are articles on Junger, Wyndham Lewis etc but also a lot of other material like, for example, a 1995 review of Stewart Home by Richard Lawson which is very positive about Stewart's work. Here is a quote from that: “What I aim for in my activities is an ambiguity on a par with that achieved by Machiavelli..." - Stewart Home (NP&P, p.91). "To some extent Punk Rock is only a peg on which Home hangs a number of his key ideas. Home's postmodernist relativism is demonstrated by his acclamation that "There are no Platonic ideals or stable meanings" (p.14) and his fondness for creative tensions: "Besides, coherence is death, whereas living cultures are generated from the tensions generated around clusters of contradiction." (p.17).
ReplyDeleteEven more interesting in Flux Europa is Richard Lawson's review of Michael Moynihan's `Lords of Chaos' book:
“Granted access to inside sources, Michael Moynihan (of Blood Axis) and Didrik Søderlind have produced an exhaustive account of the infamous cult surrounding Norwegian Black Metal music. Professing a bastardised amalgam of Satanism, paganism and neo-Nazism, the cult has been characterised by self-destruction, church-burning and murder. Michael Moynihan has some sympathy for this 'revolt against the modern world' but few will be impressed with the death-obsessed depressives, sociopaths and egomaniacs which this cause has attracted. With the rare exception of groups like Ulver, these people are losers and their actions of no more world significance than the low-life antics of any urban slum.” Rik - 4 October 1998"
The last lines about socio-paths, egomaniacs, losers etc could have been written on this blog. Clearly the line about low-life antics of any urban slum may need more decoding. Interesting that Ulver are an exception here. They disassociated themselves from Black Metal and moved into a much more experimental glitch type music also collaborating with Sunn O. All of this, I would suggest seems to put Wakeford and even possibly Lawson into a position of movement away from their Fascist past. Obviously people may think differently but if you examine the output of these people then it is hard to come up with the conclusion that the 2000s have been a decade of fascist `war of positioning' for Wakeford. With Lawson it is more unclear but this is the only record of him having any activity in the 2000s that I know of - anyone else care to enlighten us on anything else?? Ciao, Midfield General
You have the patience of a saint, Strelnikov.
ReplyDeleteThis site seems to magnetically attract a handful of losers who harbor masochistic fantasies about people being beastly to poor innocent nazis, or about Stewart Home. They hate what is written here, but don't actually read it.
Far be it for me to "oppress" anyone by telling them what to do, but you might want to consider creating that FAQ you mentioned a while back so people are spared the endless vomit from these cry-babies.
Keep up the good work!
@Strelnikov
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone would oppose you anti-fa lot if you actually took on real nazis. It's when you nit pick and make assumptions about artists whose concepts are at best questionable that most people write you off as a bunch of idiots. By all means keep it up if you think you make a difference. You will never rise above being a moralising lefty with a blog. Sure, you can choose to go and beat up neofolk fans at gigs with your friends which will put you firmly in the thug category. That's about all you have to play with. Good luck!
"I don't think anyone would oppose you anti-fa lot if you actually took on real nazis"
ReplyDeleteThis site is not intended as an end in itself but as an outpost of more general antifa concerns; a corner of the web containing information about crypto-, neo-, etc. Fascism in culture. That's all. If you want to 'take on real Nazis' see some of the links on this page where you can find out more about how to do that. That's what they are there for.
For the record, I've been going to anti-Fascist gigs, demonstrations and meetings for over thirty years, and yet I don't ever recall going out with friends to "beat up neofolk fans", so you can immediately pop that idea back into the drawer where you keep your other paranoid fantasies. They say that we live in a 'victim culture'; reading some of the anti-antifa posts on this blog I'm beginning to understand what they mean.
I feel deeply offended that you have allowed material that actually has the gall and chutzpah to equate aspects of Israeli society --with Nazism.
ReplyDeleteThat is beyond the pale.
I will ask you to remove it from your blog. I thought your blog was against anti Semitism and Jew baiting, yet you allow blatantly anti Semitic material to be posted here.
@Midfield General: I don't buy the idea that Lawson or Wakeford were moving away from Fascism as such - I think both (to different degrees) have been part of a wider movement among Fascists to rethink their brand, as it were. For instance, the widespread neo-Folk concern with 'Europa' makes no sense to me unless it is put in the context of the New Right's 'Europe of a Hundred Flags' and similar ideas (even if some individual musicians who accept the concept may not be subjectively Fascist or even sympathetic to Fascism).
ReplyDeleteThese ideas were cooked up in political milieus that Wakeford was involved with, and in which Lawson played a leading role. It seems reasonable to assume that they continue to support those ideas - unless, that is, either of them comes out with a definitive rejection of them and an explanation of how and why they have changed position over the years.
Within the wider reconfiguration of Fascist ideology there are still major differences (anyone who has ever read the endless pamphlets these groups produce denouncing one another will recognise this). So, the Catholic Fascists of the ITP rail against the degeneracy of Satanic Nazis; 'Tory' Fascists look down their noses at lumpen Nazis and youth culture Fascists; 'National Anarchists' rail against Hitler, Mussolini and 'Reactionary Fascism' and cuddle up to Anarchists while still peddling a militant racism; and so on.
It's difficult to pin down Fascists ideologically because their ideas aren't intended to explain social reality but work rather as myths around which they can rally potential troops. I think the issues involved are genuinely complex (try and find two anti-Fascists who can agree on a definition of Fascism, for example), so I can see that there is room for a debate about exactly where each person sits in the spectrum of Radical Right thought. But as for, eg., Lawson, while he has moderated his tone and even dropped out of sight (which may indeed reflect a change of position on his part), I certainly haven't heard of him repudiating his Fascism and anti-Semitism. Of course people change position over the years, sometimes radically, but in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Lawson still has essentially the same ideas as before, even if his ideology may have changed in its details.
@Zion Avi: please contact me directly to explain in detail what you are objecting to. The poster may well be 'Jew baiting' but the links were mostly to Israeli sources (Haaretz) or other Jews (the concentration camp survivor), so I see them as entirely legitimate voices aimed not against Jews but against Zionism. I edited the post to remove a particular link, not because it was to a fascist or Racist site, but because the images it threw up did mostly lead to such sites, and I have no intention of helping the Fascists out by linking to them, even at one remove.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I don't have time to read, watch or listen to everything people link to before posting comments, and I would certainly remove anything I thought racist, anti-Semitic or similar. In this case, with the small exception I just noted, I thought the links were to legitimate anti-Zionist sources. If I have made a mistake about this feel free to correct me.
@ Zion Avi,
ReplyDeleteOn a tangent from the subject of the blog:
I understand your concern about the anti-semitic motives for "Anonymous" post, however the subject of the fascist militarised nature of modern Israel is a subject often discussed in Israel by Israelis and by members of the Jewish diaspora who are opposed to Israel's racist attitude and violent oppression of of Palestinians and Arab Israelis. If you read the Haaretz article it is specifically about a book written by an Israeli looking back on his time doing national service, and it is he who discusses how he and other soldiers would take on "Nazi" roles to amuse themselves. It is a brave and honest attempt to look dispassionately at his own behaviour and that of his country. Israeli novelists, historians and political activists have long discussed this aspect of the Israeli state, and state of mind.
The problem is that this subject is a gift to anti-semites. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed by Israelis, international Jewry and concerned citizens of the world, without prejudice. I am guessing that the reason Strelnikov has included the post (as he says in part) is to both show "Anonymous" for the racist he is, and also to explore another strand to how fascism develops, as some might say has happened in Israel.
It is perfectly possible to be anti-Zionist and in no way anti-Semitic, as many Israelis and Jews are.
Hang on; you say on the one hand, "You call yourself an anti fascist therefore you are in league with those who do", and yet you deny being paranoid? You really believe that all anti-Facsists are in league with one another, conspiring to beat up people with poor taste in music?
ReplyDeleteAnd may I ask, as someone who is critical of anti-Fascism, are you therefore in league with everyone who opposes anti-Fascism? I mean, does this paranoia work both ways? That would put you in some very poor company indeed - Fascists, for example. Are you in league with Fascists? Can you see how silly your line of argument is?
Don't dodge the issue. Do you condemn or condone the violent thugs in your movement who have terrorised people at gigs for years?
ReplyDeleteI absolutely refuse to answer your question until I hear you unequivocally condemn all thuggish violence since the dawn of time. You seem to be interested exclusively in the thuggishness of anti-Fascists and have nothing at all to say about people like Atilla the Hun. Who are you covering up for? Are you in secret league with the forces of badness?
ReplyDeleteStrelnikov - you say that:
ReplyDelete@Midfield General: I don't buy the idea that Lawson or Wakeford were moving away from Fascism as such - I think both (to different degrees) have been part of a wider movement among Fascists to rethink their brand, as it were. For instance, the widespread neo-Folk concern with 'Europa' makes no sense to me unless it is put in the context of the New Right's 'Europe of a Hundred Flags' and similar ideas..
This is fine and I know the 100 flags, europe of brothers line that Wakeford was a part of in the 1980s, but what you are missing is that there is no evidence of this thinking in his work in the entire decade of the 2000s, check out all the albums etc that i mentioned in the earlier post- I think his ideas may have loosened up in the 1990s where you still get references in his recorded output to Europa, Europa calling, etc . there is still reference in his 1990s output to ideas of Englishness - In a Garden Green etc but this type of Nationalism - which it seems to me is cultural and in keeping with the moves of some of the far right but not racist and not anti-semitic which puts a different sheen on it. There are many variants of english nationalism not all of which are fascist in their thought. They may be parochial and backward looking but not fascist. So I am suggesting that you're assertion about Wakeford is based on assumptions that have no facts in the 2000s. If Wakeford has broken with Fascism - which it would seem he has unless someone can give a more direct account - then why would he be making statements to people on this blog or elsewhere to sanction his move in public? He is unlikely to do that. He posted on a US fascist site in the late 1990s stating that he found it offensive that his band were being mentioned by the Far Right when he wanted nothing to do with the them stating that he was not a fellow traveller of racist or fascist thought. I can't find the link but if I do will post it. I think that this is more probable than any other line of argument as with Wakeford his war of positioning is looking pretty useless in the 2000s whereas someone like Southgate or Von Thronsthal etc are looking very obvious candidates for that mantel, Ciao Midfield General
I take that as a no then. This is why the so called anti-fa movement is as full of shit as the fascists they claim to be fighting. I never hear about you taking on real fully fledged nazis. It's always a window at McDonalds or a bank of choice at a demo or, all the more worrying and infuriating, attacks on music fans at gigs by bands you don't like.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's harder taking on real nazis because there you'd meet stiff opposition whereas attacking goth kids at WGT is like pinching sweets from a four year old. It speaks volumes on what a bunch of cowardly bully boys you really are.
As long as you aren't prepared to condemn that then don't expect too many people to take you seriously. Start sweeping the shit off your own porch before criticising others and maybe you'll find that people like me, who have no time for right wing nutters either, are more willing to listen to you.
@Midfield General: I'd be very interested if you could dig up the quote you mention. It's little things like the joking around about Evola that makes me think he isn't serious in his break with Fascism - or at least he seems not to take the problem entirely seriously. There is a case for saying that his aesthetic, if you want to call it that, revolves around the game of ideological hide and seek. What I genuinely don't understand is why he doesn't make a clear and unambiguous statement against Fascism which goes into details about the ideas and why they are dangerous (as opposed to the throwaway 'I'm not a Fascist any more' thing that he said some time ago). To a disinterested (but informed) observer it looks very much as though he wants to distance himself from organised Fascism, but then he leaves it open as to what his ideas are today; to what extent his thinking about, eg., 'Europa' is today. With a lot of people that wouldn't matter as much, but since the particular strain of Fascism he identified with (and the people like Lawson that he associated with) made a determined attempt to distance themselves from certain aspects of Fascism in order to reconfigure the ideology, then his formal disavowal of Fascism is bound not to be convincing.
ReplyDeleteAt least we might agree that if he really has abandoned Fascism he could do himself (and the anti-Fascist cause as well) a lot of good by coming out openly and decisively against it, rather than issuing the sort of studiedly vague statements he has made in the past.
If he did such a thing I would have a lot of respect for him despite his past.
@Anon: despite the fact that your question is a lot of wooly moralistic BS I am going to try to make sense of it in order to make a few points about violence.
ReplyDeleteIf you are asking whether I would support attacks on neofolk fans for being neofolk fans, then obviously I wouldn't; they may, for example, be anti-Fascist neofolk fans. Random violence against neofolk fans would be completely, criminally counter-productive as it would drive the non-Fascists in the 'scene' toward the Fascists, whereas the correct strategy is to drive a wedge between them. I've said this before a few times on this site, and I do wish people like you would read a bit before chipping in your two bob's worth of schoolboy moralism and your affected outrage.
However, if those neofolk fans were, eg., on an EDL march into an Asian community I would completely support the use of violence necessary to drive them out. I would also support, eg., cases like that when AFA prevented an international Blood and Honour gig taking place in the 80s by attacking and picking off the Fascists as they arrived at the redirection point; that was a major setback for the Fascists which helped keep the openly Nazi Blood and Honour groups marginalised.
I support the use of violence when it is necessary to defeat Fascism, such as in Cable St, Brick Lane and elsewhere in Britain through the years, the International Brigades fighting Franco, and anti-Fascists everywhere who have been brave enough to confront the Fascists directly, often losing their lives in the struggle.
"I guess it's harder taking on real nazis because there you'd meet stiff opposition"
Yes, but still it has to be done.
I'd also note that it is typical of a moralistic hypocrite such as yourself to try to condemn me on the one hand for advocating the use of violence but then trying to imply that I am cowardly if I don't do it. As it happens I have been on many anti-Fascist demonstrations and have had to face Fascist thugs. For a runt like me it isn't a very inviting proposition, I admit, but it has to be done, and I'm certainly not going to condemn those that have - let's call it - an enthusiasm for that sort of 'lively debate'. Indeed, I've been on a few demonstrations over the years when AFA have probably saved me getting a beating from the Fascist scum. Also, I belong to a generation who can remember relatives (a grandfather, in my case) who fought Fascism in the Second World War. My grandfather was a Durham miner and was even skinnier and weedier than I am, but he fought in Egypt, then Italy and then into Germany, where he took part in the liberation of one of the extermination camps. So, in short, no, I am not opposed in principle to the use of violence against Fascists.
Streinikov: I dont know much about Wakeford but I am curious if you would react the same if instead of Evola the picture was of Nietzsche. Or Heidegger for example.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. I'd quite happily have a Nietzsche poster myself - if it wasn't a bit naff; and while Heidegger was a Nazi and his philosophy provides a justification of all sorts of obscurantism, his name doesn't serve the 'dog whistle' role among Fascists that Evola's does. There are plenty of Leftist fans of Heidegger but it is impossible to imagine anyone taking Evola seriously unless they were very much of the right (whether Italian ultra-Fascist, 'Traditionalist', Pagan, Occult Fascist, or whatever).
ReplyDeleteYes I figured as much, that's what I was getting at. Personally I think that as a thinker Evola is as important as Nietzsche. But I am not a fascist, politically I identify more as antiauthoritarian/anarchist and have been involved in antifascist organizing. So I am an exception to your rule. I disagree with Evola a lot of the time, when he writes about race, superiority of manhood over womanhood and his belief in castes and hierarchy. But you can find all of these things in Nietzsche or in other thinkers like Hegel for example who are acceptable in both liberal intellectual circles and revolutionary theory. In any case this is not the time and place for arguing in favor of an anarchist reading of Evola, this is a site about bands and subcultures after all, but one thing I would like to note is that I read an argument on here (can't remember whose comment it was) where Evola was dismissed as just being stupid. I would disagree with that as a tactic to use against him because whether you agree with him or not I don't think anyone who has spent time actually reading a book like Ride the Tiger or the Path of Cinnabar would doubt that he is a thinker of a very high calibre.
ReplyDeleteand just to note again I don't know much about Wakeford or Sol Invictus, this is just a comment about Evola not about those who like him, obviously a lot of them are fascists of some sort or another.
ReplyDeleteZion Avi, I have no interest whatsoever in your ethnicity; rather, I object to your ideology, namely Zionism. I do not judge people on their ethnic identity.
ReplyDeleteNow, to Zionism -- Read Uri Avnery on the inherent lurch towards fascism within Zionism.
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1222552857
And read Israel Shahak : if you have the courage, that is Avi --
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_4187.aspx
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0689/8906019.htm
Now, I will reverse the crude accusation you directed at me -- I have to wonder why a 'proud Zionist' frequents an ANTI FASCIST blog.
Well, Avi ?
Also, I do not understand why my previous link to Israeli army T shirts was removed --
ReplyDeleteHere is Haaretz, Israeli press on the issue --
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-raps-soldiers-for-images-of-dead-palestinian-babies-on-t-shirts-1.273270
Avi Zion -- why don't you want to discuss these issues on an anti fascist board ?
Heidegger was a moral coward -- what kind of intellectual would actually support Nazism, even down to supporting expulsion of Jewish colleagues from his University? What kind of intellectual is that?
ReplyDeleteEven Ernst Junger, who certainly was a facist and wrote some real fascist aesthete rot,( well critiqued by Walter Benjamin ) never ever supported the Nazis, and he mocked anti Semites as delusional paranoiacs.
Heidegger doesn't really deserve respect for that fact alone.
"I have to wonder why a 'proud Zionist' frequents an ANTI FASCIST blog."
ReplyDeletefrom his posts it's clear that 'Avi' is here because he's also an anti-Fascist. Your links bear on the fact that Zionism, as a form of radical nationalism, is compatible with Fascist thinking. But obviously that by no means shows that Zionism is inherently Fascistic or anything of the sort; Nationalism of all sorts is also clearly capable of being strongly anti-Fascist. Like me, he would be wary of such strident equating of Zionism and Fascism because he's aware of the way that anti-Zionism for years has been used as a cover for the most extreme anti-Semitism. The link that I deleted earlier provides a case in point; while the link itself merely showed Google Images results for a picture of a t-shirt, in every other case that I tried, clicking on the images themselves took me to an anti-Semitic site using the issue of Zionism as a smokescreen for anti-Semitism.
I am against Zionism myself, but I would close ranks with Zionists in opposing anti-Semitism, Racism and Fascism.
I don't like Death in June (or any of this music) at all really, and think Wakeford sounds like a bit of a bell-end, but is it conceivable that the joke (pretending to mistake Evola, a creepy anti-Semite and fascist icon, for a Jewish man) is intended to anger and ridicule the person who sent it to him, rather than an attempt to say 'ha ha, Julius Evola, isn't he great'?
ReplyDeletePaul Shake the Nation
Andy Martin of The Apostles once told me a story about Wakeford coming along to one of his gigs. Andy was standing near the door and when Wakeford asked if there was any guestlist Andy replied "Sorry, even nazis have to pay" to which Wakeford produced his wallet, ornamented with a Viking Youth emblem and grinned sheepishly whilst handing over the readies.
ReplyDelete@Paul: "is intended to anger and ridicule the person who sent it to him"
ReplyDeleteIt's logically possible, but I think the weight of evidence is against it - though people will draw their own conclusions, of course. TW himself could clear all of this controversy up in a few minutes by making a clear and unequivocal statement rejecting the ideas of Evola, the New Right, etc..
Since this would also silence those who his fans accuse of running a vendetta against him there are clear advantages to him in doing that, so it's worth speculating about why he doesn't do this: is it because by disambiguating like that he would drive away a number of his fans (like whoever sent him the Evola tribute), and he would rather toy with Fascism than lose a few bucks in sales? Or is it because he remains committed to some sort of Right-Gramscian strategy of cultural infiltration? One thing is for certain; as long as he doesn't make this clear himself his supporters can't complain if other people speculate.
Where is the ;) "nod and a wink?" What a stretch...have you seen photos of latter-day Leonard Cohen? He bears more than a passing resemblance to Evola.
ReplyDeleteThat this nonsense is being used here (and cited elsewhere, on this site and beyond) as solid "proof" is pretty weak indeed....
Anonymous 18 February like all those who apologise for Wakeford misses the point, and my guess would be deliberately. The first comment above the post notes that the reply from Wakeford: "demonstrates Wakeford is still into the fascist ideology of Evola; if he wasn't this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to denounce the moron as a reactionary fascist creep." The point is not whether or not Evola and Cohen lookalike but whether Wakeford has broken with fascism and a specifically an Evolian strand of it. The response Wakeford makes above is not that of someone who has broken with their fascist past. Here was an opportunity for him to denounce Evola and fascism and he fluffs it. He doesn't even delete the post. The fact that Wakeford apologists like anonymous can't deal with the real issues demonstrates well enough what is wrong both with them and with Wakeford.
ReplyDeleteThe picture of Evola above is the self-same picture that adorned wakefords WC for many a year - only that was about 36" by 24" and covered in a broken sheet of glass- it seems someone bought him a christmas set of crayons for use whilst weedling out another log or pebble-dashing the porcelain - maybe the person who sent him the picture was aware of this and merely endulging in a little "toilet humour" - ahh, I see it is probably the little Marco Di Plano who sent it - "hes not a nazi, you know - and neither is Tony Wakeford" (copyright Tony Wakefords "A Bumper Book of fibs" in the chapter entitled "Does a bear shit in the woods?")
ReplyDelete